The fact that Aryabhata was bom 476 A. D. makes it a little doubtful whether Albïrünï is right in assigning the year 505 A. D. as the date of the Pancasiddhantika. The verse actually quoted in the treatise of Varaha-mihira is the following:
Udayo yo Lankayam so 'stamayah Savitur eva Siddhapure | madhyahno Yamakotyam Romakavisaye 'rdharatrah syat ||
«At the time of the sun's rising at Lanka, he is setting in the city of the Blessed (insulae fortunatae)\it is midday in Yamakoti and midmght in the land of the Romans.»1 It is vs. 13 of Ch. 3 in the Siddhanta.
The Dagagïti contains twelve stanzas, but we have to deduct the invocation and the colophon, so that the remainder corresponds to the name «Ten stanzas». It is a common, if not universal practice, not to take into account the invocation, nor the colophon, although in our MSS. such verses are numbered as if they formed part of the body of the work. To give one out of many instances, the Sankhya-Karika is said in the colophon to contain seventy stanzas, but with the addition of matter unconnected with the Karika, as such, the number of the stanzas is seventy-two. 2
The Aryabhata-Siddhanta or Aryabhatïyam is a very concise book, for the whole is complete in 111 stanzas in Arya metre. If we deduct from this number the opening and closing stanzas, and also the invocation, placed at the beginning of the 2nd chapter and identical with that of theDagagiti, we get 108. This number coincides so exactly with one of the two sigmfications in which the numeral astagatam may be taken, that there can be no hesitation in pronouncing the Aryastagatam, «thehundredand eight stanzas», to be identical with the Aryabhata-Siddhanta. Colebrooke never having seen a MS. of it, rendered Aryastagatam by «eight-hundred couplets» (Alg. XXXII), and certainly astagatam may mean800, but does not necessarily do so. That in this case it has to be taken in the other sense, is now decided by the testimony of the MS. itself.
i This very stanza I have met with in Sayana's commentary on the Rgveda. I havo
forgotten exactly where.
* Wilson finds it difficult to explain why the Sankhya-Karika should be said to contain seventy, instead of sixty-nine verses. The reason is obvious enough; vs. 71 and 72 have nothing whatever to do with Sankhya philosophy; it is wholly fortmtous and ind, ferent to that philosophy that a certain Ifvara-Krsna composed a poem in 70 verses but the authority for the Sankhya doetrine is to be sure something connected w. h that doctrine. This explanation is properly speaking superfluous, for it matters not whether Ipvara-Krsna is right or wrong in deeming vs. 70 essentially different from v 71 and 72, he does so. I wish only to point out that in doing so he is logical, and that the difficulty is of Wilson's own making; so it could not be expected any commentator would deem it necessary to explain what needs no explanation.