The Five Astronomical Canons

important clause escaped me, as it seems to have escaped Colebrooke Henry Thomas Colebrooke (1765–1837), a pioneering English orientalist and mathematician. and Bhâu Dâjî A renowned Indian physician and Sanskrit scholar (1822–1874).. The text of the passage, as appearing in Colebrooke’s manuscript (now in the India Office Library), runs as follows:—

original: "श्रीषेणविष्णुचंद्रप्रद्युम्नार्यभटलालसिंहानां..." etc. This Sanskrit passage is a polemical critique by Brahmagupta against his predecessors for their lack of consistency in predicting astronomical events.

The other Manuscripts of the Sphuṭa Siddhânta The "Corrected Treatise of Brahma," the main work of the astronomer Brahmagupta, written in 628 CE. known to me (one belonging to the Bombay Government; one, a modern copy, in the library of the Benares College; and one in the Royal Library of Berlin) have some important different readings. They all read in line 1 Lâṭa° A reference to the astronomer Lâṭadeva. instead of Lâla° and in line 5 from Lâṭa, the sun° instead of the end of the Âryâ verse°. In line 7 the Benares manuscript reads from Vasishṭha, Vijaya°; the Berlin manuscript has from Vasishṭha and Chaitranandī the parts made; and the Bombay manuscript from Vasishṭha, the Yuga-beginning, etc., the parts made. In line 8 the Bombay and Benares manuscripts read the calculation of the true positions of the epicycles and nodes from the morning. Line 9 runs in the Berlin manuscript Having taken these, the Romaka of the moon's apogee was made as a story. The Benares manuscript reads having taken, the Romaka made of the jewel-apogee is a story, and the Bombay manuscript having taken, from the Romaka of the jewel-apogee the story was made. In line 10, instead of the Vasishṭha the Benares manuscript has the distinguished, the Bombay manuscript even though it was composed (not to mention less important differences).

The general purport of this passage is clear. It is meant as a criticism of the performance of Śrîsheṇa, who in composing his astronomical text book borrowed rules and processes from various sources, and combined them into an incongruous whole. Leaving aside for the present the second half of line 7, and line 10, we may—emendating the text as given above with the help of the variant readings original: "varietas lectionis"—render the passage as follows.

‘From the fact that Śrîsheṇa, Vishṇuchandra, Pradyumna, Âryabhaṭa, Lâṭa, and Simha contradict one another regarding eclipses and similar topics, their ignorance is proved daily. The criticisms which I (in the preceding part of the chapter) have passed on Âryabhaṭa are, with the requisite modifications, to be applied to the doctrines of each of those teachers as well. I will however make some further critical remarks on Śrîsheṇa and others.

Śrîsheṇa took from Lâṭa the rules concerning the mean motions of the sun and moon, the moon’s apogee and her node, and the mean motions of