ब्राह्मस्फुटसिद्धान्त (ब्रह्मगुप्त - शून्य, कुट्टक, बीजगणित एवं सम्पूर्ण २१ अध्याय सान्वय सटीक)
Brahmasphuta Siddhanta of Brahmagupta with Commentary
आचार्य ब्रह्मगुप्त द्वारा
पृष्ठ 371, कुल 737 में से
संदर्भ में पढ़ेंBRAHMAGUPTA AND ŚRĪṢEṆA 329 Brahmagupta and Śrīṣeṇa In Varāhamihira's Pañcasiddhāntikā we have a critical review of the five Siddhāntas or five systems of astronomical study : Puliśa Siddhānta, Romaka Siddhānta, Vasiṣṭha Siddhānta, Sūrya Siddhānta and Brāhma Siddhānta. Colebrooke in his Paper “On the notion of the Hindu Astronomers concerning the precession of the equinoxes and motions of the planets”, publi- shed in the Asiatic Researches, vol. xii. p. 209-250, Calcutta. 1816,4 to, reproduced in the Miscellaneous Essays. Vol. II. 1872, says the following in regards to the authorship of these schools of astronomy : All these books are frequently cited in the astrono- mical compilations and are occasionally referred to their real or supposed authors. The first is everywhere assigned to Puliśa, whose name it bears. The Romaka Siddhānta is ascribed by the scholiast of Brahmagupta and by a commentator of the Sūrya Siddhānta to Śrīṣeṇa. The Vāsiṣṭha Siddhānta is by the same authority given to Viṣṇucandra. Both these authors are repeatedly mentioned with censure by Brahma- gupta ; and it is acknowledged that they are entitled to no particular deference. The Brāhma Siddhānta, which is the basis of Brahma- gupta’s work, is not anywhere attributed to a known author ; but referred to in all quotations of it which have fallen under observation, either to the Viṣṇudhar- mottara Purāṇa, of which it is considered as forming a part, or to Brahmā (also called Pitāmaha) who is introduced into it as the speaker in a dialogue with Bhṛgu, or it is acknowledged to be the work of some unknown person. The true author it may be now impracticable to discover, and would be vain to con- jecture. The Sūrya Siddhānta (if the same which we now pos- sess) is in the like manner ascribed to no certain author unless in the passage cited by my colleague Mr. Bently (Asiatic Researches, vol. vi. p. 572) who says that “in the commentary of the Bhāsvatī, it is declared, that