A History of Sanskrit Literature c3.97

c3.97

Some of the evidence adduced is clearly inconclusive. The *Arthaçāstra* knows (ii. 7) an elaborate system of keeping accounts, but its date cannot be assumed as the fourth century B. C., nor does in any case the keeping of accounts imply any definite system of the use of numerals similar to that attested for the sixth century A. D.¹ References to boys learning reckoning (*saṁkhyāna*)² are equally inconclusive, and the date of the *Lalitavistara* is very uncertain. But the use of *çūnya* in the *Chandassūtra* of Piṅgala³ must be accorded due weight, and the Indian hypothesis has gained strength from the new investigations accorded to it. But certainty is unattainable, and it may be observed that, while the identification of Puliça with Paulus of Alexandria is merely conjectural, it is not sufficient to dispose of it by pointing out that Puliça was an authority on astronomy, Paulus on astrology, for we have nothing to show that the latter did not deal with astronomy, as would be natural enough in a professed astrologer.⁴