Indian Antiquary Vol 19

Author(s): John Faithfull Fleet, Richard Carnac Temple
Publisher: Swati Publications

Page 60

52
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY.
[FEBRUARY, 1890.
It will be seen from the Table that such of the elements of the two Súrya-Siddhantus as are generally given in the Madhyamadhikara, or chapter on mean motions and places, of a Siddhanta-work, differ considerably from each other. It does not, however, follow of necessity that the two works must be different in other chapters also. It is quite possible that the present Súrya-Siddhanta was constructed by changing those verses in the Madhyamadhikâra of the original Súrya-Siddhanta, which contained elements regarding the mean motions of the planets ; and there may have been some other slight changes here and there. There is very little possibility of the original Súrya-Siddhanta being now extant anywhere in its original form.
The elements of the original Súrya-Siddhanta do not, I find, agree with those of the Paulisa-Siddhantals as contained in the Panchasiddhantika, but agree, not partly as Dr. Thibaut says (Jour. Beng. As. Soc. Vol. LIII. Part I. p. 292), bat wholly, with those of another Paulisa-Südhánta, as found in the verses in the Aryâ metre quoted from it by. Utpala in his commentary on the Brihat-Samhita.10 Again, the elements of the original Súrya-Siddhanta agree with those of the first Arya-Siddhanta, except in respect of the length of the year and other elements depending on it, and the revolutions of Mercury and Jupiter, and except that, while according to the former the Kaliyuga commences at midnight, according to the latter it begins at sunrise.
Albêrûn i20 has attributed the Súrya Siddhanta to Lata. I do not know whether it can be ascertained from his writings which of the two Surya-Siddhantas, -the original, or the present one, he had seen. But the original Surya-Siddhanta is certainly not the work of Lata. In the third verse of the Panchasiddhantika, Varahamihira says that Lata wrote.commentaries on the Paulisa and Rômaka Siddhantas ( G TT). Lata's writings, therefore, were well known to Varahamihira. And, if Lata were really the author of the original Súrya-Siddhanta, the matter would not have been a secret to Varahamihira, and he would not have held the work in reverence as one of divine origin. The very fact that he calls it the Súrya-Suddhanta, shows that he did not hold it to be a work of human origin. In the following verse he calls Láta an Acharya, and not a Rishi, much less a divine being: -
, युगणादिनवाराप्तियुगणो ऽपि हि देशकालसंबंधः।
arer i 99 TETTE Il Panchasiddhantika, Adhyâya xiv. " The week-day is obtained from the dyugana which is connected with the question of). country and time; and the Achárya Lata has declared (it to begin at) sunset at Yavanapura." This verse also shows that Lita had written some work in addition to his commentaries, and the fact stated in this verse, that according to Lata the day began at sunset, shows that that other work of Lata differed from the Surya-Siddhanta ; because according to both the Stirya-Siddhantas the dyugana is counted from midnight. The point is still more clearly proved from Brahmagupta's writings. He says: -
श्रीषणविष्णुचंद्रप्रामार्यभटलादसिंहानां ।
TETETT fara fegni 46 | Brahma-Siddhanta, adhyaya xi. “The incompleteness of Srishêna, Vishnuchandra, Pradyumna, Aryabhata, Lâţa, and Simba, is proved every day by the discordance of their eclipses and other things.” Again he says :
लाटात्सूर्यशशांको मध्यावितूञ्चचंद्रपातौ च । कुजबुधशीघ्रब्रहस्पतिसितशीघ्रशनैश्चरान मध्यान् ।। 47 ।।
ra Tercat.... ht : RT 48 | Brahma-Siddhanta, Adhyâya xi.
18 There seem to be three different Paulia-Siddhantas; one contained in the Pailchasiddhantika; another which is called by Utpala the Mala-Puliša-Siddhanta, and from which a verse in the Anushtubh metre is quoted by him, but which is certainly different from the first; and a third from which Utpala quotes about twenty.bye verses in the Aryå metre.
19 In these verses, however, 'I do not find one containing the revolutions of the moon's apogee and Dode. Colebrook also probably did not find it, as he does not give the number of revolutions of the apogee and node in his note on the subject (Miscellaneous Essays, second edition, Vol. II. p. 415).
20 [India, Translation, Vol. I. p. 168. - J. F. F.]