पञ्चसिद्धान्तिका (आचार्य वराहमिहिर - सूर्य, रोमक, पौलिश, वासिष्ठ एवं पितामह सिद्धान्त)

INTRODUCTION XV The edition of Pañcasiddhāntikā which is now issued is also based on the manuscripts used for the two above-said editions. The question that would naturally arise here would be: Why then is the need for another edition when no new source material is to be had? The answer is threefold: i. First, it was felt that in reconstructing the text from the corrupt manuscripts, which alone are available, both TS and NP have subscribed to an editorial principle voiced by Thibaut when he says: “What, in the attempt to reconstitute the text of an astronomical or mathematical work, has chiefly to be kept in view, is of course to arrive at rules which are capable of being proved mathematically. This consideration has, in more than one place, led us to introduce changes even where such appeared hardly to be required by the external form of the traditional text.” (Introduction, p.lxi), And, this they have done to an extent which seems to be hardly justified in editing a classical text. Then again, such emendations are often inserted without specific indication, especially in the edited text of NP, with the result that the reader takes the emended text as the ‘real’ manuscript text. The translation and interpretations that follow are, primarily, based on the emended text and not on the ‘real’ text. In fact, an editorial principle which has to be applied with the utmost caution and in as limited a manner as possible, seems to have been used rather extensively. In the present edition of Pañcasiddhāntikā, the principle of sthitasya gatiś cintanīyā, ‘justification of the extant reading should be thought of’, has been primarily adhered to, alongside the correction of the copyist’s errors by visualising the psychology of the scribe who is illiterate with reference both to the language and the subject of the text. ‘Real’ emendations have been comparatively small and far between. In all cases, however, when changes had to be made to the manuscripts readings, they have been specifically indicated by their being placed within curved brackets in the case of scribal errors and in square brackets in the case of editorial supplementation. And, whenever there has been an emendation, the reasons for suggesting the emendation have been given in the Notes that follow each verse. ii. Secondly, in a number of places, TS nor NP do not seem to have caught the correct import of the text and this has affected their Translation and Notes. All these have been attempted to be rectified. In many places, the untenability of the TS and NP readings, translations and notes have also been pointed out. iii. Thirdly, and what is most important, special effort has been made to digest the textual verses fully, and offer, in the case of knotty places and apparently vague passages, detailed interpretations and elucidations, adumbrated with tables and illustrations. Moreover, a number of examples have also been worked out to illustrate the rules enunciated by Varāhamihira. Under the circumstances, it is to be hoped that the present publication will form another step towards understanding and evaluating the principles and practices of early Indian astronomy. 2. Source Material A-B. The available manuscripts of Pañcasiddhāntikā, of which five have been collated for prepar- ing the present edition, fall into two recensions which have been designated as A and B. Common corruptions and omissions indicate that even these two recensions go back to a common original which too should have been far from perfect in the matter of accuracy. The technical nature of the work, brizzling with unusual terminology, have made the scribes commit all types of imaginable errors except in the case of well-known words and expressions. These errors include, as a reference to the footnotes recorded in the edition would show, wrong spellings, erratic sandhi-s and splitting