English
1500 — Determines the cosmicfU rising qf Canopus at Benares for that year — The spurious Arya SiddJumta examined, and shown to be a modem forgery — The system it contmns, how framed-- Gives the proportion qf the diameter qf a circle to its circun^erence the same as Bhaskara — Quotes the Brahma Siddhantay Brahma Gapta, and the Surya Siddhanta — The PuUsa Siddhanta, another forgery, noticed — For- geries of books iimmnerable — The Brahma Siddhanta Sphuta, another for* gery — The olyect of the forgery — The spurums Brahma Siddhanta quotes the spurious Arya Siddhanta, PuUsa Siddhanta, and Varaha Mihira, thereby proving it to be a forgery, and, perhaps, by the same individual — Quota^ tions made from it to show the same — Mistake about the positions of the Colures, and the meaning of the terms Aries, Taurus, Sfc. — Interpolations — Vishnu Chandra, 8^c. About the year A.D. 1556, the emperor Jelaledeen Mahomed Akber ascended the throned This prince was universally esteemed as a great encourager of learning, and of learned men of all nations ; iii con- sequence of which, a number of works on various subjects were continually presented to him, and among these was the Lilavati of Bhaskara Acharya. This work, in order to increase its value, as well as to exalt the abilities of the Hindus as men of science in the eyes of the emperor, was given out to be then several centuries old ; and that it was not the work Digitized by Google OF THE HINDUS. 16^ of Bhaskara Acharya, who was then living, but of another person of the same name, who lived as fer back as the year A.D. 1150. By this Brahminical contrivance, two Bhaskara Acharyas were framed out of one. But it so happened that Bhaskara Acharya, in one of his works, the Siddhanta Siromam, mentioned the name of Varaha, who appears above to have written only twenty-six years before Akber ascended the throne, and consequently might then be still living. This untoward circumstance was, therefore, likely to overturn the whole imposition ; and, if observed, instead of getting favour with the emperor, they would be considered as cheats and impostors : therefore, to save appearances and their credit, the same method was followed as with Bhaskara, by giving out that the person mentioned by Bhaskara was not the Varaha who wrote a few years before the emperor ascended the throne, but another of the same name, who lived about the time of Raja Bhoj, or his successor, by which means the discovery of the deception was prevented, and two Varaha Mihiras were thus made out of one. It would appear that the matters remained in this state, depending entirely on mere verbal assertions, until the last century, perhaps about the middle of it, when the impositions above stated, were most probably opposed, and nearly overturned. Who the persons were that made the opposition we cannot now ascertain, nor the proofs produced, except by inferences from the various means that appear to have been employed to x^ounteract such proofs. The time of Aryabhatta was known from the date of the Arya Siddhanta, which was still existing ; and Bhaskara Acharya had written a commentary on the Arya Siddhanta, which is supposed to have been the Digitized by Google 166 THE MODERN ASTRONOMY foundation of the Lilavati : consequently Bhaskara must have been posterior to Aryabhatta. Aryabhatta wrote the Arya Siddhanta in the year A.D. 1322, (Sec. III.) but Bhaskara Acharya, (in order to make the Lilavati appear ancient,) was thrown back tq the year 1150, or 172 years before the very person on whose work he wrote a commentary. Here was a most glaring inconsistency, that could not be other- wise than noticed, and as such, fatal to the story of the pretended antiquity of Bhaskara Acharya, as well as to that of Varaha Mihira. Moreover, the positions of the planets given by the Arya Siddhanta proved the trutli of the date of that work, so that there was no room left for subterfuge. These being the proofs, I suppose, that were brought forward, or at least a part of them, we shall now endeavour to show the means that were adopted to counteract them. It was evident, that so long as the Arya Siddhanta was in existence and in circulation, any means they might adopt to counteract the proofs would be useless. It became, therefore, necessary by all means to suppress it, and to fabricate a variety of books, and make interpolations in existing ones, for the express purpose of supporting the antiquity they had thus given, or meant to give, to Varaha Mihira and Bhaskara Acharya. Among the number of books that were thus fabricated to answer this . purpose, we accordingly find a spurious Arya Siddhanta, as a substitute for the real one sup- pressed, but differing entirely from it and appear- ing an imposition on the face of it. We also find a book called tbe Kutuhala, fathered on Bhaskara Acharya, in which the epoch for the positions of the planets is given for the year 1105 Saca, by which it was intended that the worU should believe Digitized by Google OF THE HINDU9. 167 diat he actually lived at that period, and wrote the work. Other works were written to throw back the time of Varuha Mihira, such as the two Bhawatis, pretended to have been written by Satanunda, the fictitious pupil of Varaha ; the epoch of these is the year 1021 Saca. One is made to mention the name of Varaha, and the other to allude to the fire Sidd- hantasy which it was pretended Varaha had written, or compared and examined: consequently, from the epoch thus given, it was intended to establish that Varaha Mihira lived as far back, at least, as the year 1021 Saca^ or A.D. 1099. Besides these, there is a commentary on the Varahi SanhitOy by some person or persons, under the fictitious name of Bhattotpala, given out by the Brahmins of Ujein to be near eight hundred years old ; for this Bhattotpala is pretended to have lived in A. D. 968* : consequently the asser- tions of the Brahmins of Ujein^ if believed, would place Varaha Mihira anterior to A. D. 968 ; for no one will doubt, but that he must be older than his commentator. And to strengthen all this, they had recourse to several interpolations, which they made into the original work of Varaha Mihira, the Varahi Sankita, one of which, in particular, we shall here notice, to show the artfulness of the method that was adopted. They feigned that Varaha Mihira had examined and compared five certain Siddhantas, or works on astronomy, called by the names of the Brahma, the Surj/a the Vasishtha, the Romaka, and the Pulisa Siddhanta, which names they interpolated into the Varahi Sanhita, to support the fiction. They also pretended that Varaha Mihira wrote a work on these • * -Mv. G^lebroeke's Notes and IHostrations, p. xxxiil. Digitized by Google 168 THE MODERN ASTRONOMY &y& Siddhantas, entitled the Pancha Siddhantika, but which work it does not appear that any one has ever yet seen. From this unseen and unheard of work, and which I am disposed to think, never existed, Bhattotpala, the commentator on the Varahi Sanhita, or rather the person who assumed that name, pre- tends to quote a passage, stating that the colure was in the Lunar Asterism Punarvasu when the author wrote that work ; which, as no particular degree is mentioned, would place him between the years A.D. 277 and A.D. 1165. This forgery is, however, completely overthrown, as well as all the others we have mentioned, by the time deduced from the heliacal rising of the Campus mentioned by the author himself in his Sanhita, and by the time for which he gave the positions of the aphelia of the planets in his other work, the Jatakarnava.* It * Mr. Colebrooke is not disposed to belieye the Jdtakdmava a work of Varaba Mihira, because it forms a direct positive proof against ; bim. He says : " Tbe " minor works ascribed to the same author (Varaba Mihira), may have been com- ** posed in later times, and the name of a celebrated author have been affixed to '* them,, according to a practice which is but too common in India, as in many other ** countries. The Jatakamaoa, for example, which has been attributed to hini, may ** not improbably be the work of a different author. At least I am not apprized of any collateral evidence, such as quotations from it in books of some antiquity, to support its genuineness as a work of Varaha Mihira." — ^As. Res. Vol. XII. p. 244.