Indian Antiquary Vol 62

Author(s): Richard Carnac Temple, Charles E A W Oldham, S Krishnaswami Aiyangar, Devadatta Ramkrishna Bhandarka
Publisher: Swati Publications

Page 186

174
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
SEPTEMBER, 1933
These are the only dates that I know of in which mean samkrantis seem to be cited ; and it becomes clear from what has been said above that these mean samkrantis have in all cases been calculated from the moment of occurrence of the true Meşa-samkrânti. In other words, the compilers of the professedly mean-system almanacs from which the details of the above dates were taken, had given in them as the beginning of the solar year, the moment of occurrence of the true and not the mean Meşa-samkranti. This is, on the face of it, inconsistent ; and the question hence arises in one's mind, why should this have been so? Why did the compilers of professedly mean-system almanacs give the moment of occurrence of the true, and not the mean, Meşa-samkranti as the beginning of the solar year? The only answer that suggests itself to me in this connection is this: As is well-known, it is explicitly stated in the Arya and Brahma Siddhantas that, though the Ky. era began at mean sunrise on Friday, 18th February B.C. 3102, the year that began on that day (Ky. year 1 current or 0 expired) was the luni-solar year, and that the true solar year really began on Tuesday, 15th February B.C. 3102, at 20h. 27m. 30s. and 19h. 52m. 22s., respectively. It is easily conceiv. able therefore that a jyotişika who wanted to compile a mean-system pañcânga for, say, the Ky. year 4000 expired according to the Arya Siddhanta, would have chosen the above-given moment as his starting point, and by adding to it 365.2586805 (length of the solar year according to the Arya Siddhanta) x 4000 days, arrived at the result that the solar year Ky. 4000 expired began on Thursday, 22nd March A.D. 899, at 13h. 47m. 38. With this moment as basis, he would then, by adding to it 30.438223 days and its multiples determine the moment of occurrence of the mean Vrsabha, Mithuna and other samkrantis, and at the end, by adding 30.438223 days to the moment of occurrence, so determined, of the mean Minasamkranti, arrive at the result that the mean Meşa-samkranti of the Ky. year 4001 expired occurred at 20h. Om. Os. on Friday, 21st March A.D. 900. This however happens to be the exact moment of occurrence of the true Meşa-samkranti. And thus the moment of occurrence of mean Mega-samkranti, determined in this manner by the jyotişika aforesaid, would be identical in every case with that of true Meşa-samkranti, due to the circumstance that this jyotisia took as his starting point 19h. 52m. 22s. of 15th February B. C. 3102.
At the same time, it is also conceivable that another jyotisika may have taken as his starting-point Oh. Om. 08. (i.e., exactly 6 A.M.) of Friday, 18th February B.C. 3102 (at this moment began the mean-system solar year Ky. I current according to the above two Sid. dhåntas), and by adding to it 365.2586805 X 4000 days, arrived (as Mr. Sewell has done) at the result that the solar year Ky. 4000 expired, according to the Arya Siddhanta mean system, began on Saturday, 24th March A.D. 899, at 17h. 20.m. Os., and calculated from this moment the moment of occurrence of the mean Vrşabha, Mithuna and other samkrantis. These moments are, naturally, different from those determined according to the former method and also from those determined according to the true system of working.
This difference in the moment of occurrence of the mean samkrantis leads, in its turn, to a consequence that we must take account of: it causes a difference in the names of lunar months. Thus, to take an instance, I have said in connection with date no. 1 discussed above that, according to the Brahma Siddhanta mean system, mean Puşya-amâvâsya began at 14h. 17m. Os. on Sunday, 22nd December 1185 A.D. According to Mr. Sewell's method of calculating mean aamkrantis, however, the month of Margasira was adhika in this year (see his table XC) and the mean tithi that began on the above Sunday was not Puşya-amâvâsya, but Margasira-amavasy. According to the Brahma Siddhanta true system too, that tithi was Margasira-amâvâsya ; but the intercalated month was not Margasira but Bhadrapada (see his table LXXXII). On the other hand, according to the method of calculating mean samkrantis that was adopted in connection with the five dates given above, there was no intercalation at all in the year A.D. 1185, and the mean tithi that began on the above Sunday was Pusya-amâvâgy& ; but the month Caitra was intercalated in the next year, A.D. 1186-7.