2022-07-25 08:36:20 by arindamsaha1507
This page has not been fully proofread.
PREFACE.
krtam."
XI
ing of those elements is ascribed to supernatural agency, quite in the fashion in which
Panini in the story is told to have received the Çivasûtrâni.
There is one manuscript of the Prakâça belonging to the library of the Roy. As.
Soc., London, which is interspersed with the annotations of a certain Yellayen, or as
the name sounds in Sanskritised form: Yallaya, son to Cridharâcârya and pupil to Sûr-
yadeva. So we find in the second chapter (p. 12 of the MS.) the words: ,,atha Kala-
kriyâpâdasya Sûryadevena Yajvanâ krtavyâkhyânam samagram api Cri-Bâlâdityasuta-
Sûryâcâryaçishyena vipaçcitâ Yallayâkhyena mayâ kiucid utpâdya *) vyâkhyânam
Again at the end of the whole work we read:
,,iti Crî-Sûryadeva-Yajvanâ viracitâryabhataprakâças samâptak | iti Cri-Candracekhara-
varalabdhavâgvibhavena Cri-Bâlâdityasuta-Sûryâcâryaçishyena Yallayakhyena vipaçcità
Aryabhataprokta-golapâdasya kiñcit tâtparyavyâkhyânam krtam."
From a casual expression in the same manuscript (p. 48) I gather that once there
existed several commentaries +) on the works of Aryabhata. The passage runs thus:
,, etad-api dinginâtrenâsmábhir uktam, vistaratas tu Bhâshyâdishu drashtavyam."
Whether the works allnded to are still extant is a question that waits for an
answer from learned Hindus or Europeans having access to unexplored Indian libraries.
In the mean while this edition of the Aryâshtaçatam will, it is hoped, be conducive to
a more accurate knowledge of the ancient astronomer's system, and stimulate the interest
of Indian and European scholars. It will be understood that with the scanty, however
valuable, materials at my disposal, I could not attempt to constitute the text such
as the author published it. What I could give, is the text Paramâdîçvara had
before him.
In spelling and interpunction I have kept close to the manuscripts, with this ex-
ception that the doubling of consonants after the has been done away with, and the
dental / substituted to the lingual one, corresponding with the Nagari . Here and
there I have added words of my own to fill up ugly gaps, e. g. p. 97, 1. 15, sq.
---------
*) The word utpadya is here unintelligible, at least to me. One would expect ristirya or some synonymous term.
+) The commentary by Bhútavishzu must have been one of them. See Prof. Whitney, Journ Amer. Or. Soc.
VI. 561.
krtam."
XI
ing of those elements is ascribed to supernatural agency, quite in the fashion in which
Panini in the story is told to have received the Çivasûtrâni.
There is one manuscript of the Prakâça belonging to the library of the Roy. As.
Soc., London, which is interspersed with the annotations of a certain Yellayen, or as
the name sounds in Sanskritised form: Yallaya, son to Cridharâcârya and pupil to Sûr-
yadeva. So we find in the second chapter (p. 12 of the MS.) the words: ,,atha Kala-
kriyâpâdasya Sûryadevena Yajvanâ krtavyâkhyânam samagram api Cri-Bâlâdityasuta-
Sûryâcâryaçishyena vipaçcitâ Yallayâkhyena mayâ kiucid utpâdya *) vyâkhyânam
Again at the end of the whole work we read:
,,iti Crî-Sûryadeva-Yajvanâ viracitâryabhataprakâças samâptak | iti Cri-Candracekhara-
varalabdhavâgvibhavena Cri-Bâlâdityasuta-Sûryâcâryaçishyena Yallayakhyena vipaçcità
Aryabhataprokta-golapâdasya kiñcit tâtparyavyâkhyânam krtam."
From a casual expression in the same manuscript (p. 48) I gather that once there
existed several commentaries +) on the works of Aryabhata. The passage runs thus:
,, etad-api dinginâtrenâsmábhir uktam, vistaratas tu Bhâshyâdishu drashtavyam."
Whether the works allnded to are still extant is a question that waits for an
answer from learned Hindus or Europeans having access to unexplored Indian libraries.
In the mean while this edition of the Aryâshtaçatam will, it is hoped, be conducive to
a more accurate knowledge of the ancient astronomer's system, and stimulate the interest
of Indian and European scholars. It will be understood that with the scanty, however
valuable, materials at my disposal, I could not attempt to constitute the text such
as the author published it. What I could give, is the text Paramâdîçvara had
before him.
In spelling and interpunction I have kept close to the manuscripts, with this ex-
ception that the doubling of consonants after the has been done away with, and the
dental / substituted to the lingual one, corresponding with the Nagari . Here and
there I have added words of my own to fill up ugly gaps, e. g. p. 97, 1. 15, sq.
---------
*) The word utpadya is here unintelligible, at least to me. One would expect ristirya or some synonymous term.
+) The commentary by Bhútavishzu must have been one of them. See Prof. Whitney, Journ Amer. Or. Soc.
VI. 561.