Sign in or 
Share this
Aryabhatta : two or three persons ?
The author of Aryabhatiya was most probably a brahmin, which is evinced by the mangalaacharana at the start of Aryabhatiya. He hailed perhaps from Maharashtra (Ashmaka janapada) but lived at the village Khagola of Kusumpur (Patna); this village still bears the name Khagola in his fond memory.
It is alleged that he did not adhere to the Vedic-Puranic concepts of astrology/astronomy in many crucial fields. It is not true. The theoretic framework of all his ideas were 100% according to Vedic-Puranic tradition, including the bhoo-bramana-siddhaanta. Geocentric or heliocentric theories are not found in any ancient text of Vedic-Puranic tradition, we find everywhere references to Merucentric view of the Cosmos, in which even the Earth must revolve round the Meru. This Meru was on Eart's surface, not at its centre. The Britishers renamed this Mt Meru as Mt Kenya and propagated wrong notions of Geocentricism about ancient Indians. Geocentricism was propagated by Roman Church, Indians believed in Merucentricism.
The fact that the author of Aryabhatiya was vehemently opposed by Brahmagupta and others is wrongly used to prove non-Vedic origins of Aryabhatta. Brahmagupta and others opposed the author of Aryabhatiya because Aryabhatiya tampered with the quantities in yuga-bhagana-maana (mean motions of planets) and great time cycles, and his notion of bhoo-bhrama was also misinterpreted. Aryabhatiya adhered to the overall framework of old concepts but changed the values of terms. Most probably, the reason was that any authentic copy of Suryasiddhanta was not available to the author of Aryabhatiya, hence he tried to evolve his own quantities. That is why he did not mention Suryasiddhanta, which was lauded by Varah Mihir as the most clear of all siddhhantas just half century after Aryabhatiya was supposedly compiled.
Even this date of compilation of Aryabhatiya based upon wrong premises. Aryabhatiya uses AD 499 (3600 years after Kaliyuga) for its Karana method of planetary computations, because AD 499 was the date of zero ayanamsha according to Suryasiddhantic and all ancient schools. In Karana method, some nearby date is chosen for making the tables and equations. If this date is previous yuga start then it is called Tantra technique in Jyotisha, and if this date is chosen to be beginning of Creation then it is called Siddhaanta technique. It is noteworthy that in all these three methods of making panchangas, some previous date is chosen, which has some important astronomical significance. 499 AD was the year of zero ayanamsha. Hence, it was a date preceding the compilation of Aryabhatiya. it also suggests Aryabhatiya had something to do with Suryasiddhantic ayanamsha.
There was another Aryabhatta who was a commentator of Suryasiddhanta. Suryasiddhanta and Aryabhatiya have fundamental differences in two important respects : Aryabhatiya does not adhere to Suryasiddhantic quantities for mean motions in all cases, and Aryabhatiya changes the sequence of four processes needed in making true planets from mean planets. All other astrologers/astronomers adhered to Suryasiddhantic schemes in these respects, and rejected the values given in Aryabhatiya as well. Planetary positions computed according to Aryabhatiya differ from Suryasiddhantic planets by great margins even for 499 AD. Hence, it is foolish to believe that the author of Aryabhatiya was same as the commmentator of Suryasiddhanta, as many authors are now propagating. These modern authors have not tried to compute and compare planetary positions according to ancient texts. Al Beruni had distinguished the author of Aryabhatiya from the commentator of Suryasiddhanta. There was a third Aryabhatta who wrote Mahasiddhanta much later, and broadly followed Suryasiddhantic schemes.
=======================================================================
Aryabhatiya uses a value 1577917500 , which is 300 less than the value cited by Varaha Mihira. The ratio of 300 days to 6 hours is 1200 : 1, which is equal to the ratio 4320000 : 3600. The latter is the ratio of years in a mahayuga to years elapsed since the onset of Kaliyuga.
Aryabhatiya is a Tantra text. In Ganita Jyotisha, Tantra is that method of preparing tables for handy reference of a panchanga maker which gives data from the beginning of previous sub-period, Kaliyuga in this case. Siddhaanta, on the other hand, computes from beginning of Creation, and is not used by panchanga-makers. Siddhaanta is used only for making Tantra and Karana texts.
While prepering a Tantra manual for panchanga-makers, the author of Aryabhatiya had to modify the mahayuga-bhagana-maan (revolutions per mahayuga) so that people could compute from onset of Kaliyuga using sunrise time, instead of midnight time which is used in all Siddhaantas. Therefore, he substracted 300 days in mahayuga-ahargana and added 6 hours in current time as reckoned from Kaliyuga's onset and not from mahayuga's or Shristi's onset. Thus, the results obtained from tables based on sunrise will be same as those obtained from tables on midnight.
Actual computational tables of Aryabhatiya or Panchsiddhantika have not survived, which is leading to so much confusion created by self-proclaimed expaerts like Burgess who did not understand the intricacies of Indian astronomy. Panchanga-makers do not divulge their secrets to others due to business reasons. This secrecy resulted in loss of ancient tables. But ancient tables of Suryasiddhanta have survived due to the fact that Suryasiddhanta remained in use continuously over a wide part of north India and some regions of south India.
Burgess had an access to these Suryasiddhantic tables which are famous as Makaranda Tables, but Burgess read only the published version of Benteley. Burgess perhaps did not read the non-mathematical portions of Makaranda Tables or had no access to them in spite of his 8 years spent in these endeavours. The first verse of Makaranda Tables says : "Shree Suryasiddhaanta matena samyag-vishva-upkaaraayaaya..." . Unfortunately, followers of Christian priest Burgess do not recognize the living tradition of India and live in a make-believe world assuming Burgess to be the final world in the field of ancient Indian astronomy. Such persons should read Makaranda Tables in whole before arguing in favour of Burgess. Makaranda Tables precede the earlist existing commentary on Suryasiddhanta by 14 centuries.
http://www.ChangingLINKS.com
It is alleged that he did not adhere to the Vedic-Puranic concepts of astrology/astronomy in many crucial fields. It is not true. The theoretic framework of all his ideas were 100% according to Vedic-Puranic tradition, including the bhoo-bramana-siddhaanta. Geocentric or heliocentric theories are not found in any ancient text of Vedic-Puranic tradition, we find everywhere references to Merucentric view of the Cosmos, in which even the Earth must revolve round the Meru. This Meru was on Eart's surface, not at its centre. The Britishers renamed this Mt Meru as Mt Kenya and propagated wrong notions of Geocentricism about ancient Indians. Geocentricism was propagated by Roman Church, Indians believed in Merucentricism.
The fact that the author of Aryabhatiya was vehemently opposed by Brahmagupta and others is wrongly used to prove non-Vedic origins of Aryabhatta. Brahmagupta and others opposed the author of Aryabhatiya because Aryabhatiya tampered with the quantities in yuga-bhagana-maana (mean motions of planets) and great time cycles, and his notion of bhoo-bhrama was also misinterpreted. Aryabhatiya adhered to the overall framework of old concepts but changed the values of terms. Most probably, the reason was that any authentic copy of Suryasiddhanta was not available to the author of Aryabhatiya, hence he tried to evolve his own quantities. That is why he did not mention Suryasiddhanta, which was lauded by Varah Mihir as the most clear of all siddhhantas just half century after Aryabhatiya was supposedly compiled.
Even this date of compilation of Aryabhatiya based upon wrong premises. Aryabhatiya uses AD 499 (3600 years after Kaliyuga) for its Karana method of planetary computations, because AD 499 was the date of zero ayanamsha according to Suryasiddhantic and all ancient schools. In Karana method, some nearby date is chosen for making the tables and equations. If this date is previous yuga start then it is called Tantra technique in Jyotisha, and if this date is chosen to be beginning of Creation then it is called Siddhaanta technique. It is noteworthy that in all these three methods of making panchangas, some previous date is chosen, which has some important astronomical significance. 499 AD was the year of zero ayanamsha. Hence, it was a date preceding the compilation of Aryabhatiya. it also suggests Aryabhatiya had something to do with Suryasiddhantic ayanamsha.
There was another Aryabhatta who was a commentator of Suryasiddhanta. Suryasiddhanta and Aryabhatiya have fundamental differences in two important respects : Aryabhatiya does not adhere to Suryasiddhantic quantities for mean motions in all cases, and Aryabhatiya changes the sequence of four processes needed in making true planets from mean planets. All other astrologers/astronomers adhered to Suryasiddhantic schemes in these respects, and rejected the values given in Aryabhatiya as well. Planetary positions computed according to Aryabhatiya differ from Suryasiddhantic planets by great margins even for 499 AD. Hence, it is foolish to believe that the author of Aryabhatiya was same as the commmentator of Suryasiddhanta, as many authors are now propagating. These modern authors have not tried to compute and compare planetary positions according to ancient texts. Al Beruni had distinguished the author of Aryabhatiya from the commentator of Suryasiddhanta. There was a third Aryabhatta who wrote Mahasiddhanta much later, and broadly followed Suryasiddhantic schemes.
=======================================================================
Two different theories, one from midnight and the other from sunrise
The crude Suryasiddhanta mentioned in Panchasiddhantika gives the days from mahayuga's beginning as 1577917800 (against the accurate value of 1577917828 mentioned in real Suryasiddhanta which Britishers call "new", because they wanted to prove that accuracy was a result of evolution).Aryabhatiya uses a value 1577917500 , which is 300 less than the value cited by Varaha Mihira. The ratio of 300 days to 6 hours is 1200 : 1, which is equal to the ratio 4320000 : 3600. The latter is the ratio of years in a mahayuga to years elapsed since the onset of Kaliyuga.
Aryabhatiya is a Tantra text. In Ganita Jyotisha, Tantra is that method of preparing tables for handy reference of a panchanga maker which gives data from the beginning of previous sub-period, Kaliyuga in this case. Siddhaanta, on the other hand, computes from beginning of Creation, and is not used by panchanga-makers. Siddhaanta is used only for making Tantra and Karana texts.
While prepering a Tantra manual for panchanga-makers, the author of Aryabhatiya had to modify the mahayuga-bhagana-maan (revolutions per mahayuga) so that people could compute from onset of Kaliyuga using sunrise time, instead of midnight time which is used in all Siddhaantas. Therefore, he substracted 300 days in mahayuga-ahargana and added 6 hours in current time as reckoned from Kaliyuga's onset and not from mahayuga's or Shristi's onset. Thus, the results obtained from tables based on sunrise will be same as those obtained from tables on midnight.
Actual computational tables of Aryabhatiya or Panchsiddhantika have not survived, which is leading to so much confusion created by self-proclaimed expaerts like Burgess who did not understand the intricacies of Indian astronomy. Panchanga-makers do not divulge their secrets to others due to business reasons. This secrecy resulted in loss of ancient tables. But ancient tables of Suryasiddhanta have survived due to the fact that Suryasiddhanta remained in use continuously over a wide part of north India and some regions of south India.
Burgess had an access to these Suryasiddhantic tables which are famous as Makaranda Tables, but Burgess read only the published version of Benteley. Burgess perhaps did not read the non-mathematical portions of Makaranda Tables or had no access to them in spite of his 8 years spent in these endeavours. The first verse of Makaranda Tables says : "Shree Suryasiddhaanta matena samyag-vishva-upkaaraayaaya..." . Unfortunately, followers of Christian priest Burgess do not recognize the living tradition of India and live in a make-believe world assuming Burgess to be the final world in the field of ancient Indian astronomy. Such persons should read Makaranda Tables in whole before arguing in favour of Burgess. Makaranda Tables precede the earlist existing commentary on Suryasiddhanta by 14 centuries.
http://www.ChangingLINKS.com
vinay_jha |
Latest page update: made by vinay_jha
, Jan 9 2009, 10:45 PM EST
(about this update
About This Update
Edited by vinay_jha
1 word added view changes - complete history) |
|
Keyword tags:
Aryabhatta
Suryasiddhanta
vedi astrology
More Info: links to this page
|
There are no threads for this page.
Be the first to start a new thread.
