Fwd: The Discovery of “Aryabhatiya”

[Guest guest]

hinducivilization , " Vedaprakash "

<vedamvedaprakash wrote:

 

 

The Discovery of " Aryabhatiya "

 

Vedaprakash (No.234 dated 18-08-2007)

 

 

 

How " Aryabhatiyam " was discovered? Bhau Daji (1824-1874) in 1864

discovered the manuscripts of Dasagitika and Aryabhatiya. He had

great

difficulty in collecting the manuscripts of Aryabhatiyam, as by that

time the European scholars started smuggling out thousands of

manuscripts. They started confusing and meddling with the

" Aryabhatiyam " manuscripts also, as pointed out by Bahu Daji.

 

 

 

Aryabhatiyam – original Texts not found: As a great many of the

quotations of aryabhata are second hand, for it appears that the

original works were ptactically lost for centuries or the original

works

were neither available npor existed onm;ly in mutilated condition in

the

14th century as note by G. R. Kaye (Notes on Mathematics No.2 –

Aryabhata, JRASB, New series, Vol.IV, 1908, p.111). It is evident

that

the extant works might have been taken away by the Chginese, Arab and

Christian missionaries, as they were very much interested in

collecting

manuscripts, scrolls, tables, charts etc. sending them to their

respective countries, as pointed out by themselves and getting

translated into their languages for further study.

 

 

 

Bhau Daji, who dealt with the age and authenticity of the works of

Aryabhata, Varahamihira, Brahmagupta etc., quoted a passage from Maha

Aryasiddhanta to the effect that the knowledge from the Siddhanta

produced by Aryabhata, which was destroyed, in recessions, by long

time

and hence, he had his own languages stated specifying in rule (Bahau

Daji, The Date and authenticity of the works of Aryabhata,

Varahamihira,

Brahmagupta etc., JRAS, 1864, p.392; Brief Notes on the Age and

authenticity of the works of Aryabhata, Varahamihira, Brahmagupta,

Bhattopala and Bhaskaracharya, Bombay, 1974, pp.121-145).

 

 

 

Al-biruni recorded that he had not been able to find anything of the

books of Aryabhata adding that what he knew of him was through

quotations from given by Brahmagupta (c.628 CE).

 

 

 

Colebrooke opined that a long and diligent research in various parts

of

India failed of recovering the algebraic and other works of Aryabhata

(H. T. Colebrooke, Miscellaneous Essays, ii, p.380).

 

 

 

Thibaut mentioned that the idea of earth rotating on its own axis was

original and Aryabhata did not acquire such views from the Greeks,

adding that he might have been the first or one of the firsts, to

expound the principles of that system in highly condensed and

technical

form, and might have improved the general theory in details.

Particularly, he noted that the main body of doctrine existed before

him

and he did not create it, but merely recast it in a different form

(Thibaut, Indian Thought, 1907, p.215.).

 

 

 

Therefore, the Aryabhatoyam, as available today might have been

written

by the original Aryabhata or a work attributed to the name or

school, as

it had been so popular during 5th-6th centuries and before, but

original

work existing earlier. Writing and composing new works with all

available knowledge and updated data abpout a subject and

circulating or

attributing to a celebrated scholar or school has been a common

practice

not only in India, but also in other countries (K. V. Ramakrishna

Rao,

Origin of " Aryabhata " and " Aryabhata's School, a paper

presented in International Seminar and Colloquim on 1500 years of

Aryabhateeyam " held at Thirivananthapuram from 12th to 16th January

2000, p.6).

 

 

 

Aryabhatiyam is in Arya-metre: The work " Aryabhatiyam " has been

the one that was written in Arya-metre. Even words used have to

follow

the metre. If anybody had, and or talks about " Aryabhatta "

instead of " Aryabhata " , that means that such manuscript is

forged / meddled one, because " bhata " is in Arya-metre and

" Bhatta " is not. (Note, those who support the Keralite

hypothesis mention as " Aryabhatta " ).

 

 

 

John Bentley with forged Aryabhatiya works: John Bentley was having

such

forged or meddled copies or her himself could have meddled to confuse

others. With such manuscripts, Bentley wrote that an Aryasiddhanta

(Maha

Arya Siddhanta) was written in 4423 Kaliyuga or AD 1322 and

accordingly,

he determined the date of Aryabhata as 1322 AD and therefore the work

dated Kaliyuga 3623 or AD 522 was spurious one. Bauj Daji recorded

aptly, " Strtange to say, the date corresponding to AD 1322,

mentioned by Bentley, is not to be found in my copies " . So the fact

being that Aryabhatiyam copies were taken away by Bentley and others.

 

 

 

The different dates of Aryabhata: That the verse 10. of Kalakriya was

also subjected to criticism is evident from the interpretation of the

verse. There had been different versions in reading and

interpretation

of the verse as expressions found in the manuscripts:

 

 

 

1. 60 x 60 = 3600 – 3101 = 499 – 23 = 476 AD / CE.

 

 

 

1. 60 x 60 = 3600 – 3101 = 499 + 78 = 554 AD / CE.

 

 

 

1. AD 522 according to Saka 444; thus, 444 + 78 = 522 AD / CE.

 

 

 

1. 3623 years elapsed; 3600 – 3101 = 522 AD / CE.

 

 

 

1. 60 x 6 = 360; 3101 – 360 = 2741 – 26 = 2715 BC / BCE.

 

 

 

All manuscripts were available, when these scholars were debating

about

it. Naturally, the western scholars were so bewildered about the last

one. So they cleared off such manuscripts as possible. However, that

some Indian scholars were quoting it proved that such manuscripts

were

there.

 

 

 

Colebrooke commenting without seeing " Aryabhatiyam " : Colebrooke,

not even having the works of Aryabhata before him, suggested that the

oldrr work might be a fabrication, but from citations and references

to

Aryabhata in the works of Brahmagupta and Bhatta Utpala, came to a

singularly accurate conclusion as to the age of Aryabhata, whose

works

he thought were different from either treatise in the possession of

Bentley.

 

 

 

Bibhutibhusan Datta concluded that " …….Al-biruni's first

wrong impressions about the existence of two Aryabhtas originated

when

he was in Arabia " (Bibhutibhusan Datta, Two Aryabhatas of Al-biruni,

BCMS, Vol.XVII, No.2 & 3, 1926, p.74).

 

 

 

Al-ntf: What is the work " Al-ntf " mentioned by Sachau in

Albiruni? We know that Zij, the so-called Indian astronomical tables

were characteristically mentioned and it was derived - Sind-hind >

Sinhi

> zinji > znij > zij. As one astronomical work was accepted but its

name

was not known in the " Aryabhatiyam " context, it could be derived

as follows: Hind-Aryabhat > hindarbhat > hindaf > ntf with al- added.

The Arabs added al- making it Arabic and the Europeans used it

accordingly. The expressions al-gamest, al-exandrine, al-gorism,

al-gorithm, al-gum, al-gebra, al-kali, al-kaloid, al-lah, al-chemy,

al-cohol, al-embic, al-manac, al-mighty, al-mond, al-kaya, and so on

tell the fact. These names were derived from the works of Siddhas

during

Siddha-Sufi encounters.

 

 

 

Not to be quoted without permission from:

 

 

 

Institute for the Study of Ancient arts and Sciences,

 

25 (Old.No.9), Venkatachala Iyer Street,

 

West Mambalam,

 

Chennai – 600 033.

 

--- End forwarded message ---