The Vaidics admit that Jyautisha (the science of astronomy or astrology) relates to both the Vedas, the Yajur and the Rig.
Just as the Vaidics recite by rote the Vaidic hymns, so do they repeat Jyautisha. Thus, owing to the recitation of the Vedas in hereditary succession without the knowledge of their meaning and the circulation of incorrect readings, all the copies of Jyautishavedanga that are now-a-days procurable, havë been unduly spoilt and given rise to incoherent signification.
In Germany Dr. Weber, having made a collection of several manuscripts of Jyautishavedanga and picked out, as far as his knowledge could reach, the best readings possible, published an edition of it along with the explanation of many Slokas.
Thereupon Dr. Thibaut, in accordance with the power of his exquisite comprehension, made corrections and commented on several Slokas before the publication of the work.
Hereafter Sankara Balakrishna Dikshit, Balagangadhar Tilak and others, having discriminated the interpretations made by Doctors Weber and Thibaut, wrote an explanation of many more Slokas.
Not long ago a poet, named Varhaspatya, having noted the difference of all the glosses hitherto written, ventured to explain in English, according to his understanding, almost all the Slokas of the work, and got his elaborated edition published in the numbers of the Monthly Journal, styled Hiudustan Review, from March to November 1906.
The subscribers to the Journal generally make mention of it in all the quarters.
Mahamahopadhyaya Adityaram Bhattacharya, Pandit Ganga Nath Jha and Dr. Thibaut at Allahabad, and Rai Bahadur Maharaj Narayan Sivapuri at Benares
Hearing all this and having obtained all the numbers of the aforesaid journal containing the entire work through the good offices of Rai Bahadur M. N. Sivapuri, I perused with interest the entire explanation written with proofs and mathematical calculations.
Having met with numberless mistakes creeping therein and thinking it necessary to produce an accurate edition of the text, I have composed this commentary with demonstration.
The following are the errors in the corrected readings and explanations of Varhaspatya noted down for the perusal of the public: -
Sloka 1. पञ्चसंवत्सरमयं is here the adjective of प्रजापति
(Vide Hindustan Review, March, 1906, р. 245). It is unnecessary. See my explanation.
Sloka 2. Though nothing particular, however, see my explanation of the Slokas relating to both Yajur and Rig. Here Varhaspatya is also right, since it is similar to the explanation of Sankar Bálakríshņa Dikshit.
Slokas 3-4. Though nothing particular, however, see my explanation. V.'s explanation is also good. The reason of ये बृहस्पतिना भुक्ता being a क्षेपक may be seen in my commentary. Sloka 5. Nothing particular.
Slokas 6-8. The reading अर्कस्तु is not correct. For this see my demonstrated explanation.
Sloka 9. द्विर्युग्माद्यं is not a correct reading. The explanation of the word ऋतु is curious and inadmissible. (Vide H. R., May and June, p. 436). My explanation may be seen. Sloka 10. Though nothing particular, however, nowhere does the word धातृ signify अर्यमा. For this see the reading corrected by me.
Sloka 11. V.'s explanation of this has neither any significance nor does it convey any real meaning (Vide H. R., September, pp. 266-267). For this look at my demonstrated explanation.
Sloka I2. Here Weber's दुहेयं and दुर्हेयं of V., both do not give the real import. Hence, men of letters may think over my reading.
Sloka 13. Here V.’s explanation is good, but from his calculation the पर्वराशि is found to be a fraction and not an integer (Vide H. R., July, p. 59). Consequently look at my demonstrated explanation.
Sloka 14. The reading त्रिपाद्याया of V. is not correct (Vide H. R., September, p. 261), Vide my explanation.
Sloka 15. V.'s explanation is incorrect, (Vide H. R., August, 157-158). For this look at my explanation.
Sloka 16. Dr. Thibaut's explanation is right here. V.'s demonstration is also right, but it does not appear how by the Hindu method नक्षत्र has been deduced from भांश. For this my demonstration may be read with consideration.
Sloka 17. V.'s explanation is not clear (Vide H. R., 'September, pp. 265-266). Vide my commentary.
Sloka 18. V.'s explanation is incorrect (Vide H. R., August, p. 163). Vide my commentary.
Sloka 19. V.'s explanation and calculation are both very incorrect ( Vide H. R., August, pp. 166-167) Vide my demonstrated explanation.
Sloka 20. Here V. spoilt his explanation by assigning a different meaning to तिथि. (Vide H. R., August p. 167). My explanation and proof may be seen. Sloka 21. V.’s explanation and calculation are both not good. (Vide H. R., August, p. 167-168). Vide my demonstrated explanation.
Sloka 23. V.'s explanation is not clear (Vide H. R., July, p. 62.) My explanation and calculation may both be seen.
Sloka 23. Here V.'s explanation and calculation are both right, however, my explanation may also be seen.
Sloka 24. Nothing noticeable here, however, my explanation may be seen. V.'s explanation is also good.
Sloka 25. V.'s explanation is not right. भांशाः has been deduced from his calculation. (Vide H. R., July, p. 62). S. B. Dikshit's explanation is correct. Hence my demonstrated explanation may be seen.
Sloka 26. Here V.’s explanation and calculation are, in my opinion, both incorrect Vide H. R., July pp. 63-64). Vide my demonstrated explanation.
Sloka 27. Here V.’s correct reading is not right. His explanation and calculation are incorrect (Vide H. R., July, pp. 64-65). Vide my demonstrated explanation.
Slokas 28-31. Nothing particular in these; but there being some unusual readings, my explanation may be seen. V.’s view also is distinct.
Slokas 32-34. Nothing particular, however, for correct reading my explanation may be seen. V.'s explanation is right.
Sloka 35. V.'s explanation is not right Vide my commentary. Sloka 37. V.'s explanation is nearly right however my explanation may be seen.
Slokas 38-41 Nothing particular.
Sloka 42. Nothing particular, however, vide my commentary.
Sloka 45. Here V.'s reading वेदविद् may be taken as two different words वेद and विद्. This reading is good for which vide my explanation.
II. The Slokas of the Jyautisha relating to Ríg are generally the same as those of the Yajur, but the special ones are criticised below.
Sloka 13. Here V.'s explanation, calculation and correction are not right (Vide H. R., August, pp. 163-165). My explanation and calculation may be seen.
Sloka 17. Here 'कुम्भका and कुटपै': the readings of Weber and V. are not right, V. (Vide H. R. April p. 319) showed the similarity between the slokas of the Yajur and the Rig. There is some slight dissimilarity. My explanation may be seen.
Sloka 19. Here the explanations of Balagangadhara Tilak and Varhaspatya are wrong. Nowhere does, ‘अभ्यस्त', imply added but multiplied.
I think the readings गण for गुण and स्वार्क्षात् for सूर्यात् are correct (Vide H. R., May and June, pp. 440-442) My demonstrated explanation may be seen.
Sloka 33. In the reading corrected by Weber and V. there is no proper arrangement of words as well as there are grammatical mistakes. Hence my reading and explanation may be seen.
Sloka 34. Here the Reading of Weber, V. and others is not appropriate. There seems to be some omission. V.'s explanation is also not right (Vide H. R., June and May pp. 439-440). My explanation may be seen.
Finding that Prabhakari & Co. are the best printers in this ancient and holy city of Benares. I do not think it wise to send any present composition to any other printers in this place. I therefore give this work of mine as a present to the above mentioned Company. The chief points of note in the work of Messrs. Prabhakari & Co are, that the books printed by them are far superior to those of other printers in point of correctness and neatness.
This superiority of theirs is chiefly due to the fact that they take a keen interest in obtaining such Sanskrit works as have been quite rare in India up to the present time and try to print them as correctly and neatly as they ought to be printed.