Onderstaande tekst is niet 100% betrouwbaar

that the treatise Pancasiddhantika followed the doctrine of the SüryaSiddhanta in respect to the grahayuddham, an astrological name for conjunction, we may conclude that the Sürya-Siddhanta contained some matter which would find a place more appropriately in an astrological work. It was at least not wholly free of astrological influence, in so far that in some respects it did not disregard the terminology of the Samhita's. The Sürya-Siddhanta, current in the days of Albïrünï, is ascribed by him to Lata, and as the Arab expresses the received opinion of the native astronomers, unless where he intimates his dissent, there is every reason to believe that Lata was really, if not the original author, at least the author of the recast, as it was current in the first half of the eleventh century. Latabeing anterior to Varaha-mihira, as we shall see hereafter, it may be that Varahamihira means by Sürya-Siddhanta Lata's work, but for aught we know it may as well have been a still older edition, to use a not very adequate but sufficiently clear expression. BhattaUtpala mentions the Sürya-Siddhanta comparatively ver)- seldom, only six glokas are quoted, which I subjoin in the foot-note 1, because not one of them recurs in the Sürya-Siddhanta in its present shape. Five of the six verses must, to all appearance, have belonged to the same chapter, and the substance of two, at least, is found in the present Sürya-Siddhanta in rather different words, so that it is impossible to admit their being perchance various readings or interpolations. The conclusion we have to draw from the preceding is, however, by no means that arrived at by Bentley. He places, indeed, the Sürya-Siddhanta in the 1 lth century of our era, but we have to take his words in the meaning he attached to them, and the only meaning which is consistent with the other conclusions he thought himself justified in drawing from the dis-

opinion. It may be also that the author had divided his treatise into chapters, each of which treated of the five Siddhantas severally, instead of giving an ecleotic view of his own, based upon the study of the groundworks.

1 They are:

Tejasam golakah Süryo graharksany ambugolakah |

prabhavanto hi dr^yante Süryarai^mividlpitah ||

mahata9 capy adhahsthasya nityam bhasayate Ravih |

ardham (Ja^ankabimbasya na dvitïyaip kathancana||

viprakarsam yatha yati hy adhastac Candrama Raveli J tatha tasya ca bhüdr^yam am^am bhasayate E,avih||

bhücchayam Qa^ikaksaya Ravau bhardhantarasthite (MSS. bliava0,

bhaga°) |

yada vi9aty aviksipta^ Candrah syat tadgrahas tada|| Indunacchaditam Süryam adho' viksiptagamina|

na pa^yanti yada loke tada syad Bhaskaragrahah ||

The nearest approach in the present Sürya-siddhanta to these lines, is IV. 6 to the fifth, and IV. 9 to the sixtli; but the distance is great.