In this article, we would discuss the background of the popular and officially adopted Lahiri ayanamsha in two parts and address the related issues.
In November 1952, a Calendar Reform Committee (CRC) was appointed by CSIR, Government of India to study various existing calendars and present its recommendations so as to have a unified calendar suitable for implementation in the whole of India. This committee was chaired by Professor M.N. Saha, the director of Institute of Nuclear Physics. The committee had six other members (as per the Calendar Committee report) including Mr. N.C. Lahiri, who acted as Secretary of this committee.
The committee spent three years studying the origin and background of various calendars prevailing in different parts of the world and India (obviously with emphasis on Indian calendars) and presented its report in 1955.
We would discuss here relevant key points of the report so as to hit our target ‘how Lahiri ayanamsha came into existence?’
In chapter 4 on calendric astronomy, table 5 lists the positions of certain stars as observed in 1956. The selected stars are in line with the junction stars (“yogtaras” of various nakshatras) as specified in chapter 8 of Surya Siddhanta.
The table 5 starts nakshatra divisions from 23 degree 15 minute assuming star Spica at the middle of the Chitra nakshatra i.e. at 180 degree of the zodiac; whereas spica’s position (alpha virginis, the junction star of Chitra nakshatra) is indicated as 203 degree 14 minutes. Since Spica had about 1 minute of proper motion from 285 AD (The epoch of Lahiri ayanamsha) to 1956 AD, the position of Spica in 1956 stands out at 6 degree 39 minutes in the nakshatra division of Chitra instead of the exact middle position at 6 degree 40 minutes. This confirms the reasoning that I have provided in my book “The Unanswered” that Lahiri ignored the proper motion of Spica to calculate his ayanamsha as his ayanamsha has 1 minute of difference if ayanamsha is directly deduced from the Spica’s longitude.
In the same chapter, the report mentions that considering Spica at the middle of Chitra satisfies the condition that the star Delphini should be in the beginning of Dhanishtha (as per Vedanga Jyotisha) and the star Regulus at 6th degree of Magha nakshatra (as specified by Varahmihira). In table 5, the position of Regulus for Magha is indeed at 5 degree 58 minutes of the nakshatra division and Delphini for Dhanishtha is 51 minutes short of the start of the respective nakshatra division.
1) As far as Vedanga Jyotisha is concerned, it mentions the start of yuga from Dhanishtha but that does not point to the statement that has been made in the report that, “As per Vedanga Jyotisha, alpha or beta delphini star marked the beginning of Dhanishtha division”. If an assumption has been made here that the yogtara is the start of a nakshatra, then why did they consider Spica at the middle of Chitra nakshatra that formed the basis of their table 5? They should have then considered Spica too at the beginning of Chitra nakshatra.
2) If Varahmihira specified yogtata for Magha in the 6th degree, he also specified yogtara for Chitra at 7 degree 30 minutes instead of at the middle that is assumed in creating the table 5.
Obviously, the assumption of Spica at the middle of Chitra stems from Surya Siddhantha that mentions the yogtara position of Chitra nakshatra at 180 degree, but 180 degree polar, which Mr. Lahiri and team changed to 180 degree celestial on their own.
The report states that there were two different schools in India, one following zeta piscium as the start of the zodiac and other following Spica as the exact opposite point in the zodiac. This is the only basis they provide for their assumption of choosing Spica at 180 degree celestial, which is as hollow as the assumption itself. We neither find the mention of any such schools in the texts nor any support in any of the siddhantas.
Click here to move to Part IISeptember 30, 2015
Devinder Dhingra
More to read
Copyright© Devinder Dhingra 2015-2024