In Part 2, we showed how Shatapatha Brahamna measurements are extremely precise, quantitative and rigorous.
We did this by comparing the Declination of Krittika with that of other Nakshatras which were close to the celestial equator, although not exactly on the celestial equator.
Prof. Pingree had claimed that Nakshatras Shravana, Vishakha and Hasta were also close to the celestial equator, in an attempt to discredit interpretation and proposal of S B Dikshit for either the original composition or modification/addition/update of Shatapatha Brahmana during 2926 BCE.
I had measured the Declination of YogaTara (Altair-Shravana, Zubeneschamali, Algorab-Hasta in doing this analysis/comparison.
Prof. Pingree has also identified with the same YogaTaras for nakshatras Shravana and Hasta. Prof Pingree did employ Iota-Librae for nakshatra Vishakha (not same as Zubeneschamali, considered YogaTara of nakshatra Vishakha).
[Pingree, D. and Morissey, P., “On the Identification of the yogatArAs of the Indian nakSatras”, Journal for the History of Astronomy, xx, 99-119, (1989)]
This is additional confirmation of humongous error assumed/accepted by this Professor of exact sciences of Antiquity in his calculations.
And what was his objective?
Prof. Pingree brought in all these arguments to discredit reference of Shatapatha Brahmana and also accurate astronomy calculations of S B Dikshit.
The outcome was that not only calculations (and thus inference) of S B Dikshit is on a solid footing, but also the amazing precision and rigor of astronomy observation of Shatapatha Brahmana is established, by very assumptions and because of very assumptions of Prof. Pingree.
I should also mention that Iota-Librae (star identified by Prof.Pingree to represent nakshatra Vishakha) was on celestial equator (and thus would have risen due EAST around 1900 BCE).
But we are not done yet. Prof. Pingree missed another distinct naskahtra, Nakshatra Anuradha, whose Yogatara – Dschubba (Delta- Scorpii) was on celestial equator only after less than 200 years (172 years), after Krittka was on the celestial equator!
Thus employing his assumption of ‘not limiting the list of nakshatras for this discussion to only those nakshatras mentioned in this context by Shatapatha Brahamana, Prof.Pingree would have had no problem (should have had no problem) in accepting precision, rigor and upper limit on the error of measurement, of Shatapatha Brahmana, not to exceed 100 years!!
Of course, I do not think it appropriate to consider discussing nakshatras not mentioned in this specific context of Shatapatha Brahamana, as is done by Prof. Pingree.
However, the point I am making is that a strategy that was employed by Prof. Pingree to discredit accuracy of Shtapatha Brahamana and corresponding interpreatation and testing of S B Dikshit not only disproved the contention made by Prof. Pingree, but rather backfired in multiple ways.
INDRAYA TAKSHKAYA SWAHA!