2022-07-25 08:33:11 by arindamsaha1507
This page has not been fully proofread.
on the stanza in question it is, indeed, clear enough that he read; but
in such a matter it is not wholly superfluous to appeal to the direct evidence of ma-
nuscripts.
Though the reading followed by the author of the Prakâçikâ is erroneous, both from
an astronomical and grammatical point of view, it can not be denied that the error was
one of long standing. For we know by Bhaskara's severe criticisms that Lalla, the
author of the Dhivrddhida-Tantra, had fallen into the same error. Now Lalla is more
than once called a disciple of Aryabhata, and whether this statement be rigidly correct
or not, he certainly was a contemporaneous writer, for he uses the same epoch with the
latter, as may be seen p. 58 of this edition.
It is by no means strange that Paramâdîçvara, who was well read in the works of
Bhaskara, disregarded the authority of Lalla and the author of the Prakâçikâ. It is
more strange that a gap occurs in his work exactly at the critical passage. I can not
suppress the suspicion that the defect is not owing to accident, but that it is an inten-
tional erasure by some reader who clung to the opinion of the Prakâçikâ.
Paramâdiçvara's Bhatadipika [is, generally speaking, a useful commentary. I for one
must confess that but for its aid the meaning of many rules in the text would have re-
mained obscure to me. At the same time it must be granted that some of his expla-
nations, e. g. at st. 9 of the 4th section, can not be admitted to be correct.
I have not been able to find out the time of Paramâdîçvara, but this much is certain
that he is posterior to Sûryadeva-Yajvan, the author of the Bhataprakâça or Prakûçikâ,
whom he frequently quotes. The Prakâça is here and there more prolix, but contains
after all no more information than the more recent Dîpikâ. Copies of it are far from
scarce, at least in Southern India. One very bad copy makes part of the Mackenzie col-
lection *); an excellent one has been kindly lent to me by Dr. BURNELL. Both manu-
scripts are in the Grantham character. In the library of Trinity College, Cambridge,
there is an abridged copy of it in Nâgarit); see Prof. AUFRECHT's Catalogue, p. 37.
*) In the old catalogue the ,, Prakâça composed by Sûryadeva" has been transformed into a Commentary on the
Sûryasiddhanta," it has long been lying hidden under this disguise, until Dr. Rost discovered the nistake.
t) Not Devanagari, a term unheard of in Hindustan. It is, in fact, no word at all, but a grammatical blunder;
see Panini VII, 3,24. By supposing that derandgari may mean ,,Nagari of the gods" we may save grammar, but at
the price of common sense.
in such a matter it is not wholly superfluous to appeal to the direct evidence of ma-
nuscripts.
Though the reading followed by the author of the Prakâçikâ is erroneous, both from
an astronomical and grammatical point of view, it can not be denied that the error was
one of long standing. For we know by Bhaskara's severe criticisms that Lalla, the
author of the Dhivrddhida-Tantra, had fallen into the same error. Now Lalla is more
than once called a disciple of Aryabhata, and whether this statement be rigidly correct
or not, he certainly was a contemporaneous writer, for he uses the same epoch with the
latter, as may be seen p. 58 of this edition.
It is by no means strange that Paramâdîçvara, who was well read in the works of
Bhaskara, disregarded the authority of Lalla and the author of the Prakâçikâ. It is
more strange that a gap occurs in his work exactly at the critical passage. I can not
suppress the suspicion that the defect is not owing to accident, but that it is an inten-
tional erasure by some reader who clung to the opinion of the Prakâçikâ.
Paramâdiçvara's Bhatadipika [is, generally speaking, a useful commentary. I for one
must confess that but for its aid the meaning of many rules in the text would have re-
mained obscure to me. At the same time it must be granted that some of his expla-
nations, e. g. at st. 9 of the 4th section, can not be admitted to be correct.
I have not been able to find out the time of Paramâdîçvara, but this much is certain
that he is posterior to Sûryadeva-Yajvan, the author of the Bhataprakâça or Prakûçikâ,
whom he frequently quotes. The Prakâça is here and there more prolix, but contains
after all no more information than the more recent Dîpikâ. Copies of it are far from
scarce, at least in Southern India. One very bad copy makes part of the Mackenzie col-
lection *); an excellent one has been kindly lent to me by Dr. BURNELL. Both manu-
scripts are in the Grantham character. In the library of Trinity College, Cambridge,
there is an abridged copy of it in Nâgarit); see Prof. AUFRECHT's Catalogue, p. 37.
*) In the old catalogue the ,, Prakâça composed by Sûryadeva" has been transformed into a Commentary on the
Sûryasiddhanta," it has long been lying hidden under this disguise, until Dr. Rost discovered the nistake.
t) Not Devanagari, a term unheard of in Hindustan. It is, in fact, no word at all, but a grammatical blunder;
see Panini VII, 3,24. By supposing that derandgari may mean ,,Nagari of the gods" we may save grammar, but at
the price of common sense.