{"id":314,"date":"2012-05-15T06:09:46","date_gmt":"2012-05-15T04:09:46","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/?p=314"},"modified":"2012-07-30T05:31:20","modified_gmt":"2012-07-30T03:31:20","slug":"the-surya-siddhanta-and-the-pancasiddhantika","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/the-surya-siddhanta-and-the-pancasiddhantika\/","title":{"rendered":"The S\u016brya-siddh\u0101nta and the Pa\u00f1casiddh\u0101ntik\u0101"},"content":{"rendered":"

The S\u016brya-siddh\u0101nta<\/em> is by far the most widely used Sanskrit text on astronomy. It has been held in great esteem in India. Its opening verses say that an incarnation of the sun taught it to the great asura named Maya at the end of the last k\u1e5bta-yuga, or age of perfection. According to the information given in its first chapter on the lengths of the yugas and how many of these ages have passed in this kalpa or world-period, this would have been more than two million years ago. If so, the S\u016brya-siddh\u0101nta<\/em> has undergone a lot of change since then. Based solely on what can be seen in the last 1,500 years, material has been deleted from it, material has been added to it, and its arrangement has frequently been altered.<\/p>\n

Six verses from the S\u016brya-siddh\u0101nta<\/em> that are not found in the now available version (as published with the commentary by Ra\u1e45gan\u0101tha) were quoted by Bha\u1e6d\u1e6dotpala in his commentary on Var\u0101ha-mihira\u2019s B\u1e5bhat-sa\u1e43hit\u0101<\/em>, chapters 4 and 5. This was first pointed out by Shankar Balakrishna Dikshit in his 1896 Marathi language book, Bharatiya Jyotish Sastra<\/em> (English translation, vol. 2, 1981, pp. 38-39), where these six verses are quoted and translated. Then, a block of verses after chapter 2, verse 14, of the S\u016brya-siddh\u0101nta<\/em> gives the same series of numbers for trigonometry sines that the \u0100ryabha\u1e6d\u012bya<\/em> gives, and so on. They interrupt an older theory, which resumes in verse 52. Prabodh Chandra Sengupta, who pointed this out in his new Introduction to the 1935 Calcutta reprint of the 1860 Ebenezer Burgess translation (p. xix), therefore thinks that this material was copied from the \u0100ryabha\u1e6d\u012bya<\/em> and interpolated into the S\u016brya-siddh\u0101nta<\/em>. Ra\u1e45gan\u0101tha in his commentary on the S\u016brya-siddh\u0101nta<\/em>, completed in 1603 C.E., had centuries earlier pointed out interpolated verses (see Dikshit, op. cit., p. 43). Bimal\u0101 Pras\u0101da Siddh\u0101nta Sarasvat\u012b\u2019s 1894 or 1896 edition of the S\u016brya-siddh\u0101nta<\/em> in Bengali script has twenty-one additional verses in chapter 14 between verses 23 and 24 (see Sengupta, op. cit., p. xxx). David Pingree, who has catalogued all known Sanskrit astronomy manuscripts (Census of the Exact Sciences in Sanskrit<\/em>, Series A, 5 vols., 1970-1994, unfinished), tells us about the S\u016brya-siddh\u0101nta<\/em> that: \u201cVirtually every commentator, however, has rearranged the text, adding and subtracting verses ad libitum\u201d (David Pingree, Jyoti\u1e25\u015b\u0101stra: Astral and Mathematical Literature<\/em>, 1981, p. 23).<\/p>\n

What has shown convincingly that we do not have the original S\u016brya-siddh\u0101nta<\/em> intact, and that even its astronomical constants have been somewhat altered, was the publication in 1889 of the Pa\u00f1casiddh\u0101ntik\u0101<\/em> by Var\u0101ha-mihira (circa 550 C.E.). As its name implies, the Pa\u00f1ca-siddh\u0101ntik\u0101<\/em> is a summary of five (pa\u00f1ca) astronomical treatises (siddh\u0101nta), all very old, including the S\u016brya-siddh\u0101nta<\/em>. While the summary given in the Pa\u00f1casiddh\u0101ntik\u0101<\/em> of the S\u016brya-siddh\u0101nta<\/em> shows \u201cthat the treatise of that name known to Var\u0101ha Mihira agreed with the modern S\u016brya Siddh\u0101nta in its fundamental features,\u201d yet \u201cwe cannot fail to notice that in certain points the teaching of the old S\u016brya Siddh\u0101nta must have differed from the correspondent doctrines of its modern representative\u201d (G. Thibaut and Sudh\u0101kara Dvived\u012b, The Pa\u00f1chasiddh\u0101ntik\u0101<\/em>, 1889, reprint 1968, p. xii; on this see pp. xii-xx). These differences appear in the astronomical constants given for the various planets, etc., and the calculations made from them. The astronomical constants found in the older S\u016brya-siddh\u0101nta<\/em> as summarized in the Pa\u00f1casiddh\u0101ntik\u0101<\/em> differ somewhat from those given in the now extant S\u016brya-siddh\u0101nta<\/em>.<\/p>\n

The Pa\u00f1casiddh\u0101ntik\u0101<\/em> is a kara\u1e47a text, as opposed to a siddh\u0101nta text, such as the S\u016brya-siddh\u0101nta<\/em>. While a siddh\u0101nta gives the full astronomical theory, a kara\u1e47a is a more brief manual for practical use, giving only what is required for making calculations from the latest astronomical epoch in use. Based on this fact, Sudhi Kant Bharadwaj attempted to show that the differences in astronomical constants between the old and the modern S\u016brya-siddh\u0101nta<\/em> are due only to the brief kara\u1e47a version abbreviating the numbers given in the full siddh\u0101nta version (S\u016bryasiddh\u0101nta: An Astro-Linguistic Study<\/em>, 1991, pp. 24-33). Thibaut had considered this possibility, and gave reasons for rejecting it in his 1889 \u201cIntroduction\u201d (op. cit., pp. xii-xx). Prabodh Chandra Sengupta in his 1935 \u201cIntroduction\u201d tabulated the differences between the astronomical constants given in the two versions (op. cit., pp. ix-xii). He showed that the astronomical constants given in the old S\u016brya-siddh\u0101nta<\/em> mostly agree with those given in Brahmagupta\u2019s Kha\u1e47\u1e0da-kh\u0101dyaka<\/em> (first Sanskrit edition published in 1925). Sengupta showed in a 1930 paper (\u201cAryabhata\u2019s Lost Work\u201d) that the astronomical constants found in the Kha\u1e47\u1e0da-kh\u0101dyaka<\/em> were taken from a lost work by \u0100ryabha\u1e6da I, author of the \u0100ryabha\u1e6d\u012bya<\/em>. After the discovery of the Mah\u0101bh\u0101skar\u012bya<\/em> (announced in Bibhutibhusan Datta\u2019s 1930 article, \u201cThe Two Bh\u0101skaras\u201d), it was found that these same astronomical constants taken from a lost work by \u0100ryabha\u1e6da I are preserved in the Mah\u0101bh\u0101skar\u012bya<\/em>, chapter 7 (first Sanskrit edition published in 1945)<\/em>. The agreement with this old set of astronomical constants has convinced most researchers that the astronomical constants given in the old S\u016brya-siddh\u0101nta<\/em> accord with a specific system, and are not mere abbreviations of those given in the now extant S\u016brya-siddh\u0101nta<\/em>.<\/p>\n

In addition to this, Sengupta then described differences in the methods of calculation used in the two versions of the S\u016brya-siddh\u0101nta<\/em> (pp. xx-xxvi). He showed that methods used in the modern S\u016brya-siddh\u0101nta<\/em> agree with methods used by \u0100ryabha\u1e6da I and Brahmagupta. This means that someone after the time of Var\u0101ha-mihira\u2019s summary of the old S\u016brya-siddh\u0101nta<\/em> in the Pa\u00f1casiddh\u0101ntik\u0101<\/em> introduced these methods into the S\u016brya-siddh\u0101nta<\/em> that we now have. Not only was the modern S\u016brya-siddh\u0101nta<\/em> revised by someone, Sengupta believed that Var\u0101ha-mihira revised the previous S\u016brya-siddh\u0101nta<\/em>. So even the old S\u016brya-siddh\u0101nta<\/em> as summarized in the Pa\u00f1casiddh\u0101ntik\u0101<\/em> is a revision of a yet older S\u016brya-siddh\u0101nta<\/em>. Bina Chatterjee, in her 1970 Sanskrit edition and English translation of Brahmagupta\u2019s Kha\u1e47\u1e0dakh\u0101dyaka<\/em>, agreed with Sengupta, and provided further evidence for this, with further charts of comparison (vol. 1, pp. 279-285). Kripa Shankar Shukla did not agree with Sengupta on this particular point, but he agreed that not only the astronomical constants but also the methods vary between the two versions of the S\u016brya-siddh\u0101nta<\/em>. He gave another helpful set of charts comparing the two versions, adding variants from the modern version as preserved in two different sets of commentaries, in his English introduction to his 1957 Sanskrit edition of The S\u016brya-siddh\u0101nta with the Commentary of Paramesvara<\/em> (pp. 15-27).<\/p>\n

The Pa\u00f1casiddh\u0101ntik\u0101<\/em>, our sole source on the old version of the S\u016brya-siddh\u0101nta<\/em>, was itself long lost. It was recovered from two very faulty manuscripts in the 1889 Sanskrit edition and English translation by G. Thibaut and Sudh\u0101kara Dvived\u012b. So the Sanskrit text as found in the best of these two manuscripts was given alongside a heavily emended text. The extensive and sometimes extreme emendations were justified by the need to make sense of an otherwise partly incomprehensible text. Eighty years later, a new attempt to make sense of this text was made by O. Neugebauer and D. Pingree in their Sanskrit edition and English translation (The Pa\u00f1casiddh\u0101ntik\u0101 of Var\u0101hamihira<\/em>, 2 vols., 1970, 1971). The few additional manuscripts discovered since the first two were copies of the same faulty exemplars. From these highly respected scholars we expected to get as careful and accurate an edition as could be made from the available materials. But as said about the Neugebauer-Pingree edition by K. V. Sarma in his \u201cIntroduction\u201d to yet a third Sanskrit edition and English translation: \u201cOften the emendations are wilder than those of Thibaut-Sudhakar Dvivedi\u201d (Pa\u00f1casiddh\u0101ntik\u0101 of Var\u0101hamihira<\/em>, trans. by T. S. Kuppanna Sastry, ed. by K. V. Sarma, 1993, p. xviii).<\/p>\n

A prime example of the wild and unwarranted emendations to the Pa\u00f1casiddh\u0101ntik\u0101<\/em> is its often-quoted verse 4 of chapter 1. Thibaut and Sudh\u0101kara Dvived\u012b emended the word tithi (or titha\u1e25) to k\u1e5bta\u1e25 and translated: \u201cThe Siddh\u0101nta made by Pauli\u015ba is accurate, near to it stands the Siddh\u0101nta proclaimed by Romaka; more accurate is the S\u0101vitra (Saura); the two remaining ones are far from the truth.\u201d Neugebauer and Pingree emended the word tithi (or titha\u1e25) to stvatha and translated: \u201cThe Pauli\u015ba is accurate; that which was pronounced by Romaka is near it; the S\u0101vitra (i.e. the S\u016bryasiddh\u0101nta) is more accurate; the remaining two have strayed far away (from the truth).\u201d Thus, through this often-quoted verse, everyone was led to believe that the accuracy of the Pait\u0101maha-siddh\u0101nta and the V\u0101si\u1e63\u1e6dha-siddh\u0101nta was disparaged by Var\u0101ha-mihira. But Kuppanna Sastry and Sarma did not emend the word tithi, and translated: \u201cThe tithi<\/em> resulting from the Pauli\u015ba<\/em> is tolerably accurate and that of the Romaka<\/em> approximate to that. The tithi<\/em> of the Saura<\/em> is very accurate. But that of the remaining two (viz. the V\u0101si\u1e63\u1e6dha<\/em> and the Pait\u0101maha<\/em>) have slipped far away (from the real).\u201d In other words, it was only the accuracy of their calculation of the tithi or lunar day that was disparaged, not their overall accuracy. Thus, anyone using the Pa\u00f1casiddh\u0101ntik\u0101<\/em> today should use only the Kuppanna Sastry-Sarma edition\/translation, because the remaining two, the Thibaut-Sudh\u0101kara Dvived\u012b and the Neugebauer-Pingree editions\/translations, have strayed far away from the truth.<\/p>\n

For the extant S\u016brya-siddh\u0101nta<\/em>, only three different English translations have been published so far. All of these are more than a century old. The first of these was made by Rev. Ebenezer Burgess, revised by William Dwight Whitney, and published in 1860. The second of these was made by B\u0101p\u016b Deva \u015a\u0101str\u012b independently of the Burgess translation, and published in 1861. The third of these was made by Bimal\u0101 Pras\u0101da Siddh\u0101nta Sarasvat\u012b from Sanskrit to Bengali and published in 1894 or 1896, and then translated from Bengali to English and published in 2007. All three translations utilized the commentary by Ra\u1e45gan\u0101tha to interpret the verses of the S\u016brya-siddh\u0101nta<\/em>. The Burgess translation was reprinted in Calcutta in 1935, edited by Phanindralal Gangooly. This was again reprinted in India more recently, and is sometimes listed under the name of the editor, even though it is the translation by Burgess. A 2001 book, The S\u016bryasiddh\u0101nta (The Astronomical Principles of the Text)<\/em>, by A. K. Chakravarty, includes a rearranged translation. It has adopted the translation by Burgess.<\/p>\n

Sometimes students are inclined to distrust a translation of a Sanskrit text by a Christian missionary, and to trust a translation made by an Indian pandit. The present case, however, is a little different. My impression is that all three translations are good, but the Burgess\/Whitney translation is more literally accurate in comparison with the Sanskrit than the other two. B\u0101p\u016b Deva \u015a\u0101str\u012b used a somewhat interpretive style of translation, as was common at that time. The translation by Bimal\u0101 Pras\u0101da Siddh\u0101nta Sarasvat\u012b is a translation of a translation, so for that reason alone it is less literally accurate in comparison with the Sanskrit. This does not mean, in either case, that their translations are inaccurate. It means that for someone trying to follow the Sanskrit, the Burgess\/Whitney translation will be more helpful. The Burgess\/Whitney translation also provides extensive notes and examples of calculations, while the other two translations do not.<\/p>\n

An example of the difference between the three translations may be seen in chap. 1, verse 3, stating what the asura Maya asked the sun about. He wanted to know the jyoti\u1e63\u0101\u1e43 gati-k\u0101ra\u1e47am, the cause (k\u0101ra\u1e47am) of the motion (gati) of the heavenly bodies (jyoti\u1e63\u0101m). The Burgess\/Whitney translation is literally accurate, adding only \u201cnamely\u201d to this phrase; thus Maya is \u201cdesirous to know . . . the cause, namely, of the motion of the heavenly bodies.\u201d In the B\u0101p\u016b Deva \u015a\u0101str\u012b translation, this phrase is interpreted, and becomes simply \u201cAstronomy\u201d; that is, Maya is \u201cdesirous of obtaining . . . knowledge of Astronomy.\u201d In the Bimal\u0101 Pras\u0101da Siddh\u0101nta Sarasvat\u012b translation of a translation, \u201ccause\u201d becomes transformed into \u201cinformation\u201d; thus what Maya desires to acquire is knowledge that is complete with \u201cthe information about the motion of the heavenly bodies.\u201d The latter two translations give the general idea accurately enough, but the Burgess\/Whitney translation gives the exact idea.<\/p>\n

Rev. Ebenezer Burgess went to India as a missionary in 1839. He diligently applied himself to the study of Indian astronomy and its primary text, the S\u016brya-siddh\u0101nta<\/em>, throughout his years in India, in order to produce a textbook on astronomy in the Marathi language. He writes in his \u201cIntroductory Note\u201d to the translation of the S\u016brya-siddh\u0101nta<\/em> that: \u201cMy first rough draft of the translation and notes was made while I was still in India, with the aid of Brahmans who were familiar with the Sanskrit and well versed in Hindu astronomical science.\u201d When he returned to the United States, he turned it over to William Dwight Whitney, a brilliant linguist and competent Sanskrit scholar. Whitney\u2019s touch is evident throughout, in two ways. First, he made the translation follow the Sanskrit closely; that is, he made it literally accurate. Only few errors have been noted by later scholars and pandits. Second, sharing the prejudices of his time, he made comments in the notes showing the superiority of Western knowledge and the inferiority of Indian knowledge. These did not, however, affect the translation.<\/p>\n

The translation by Burgess\/Whitney was highly enough regarded in India that it was reprinted by the University of Calcutta in 1935. The \u201cNote\u201d that introduces this reprint says: \u201cOwing to the time, thought and patient diligence that he and his colleagues devoted to the task, this translation stands out as a model of research work in the field of Hindu astronomy.\u201d This reprint included a new 45-page Introduction by eminent Indian scholar of Hindu astronomy, Prabodh Chandra Sengupta. Sengupta there concludes (p. li): \u201cBurgess\u2019s translation, indeed, gives a very clear and complete exposition and discussion of every rule that it contains together with illustrations also.\u201d Moreover, Sengupta adds that \u201chis views about the originality of Hindu astronomy are the sanest.\u201d Sengupta is referring to Burgess\u2019s view that the astronomy of the S\u016brya-siddh\u0101nta<\/em> was original to India (see \u201cConcluding Note by the Translator\u201d), in disagreement with Whitney, who thought that astronomy came to India from Greece. The Burgess\/Whitney translation was originally published in the Journal of the American Oriental Society<\/em>, vol. 6, 1860, pp. 141-498. This is now available from JSTOR, as part of their free \u201cEarly Journal Content\u201d offering, at: http:\/\/www.jstor.org\/stable\/592174<\/a>. It had been reprinted in 1978 by Wizards Bookshelf in the Secret Doctrine Reference Series.<\/p>\n

The Sanskrit text of the S\u016brya-siddh\u0101nta<\/em> was first published, along with the commentary by Ra\u1e45gan\u0101tha, in 1859 in the Bibliotheca Indica series, Calcutta. It was edited by Fitzedward Hall, known for his care and accuracy, just as Indian printing is known for its many typographical errors. This resulted in a long list of errata given at the back of this book, something done by Hall but skipped by many others. The S\u016brya-siddh\u0101nta<\/em> with the commentary by Ra\u1e45gan\u0101tha was again printed in Calcutta in 1871, with no editor statement. It appears by its format to be a re-typeset reprint of Hall\u2019s edition. The S\u016brya-siddh\u0101nta<\/em> with the commentary by Ra\u1e45gan\u0101tha was once again printed in Calcutta in 1891, edited by J\u012bb\u0101nanda Vidy\u0101s\u0101gara. This says dvit\u012bya-sa\u1e43skara\u1e47am, \u201csecond edition,\u201d allowing us to think that perhaps he was responsible for the 1871 edition as well.<\/p>\n

The S\u016brya-siddh\u0101nta<\/em> with a modern Sanskrit commentary by Sudh\u0101kara Dvived\u012b was published in Calcutta in 1911 in the Bibliotheca Indica series. The S\u016brya-siddh\u0101nta<\/em> with a modern Sanskrit commentary by Kapile\u015bwara Chaudhary was published in Varanasi in 1946 in the Kashi Sanskrit Series. The S\u016brya-siddh\u0101nta<\/em> with the traditional Sanskrit commentary by Parame\u015bvara, edited by Kripa Shankar Shukla, was published in 1957 by the University of Lucknow. The S\u016brya-siddh\u0101nta<\/em> with the traditional Sanskrit commentary by Kamal\u0101kara Bha\u1e6d\u1e6da, edited by \u015ar\u012bcandra P\u0101\u1e47\u1e0deya, was published in 1991 by the Sampurnanand Sanskrit University. There are a few other Sanskrit editions of the S\u016brya-siddh\u0101nta<\/em>, apparently secondary or derivative, that I have not seen.<\/p>\n

The Sanskrit text of the S\u016brya-siddh\u0101nta<\/em> is included in the 2007 English translation of Bimal\u0101 Pras\u0101da Siddh\u0101nta Sarasvat\u012b, but in Bengali script rather than devan\u0101gar\u012b, and also in Roman script (but with so many errors that it cannot be relied on). The Sanskrit text of the S\u016brya-siddh\u0101nta<\/em> in Roman script is also included as an appendix in A. K. Chakravarty\u2019s 2001 book, The S\u016bryasiddh\u0101nta (The Astronomical Principles of the Text)<\/em>. Several of these Sanskrit editions and English translations are now available at the Digital Library of India.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The S\u016brya-siddh\u0101nta is by far the most widely used Sanskrit text on astronomy. It has been held in great esteem in India. Its opening verses say that an incarnation of the sun taught it to the great asura named Maya at the end of the last k\u1e5bta-yuga, or age of perfection. According to the information […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[36,38],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-314","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-noteworthy-books","category-occult-chronology"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/314","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/5"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=314"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/314\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":315,"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/314\/revisions\/315"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=314"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=314"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=314"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}