Rashis once more

[Guest guest]

#2873 dt. 26.6.2009 in WVES-VEDIC by Shri Avinash Sathaye

Dear Friends,

 

I had personally withdrawn from this ongoing debate because of the

parokSha-vAdins'

declaration that they know the truth and others are never going to see it,

except by following their advice.

This, to me, was and is a dead end discussion.

 

However, I can answer a material question by Mehrotraji.

 

I have now a printed versions of both the Rigveda and Yajurveda versions.

 

These are from a book by Holay proposing that the Rigveda version was based on

a 19 year cycle and claiming to decode several more verses of the version by

using this viewpoint.

 

I can easily scan and send them to the interested parties or leave them on my

web page.

These are a total of 7 pages. The number of respective verses is 36 and 43 for

Rigveda and Yajurveda versions.

 

Holay's book gives two extra verses in the Yajurveda version with a marker

'0 " added to the number, but unfortunately does not give explanation about

their origin. I imagine these to be doubtful (or less frequent) additions.

One of these is the controversial " mInAn-prabhRRiti " verse, the

second is an innocent verse listing the topics that Lagadha has discussed.

 

The controversial verse appears spuriously between two introductory verses and

since it is proposing to give a formula/definition of something called

" parigraha " , it clearly does not belong there.

Note that no Rashis are mentioned in the verse 42-0 in the list of topics.

 

As a side comment: " mInAn prabhRRiti " has grammar problems.

" prabhRRiti " takes the pa~nchamI (ablative) case, so it probably

should be mInAt. However, I don't know any standard Rashi count which begins

with mIna. Perhaps, the verse comes from a tradition which uses a different

start for the year!

It would be interesting to see a discussion of all this in connection

with actual manuscripts.

 

 

For everybody's understanding, I am giving the verses under discussion from

Holay's book.

 

 

 

 

I use Itrans notation:

 

yathA shikhA mayUrANAM nAgAnAM maNayo yathA |

tadvadvedA~NgashAstrANAM gaNitaM mUrdhani sthitam || 4

\[ye bRRihaspatinA bhuktA mInAnprabhRRiti rAshayaH |

trivRRitAH pa~nchabhirRRitA yaH sheShaH sa parigrahaH ||4-0 \]

mAghashuklaprapannasya pauShakRRiShNasamApinaH |

yugasya pa~nchavarShasya kAlaj~nAnaM prachakShate || 5

 

\[ ityevaM mAsavarShANAM muhUrtodayaparvaNAm |

dinartvayanamAsA~NgaM vyAkhyAnaM lagato.abravIt ||42-0\]

 

 

 

I have copied verses as in the book. Thus the brackets are

intentional.

I suspect there are two typos as well.

1. In 4-0:

trivRRitAH pa~nchabhirRRitA is surely trivRRitAH pa~nchabhirhRRitA

as RRita is not a mathematical operation, but hRRita is!

2. In 42-0:

The name lagata should have been lagadha, of course.

 

 

 

Devnagari display for those who have a good enough browser:

 

यथा शिखा

मयूराणां नागानां

मणयो यथा।

तदà¥à¤µà¤¦à¥à¤µà¥‡à¤¦à¤¾à¤™à¥à¤—शासà¥à¤¤à¥à¤°à¤¾à¤£à¤¾à¤‚ गणितं मूरà¥à¤§à¤¨à¤¿

सà¥à¤¥à¤¿à¤¤à¤®à¥à¥¥ ४

[ये बृहसà¥à¤ªà¤¤à¤¿à¤¨à¤¾

भà¥à¤•à¥à¤¤à¤¾ मीनानà¥à¤ªà¥à¤°à¤­à¥ƒà¤¤à¤¿

राशयः।

तà¥à¤°à¤¿à¤µà¥ƒà¤¤à¤¾à¤ƒ पञà¥à¤šà¤­à¤¿à¤°à¥à¤‹à¤¤à¤¾ यः शेषः स

परिगà¥à¤°à¤¹à¤ƒà¥¥à¥ª-० ]

माघशà¥à¤•à¥à¤²à¤ªà¥à¤°à¤ªà¤¨à¥à¤¨à¤¸à¥à¤¯ पौषकृषà¥à¤£à¤¸à¤®à¤¾à¤ªà¤¿à¤¨à¤ƒà¥¤

यà¥à¤—सà¥à¤¯ पञà¥à¤šà¤µà¤°à¥à¤·à¤¸à¥à¤¯

कालजà¥à¤žà¤¾à¤¨à¤‚ पà¥à¤°à¤šà¤•à¥à¤·à¤¤à¥‡à¥¥ ५

 

[ इतà¥à¤¯à¥‡à¤µà¤‚ मासवरà¥à¤·à¤¾à¤£à¤¾à¤‚ मà¥à¤¹à¥‚रà¥à¤¤à¥‹à¤¦à¤¯à¤ªà¤°à¥à¤µà¤£à¤¾à¤®à¥à¥¤

दिनरà¥à¤¤à¥à¤µà¤¯à¤¨à¤®à¤¾à¤¸à¤¾à¤™à¥à¤—ं वà¥à¤¯à¤¾à¤–à¥à¤¯à¤¾à¤¨à¤‚ लगतोऽबà¥à¤°à¤µà¥€à¤¤à¥à¥¥à¥ªà¥¨-०]

 

 

 

 

--With Best Regards,Avinash SathayeWeb: www.msc.uky.edu/sohum