Indian Antiquary Vol 48

Author(s): Richard Carnac Temple, Devadatta Ramkrishna Bhandarkar
Publisher: Swati Publications

Page 99

• JUNE, 1919]
THE LUNAR ZODIAC IN THE BRAHMANAS
ever Dasaratha might have said on the occasion, the ceremony was nothing else than yuuvarajyabhisheka and should be viewed as such.
References to the inauguration of the commander-in-chief are found in the Mahabharata in connection with the inaugurations of Bhishma,co Drona, Kara,62 Salya, 6 and Asvatthâmâ 64 as the military heads of the Kaurava army. This inauguration ceremony is modelled on that of Kârttikeya,65 the commander-in-chief of the gods, whose irauguration again followed in some respects the still earlier rájyabhisheka of Varuna, to the watergod. Details of the ceremony aggregated from the several descriptions are scanty. Those, that are expressly mentioned, are oblation to the Home-fire, seating of the Commander on an appropriate seat, sprinkling of water 67 on his head from a vessel. the utterance of the big formula "surastvám abhisiñchantu," &c.,68 which happens to be the same as uscd in the coronation ceremony just before crowning and gifts of coins, bullion, cows, cloths, &c., to Brâhmaņas. It is superfluous to mention that the rituals were eocompanied with inusic, eulogies sung by bards, and joyous and benedictory ejaculations. The inauguration of the several commanders-in-chief mentioned above was performed in the battlefield. In times of peace the same ceremony is likely to have been oelebrated on the occasion of the assumption of his office by the commander-in-chief. It is probable that in the forn.er case, the exigencies of the situation compelled a curta ilment or abridgement of the rituals which could be allowed to be in their full form in times of peace,
THE LUNAR ZODIAC IN THE BRAHMANAS.
BY B. V. KAMESVARA AIYAR, M.A. In the Preface to the fourth volume of the first edition of the Rigveda, the late Professor Maxmüller wrote: "In conclusion, I have to say a few words on an hypothesis according to which the discovery of the twenty-seven nakshatras was originally made at Babylon and from thence communicated at a very early time-the date is not given to the Indians in the South, the Chinese in the East and sundry Semitic nations in the West. Such an hypothesis seems almost beyond the reach of scientific criticism, though with the progress of the deciphering of the Babylonian inscriptions, some facts may come to light either to confirm or to refute it. At present, however, all that can be brought forward in proof of such a theory is vague and uncertain and could not stand the test of the most forbearing criticism ....."
This was writtea in 1862. Twanty years later, he again examined this theory in his lectures on "India-What Can It Teach Us?" (pp. 123-133, first edition) and concluded,
With due respect for the astronomical knowledge of those who hold this view, all I can say is that this is a novel, and nothing but a novel, without any facts to support it...."
This theory of the Babylonian origin of the Indian nakshalras was started by Weber and supported by Whitney, and apparently ceased to be advocated after Maxmüller'e vigorous refutation. I was therefore surprised to find Professor A. B. Keith reviving the theory in the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society (January 1917, pp. 135, 60 Mbl., Udyoga-parva, ch. 155, ślks. 26-32.
1 Ibid, Drona-parva, ch. 5, álks. 39.43. e Ibid, Karna-párva, ch. 1, élks. 11-12.
63 Ibid, Salya-parva, ch. 1, élks. 6-7. 61 Ibid, ch. 35, biks. 36-43.
66 Ilid, ch. 45. 66 Ibid, ch. 45, alk. 22. 67 In the legend, the water of the Sarasvati was sprinkled on Karttikeya from a golden jar.
68 In the legend of Karttikeya's inauguration to genera Iship the above formula was not recited at all; deities named in the formuls personally appeared before him to take part in the sprinkling.
Whitney, however, maintained his view to the last. He wrote in 1891, "Weber and I, on whatever other points we may have been discordant, agreed entirely, some thirty-five years ago, that it must have been introduced into India, probably cut of Mesopotamia; nor, I believe, has either of us seen any rasson for changing his conviction since." Vide The Indian An:iquary, Vol. XXIV, p. 365.