The History of Indian Literature c9.245.2

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*.