186 The Adjustment of the Hindu Calendar. [No. 4, 



soning. All attempts towards accuracy even of centuries must be futile 

 and imperfect. Arguments stated above establish nothing besides what 

 is evident If the Hindu calculations were as accurate as those of 

 western science, we could then have safely assigned the above given 

 dates to Hindu observations. The above proves that 393 B. C the 

 initial poiut of the Hindu year coincided with the first point of Aries 

 and the vernal equinox. Beyond this, we have no reasonable ground 

 to advance. The Hindu observations may have commenced centuries 

 earlier and the then existing rough methods of observation may have 

 led the credulous Hindu astronomer to believe that the equinox and 

 the first point of Aries were one and the same; when in reahty the 

 equinox may have happened on the 4th or 8th day of Van&kha. 



That the Hindu year formerly began about the vernal eqmnox, and 

 that the moment of such beginning of the year coincided with the mo- 

 ment of the ecliptic conjunction of the sun with Acvini, or that he 

 sign and the constellation Aries coincided at a former period with the 

 initial moment of the Hindu year, is unquestionably proved by the 

 Hindu name for that moment, the sun is said to be then in the 



asterism Acvini. . 



Had no errors entered into the calculations of the Hindus, their yea. 

 would then have commenced at the present century on the 21st o 

 April instead of the 13th. The Mahavishuva Sankranti then would 

 have 'differed from the vernal equinox exactly by that amount by 

 which the sign Aries differs from the constellation Aries But as rt 

 is it involves a double error, and leads one to suppose that about 500 

 years before the present time, the first day of the Hindu year was 

 brought to coincide with the first point of the constellation Aries 

 (fl Arietis) and that since then, owing to the motion of the equinoxes, 

 the initial moment of the year has retrograded 7 degrees Such a 

 supposition is the only explanation that can at present he offered 

 regarding this anomalous position of the initial pom of he ye»l 

 now that the first of Vaicakk is placed between the points with whi h 

 it coincided when the constellations were formed, and m which it should 

 be i£ the calendars had received proper corrections. The values o he 

 ^ or corrections subsequently added to the Hindu tables as calculated 

 Z Mr. Burgess in his notes to the Surya Siddhanta, refers us to the 

 16th century after Christ. Making due allowance for errors of Hindu 



