The History of Indian Literature c9.245

Language: English

c9.245.1

As regards the age and order of sequence of the various Indian astronomers, of whom works or fragments of works still survive, we do not even here escape from the uncertainty which everywhere throughout Indian literature attends questions of the kind. At their head stands the Âryabhaṭa already mentioned, of whose writings we possess at present only a few sorry scraps, though possibly fuller fragments may yet in course of time be recovered.²⁸⁴ He appears to have been a contemporary of Puliśa; and, in any case, he was indebted to Greek influence, since he reckons by the zodiacal signs. According to Albîrûnî, he was a native of Kusumapura, *i.e.*, Páṭaliputra, and belonged consequently to the east of India. Together with him, the authors of the following five Siddhántas are looked upon as ancient astronomers—namely, the unknown¹ author of the *Brahma-Siddhánta* or *Paitámaha-Siddhánta*; next, the author of the *Saura-Siddhánta*, who is called Lát by Albírúní, and may possibly be identical with the Lagata, Lagadha mentioned as author of the Vedáñga treatise Jyotisha, as well as with Láḍha, a writer occasionally quoted by Brahmagupta;² further, Puliśa, author of the *Pauliśa-Siddhánta*; and lastly, Śrísheṇa and Vishṇuchandra, to whom the *Romaka-Siddhánta* and the *Vasishṭha-Siddhánta*—works said to be based upon Áryabhaṭa’s system²⁸⁵—are respectively attributed. Of these five Siddhántas, not one seems to have survived.

c9.245.2

There exist works, it is true, bearing the names Brahma-Siddhánta, Vasishṭha-Siddhánta, Súrya-Siddhánta and Romaka-Siddhánta; but that these are not the ancient works so entitled appears from the fact that the quotations from the latter, preserved to us by the scholiasts, are not contained in them.²⁸⁶ In point of fact, three distinct Vasishṭha-Siddhántas, and, similarly, three distinct Brahma-Siddhántas, are cited. One of these last, which expressly purports to be a recast\* of an earlier work, has for its author Brahmagupta, whose date, according to Albírúní, is the year a.d. 664, which corresponds pretty closely with the date assigned to him by the modern astronomers of Ujjayiní, a.d. 628.²⁸⁷ To him also belongs, according to Albírúní,† a work named *Ahargaṇa*, corrupted by the Arabs into *Arkand*. This *Arkand*, the Sindhends (*i.e.*, the five Siddhántas), and the system of Arjabahr (Áryabhaṭa) were the works which, as already remarked, were principally studied and in part translated by the Arabs in the eighth and ninth centuries.—On the other hand, the Arabs do not mention Varáha-Mihira, although he was prior to Brahmagupta, as the latter repeatedly alludes to him, and although he gathered up the teaching of these five Siddhántas in a work which is hence styled by the commentators *Pañchasiddhántiká*, but which he himself calls by the name *Karaṇa*.

c9.245.3

This work seems to have perished,²⁸⁸ and only the astrological works of Varáha-Mihira have come down to us—namely, the *Saṃhitá*‡ and the *Horá-Śástra*. The latter, however, is incomplete, only one-third of it being extant.∗ He mentions a great number of predecessors, whose names are in part only known to us through him; for instance, Maya and the Yavanas (frequently), Paráśara, Manittha,²⁸⁹ Śaktipúrva, Vishṇugupta,† Devasvámin, Siddhasena, Vajra, Jívaśarman, Satya,²⁹⁰ &c. Of Áryabhaṭa no direct mention is made, possibly for the reason that he did nothing for astrology: in the Karaṇa he would naturally be mentioned.²⁹¹ While Áryabhaṭa still computes by the era of Yudhishṭhira, Varáha-Mihira employs the *Śaka-kála*, *Saka-bhúpa-kála*, or *Śakendra-kála*, the era of the Śaka king, which is referred by his scholiast to Vikrama's era.²⁹² Brahmagupta, on the contrary, reckons by the *Śaka-nṛipánta*—which, according to him, took place in the year 3179 of the Kali age—that is to say, by the era of Śáliváhana.—The tradition as to the date of Varáha-Mihira has already been given: as the statements of the astronomers of to-day correspond with those current in Albírúní's time, we may reasonably take them as trustworthy, and according to these he flourished in a.d. 504.²⁹³ Now this is at variance, on the one hand, with the tradition which regards him as one of the 'nine gems' of Vikrama's court, and which identifies the latter with king Bhoja,²⁹⁴ who reigned about a.d.

c9.245.4

1050;²⁹⁵ and, on the other hand, also with the assertion of the astronomer Śatánanda, who, in the introduction to his Bhásvatí-karaṇa, seemingly acknowledges himself to be the disciple of Mihira, and at the same time states that he composed this work *Śake* 1021 (= a.d. 1099). This passage, however, is obscure, and may perhaps refer merely to the instruction drawn by the author from Mihira's writings;[^asterisk] otherwise we should have to admit the existence of a second Varáha-Mihira, who flourished in the middle of the eleventh century, that is, contemporaneously with Albírúní. Strange in that case that the latter should not have mentioned him!