The Science of the Shulba: A Study in Early Hindu Geometry c12.45

c12.45

Bürk was led to suspect whether the method explained by the commentators was indeed in view of the Śulbakāras and to discard it ultimately for the simple reason "that this method is so scientific." Thibaut has not directly assigned any reason for his rejection of the interpretation of the commentators. He seems, however, to have been led by an observation of Dvārakanātha Yajvā *anyacca prakāraḥ* ("Also another method") which just precedes his delivery of the method. But the preliminary remark of Sundararāja is *ayamatra prakāraḥ* [“This is the method (taught) here].” The rule has been formulated by the two commentators in identical words. So one has doubtless copied from the other. Difference in the preliminary remark may be explained thus: Sundararāja explains the method just after the above rule of Āpastamba which is its proper place. But Dvārakanātha Yajvā gives it under the imperfect method of Baudhāyana for the transformation of a square into a rectangle which precedes his perfect rule stated above. So it was very natural for him to remark that it is “another method.”