No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The Order of the Nakṣatras in the Epic, and the Epic Month
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 15 March 2011
Abstract
An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Miscellaneous Communications
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Royal Asiatic Society 1917
References
page 135 note 1 JRAS. 1916, pp. 567–70.Google Scholar
page 135 note 2 xxiv, 15, 34 sq.
page 135 note 3 Orion, p. 30.Google Scholar
page 136 note 1 ZDMG. lxvi, 636.Google Scholar
page 136 note 2 JAOS. xxiv, 18, 19, 392, 393.Google Scholar
page 136 note 3 iii, 134. 17, etc.
page 136 note 4 x, 184. 3; daśamāsya, v, 78. 9.Google Scholar
page 136 note 5 AB. vii, 13. 9. In CU. v, 9. I there is a curious divergence of text; most read (with Böhtlingk) an alternation of ten months and yāvad vā; the Nirnaya Sagar ed. inserts “or nine”, which agrees with the Buddhist version of the period and Yājñ. iii, 83.
page 136 note 6 xii, 321. 117
page 137 note 1 i, 63. 61.
page 137 note 2 Windisch, , Buddha's Geburt, pp. 120 sq.Google Scholar
page 137 note 3 ŚB. xi, 1. 6. 2; the parallel with Prajāpati and xi, 5. 4. 6 disprove the rendering suggested.
page 137 note 4 AB. iv, 22.
page 137 note 5 Weber, , Naxatra, ii, 313.Google Scholar
page 137 note 6 Jolly, , Medicin, p. 53. 7 xii, 232. 13.Google Scholar
page 138 note 1 Arist. Hist. An. vii, 4, 584a 36 (7 and 10 months); fr. 258 (7, 8, 10, 11 months); Verg. Ecl. iv, 61; Plin. N.H. vii, 5. In Vendidād, v, 45Google Scholar, 10 months appears as the extreme period. In Wisdom, vii, 2Google Scholar, we have 10, in 2 Macc, vii, 27Google Scholar, however, 9 months.
page 138 note 2 König, , ZDMG. lx, 619.Google Scholar
page 138 note 3 vii, 50. 4.
page 138 note 4 AB. vi, 30.
page 138 note 5 JRAS. 1916, p. 569.Google Scholar
page 139 note 1 The evidence of borrowing adduced by Holtzmann (Das Mahābhārata im Osten und Westen, p. 67Google Scholar) is clearly inadequate to prove the relation.