Aryabhatta : two or three persons ?

[Guest guest]

Dear Vinay ji, Within the folder "Chandra Hari" in the files section of the group (url: Chandra%20Hari/ ) you can find many articles which argue that Aryabhata was a Jain from Kerala. Love and regards,Sreenadh , "vinayjhaa16" <vinayjhaa16 wrote:>> 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 an> invention of 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-brahmanical> 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.> 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 siddhhanta just half century after Aryabhatiya> was supposedly compiled.> > Even this daye 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 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.> > 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 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.> 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 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. > > -VJ>