Subject: Re: [HM] Indian astronomy and mathematics
From: Dinesh Maheshwari (dsm@cypress.com)
Date: Mon Feb 07 2000 - 16:38:36 EST
Dear HM listmembers,
Let me start by quoting H. Thurston, Early Astronomy, Springer-Verlag,
New Yory, 1994:
"Not only did Aryabhata believe that the earth rotates, but there
are glimmerings in his system (and other similar Indian systems)
of a possible underlying theory in which the earth (and the planets)
orbits the sun, rather than the sun orbiting the earth. The
significant evidence comes from the inner planets: the period of
the sighrocca is the time taken by the planet to orbit the sun."
Mind you, H Thurston's work was published in 1994 and is more recent
than the work of Shukla et al [1976]. [I will expound more on the
concept of sighrocca and mandocca later in the post.]
A paragraph from "Mac tutor's" write-up on Aryabhata reads as follows:
"Aryabhata gives the radius of the planetary orbits in terms of the
radius of the Earth/Sun orbit as essentially their periods of rotation
around the Sun. He believes that the Moon and planets shine by
reflected sunlight, incredibly he believes that the orbits of the
planets are ellipses. He correctly explains the causes of eclipses of
the Sun and the Moon. "
As I mentioned in the private email to Don Cook yesterday(before Kim's post),
[private, because I received his email to me before it was posted on the WEB]
Aryabhata's surviving work Aryabhatiya does not explicitly mention
heliocentric model but assumes a heliocentric model because the planetary
periods in Aryabhatiya are with respect to the Sun.
The sighrocca maps the motion of the inferior planet around the sun to an
imaginary point moving around the earth with the same angular velocity as the
angular velocity of the planet around the sun; it's direction from the earth
is always parallel to the line joining the sun and the inferior planet. For
the superior planets, the sighrocca coincides with the mean place of the sun.
The mandocca, in the case of the moon , is the apogee where the angular
motion is the slowest and in the case of the other planets it is the aphelion
point of the orbit. The mandocca point serves to slow down the motion from
the apogee to perigree and speed up the motion from the perigree to the
apogee. (It is a representation of the non-uniform motion of the planet.)
What is evident from the concept of sighrocca is that there were two
reference systems -
1. heliocentric system for measurement - the measurement of the period
of the planets was done with respect to the Sun, indicating that this
was the real system.
2. geocentric system for rendering/predicting observations from earth -
the movement of the planets were mapped to an imaginary point around the
earth; perhaps to facilitate event observations to synchronize "religious
rituals" (Indian astronomy has always been closely associated with "religious
rituals"). Perhaps, the _Khandakhadyaka_ refers to this system only for
purpose of, as KP mentions, "computations of time and position" with respect to
the earth of the heavenly bodies for "religious rituals".
The word "Siddhanta" in Sanskrit literally means "theory/Philosophy" and is
the common way of denoting a theoretical work e.g. Surya Siddhanta,
Brahmasphuta Siddhanta, Siddhanta Shiromani etc. I would expect Aryabhata
to have expounded on the theory of the astronomy in detail in _Aryabhatiya_
Sidhanta - sidhanta being the more theoretical work. And that's why I am
looking for it.
BTW, there are hints of an idea of a heliocentric system even before in
_Satapatha_Brahamana_(SB)[. Consider SB 8.7.3.10 which says -
"The sun strings these worlds - the earth, the planets, the atmosphere-
to himself on a thread. This thread is the same as the wind"
The atmosphere here refers to the "ether" and the "wind" refers to
the "cosmic wind" which was supposed to hold the system together.
> I'd like to urge the list to keep in mind a few basic historiographical
> precepts: i) While there is indeed a great deal that remains unknown or
> unverified about all aspects of Indian astronomy---and while the
> "standard view" of them will certainly be changed in many ways by future
> discoveries---much is known, and much has been published.
Perhaps what is more important are the motivations behind through whose
eyes "much is known". Consider the following cases:
1. In a letter to his wife, MaxMuller ("the" Indologist) wrote:
"This edition of mine and the translation of the Veda will hereafter tell
to a great extent... the fate of India, and on the growth of millions of
souls in that country. It is the root of their religion, and to show them
what the root is, I feel sure, the only way of uprooting all that has sprung
from it during the last 3000 years." MaxMuller was writing in the context of
uprooting Hinduism.
2. Monier-Williams, (another famous Indologist) in a speech given at Oxford
to the Missionary Congress on 2 May 1877, said: "When the walls of the mighty
fortress of Brahminism are encircled, undermined, and finally stormed by
the soldiers of the Cross, the victory of Christianity must be signal and
complete."
3. More recently, the world-class Sanskrit philologist Michael Witzel of
Harvard, a staunch proponent of the Aryan Invasion theory(AIT), in his
endeavour to find proof for the now waning and weak AIT, mistranslates a
simple line from Baudha^yana Shrauta Su^tra in his article "Rgvedic History",
in G. Erdosy, ed.: The Indo-Aryans of Ancient South Asia, Berlin 1995,
p.321). The mistranslated line is used to corroborate AIT. Unfortunately
for him, people notice the mistranslation because it is a simple line. One
can only guess as to why a world class philologist would mistranslate.
The point is - history is sometimes (perhaps more often) written and
manipulated by the dominant "economic/military" group towards their point
of view and interest. In such a scenario, "much is known" is "much of
misinformation" coming from the most established "intellectual" circles.
As in exact sciences, I think, it is indeed healthy to question the prevalent
theories of history with a healthy dose of skepticism whenever there is a
slightest doubt or a new information surfaces; instead of fitting the
new information into old theories.
> ii) Much of the material disseminated in such an open forum as the WWWeb,
> in any field, is notoriously untrustworthy.
I think, the WWWeb does allow the sincere scholars who cannot and/or would
not usurp the authority of the "established" institutions, to
present their case to the multitude of people. And while there is certainly
some false information on the WWWeb, a good researcher can wade through it
and has the freedom of finding and verifying information on his/her own
rather than being force-fed by the few in the "established" institutions.
> iii) Earth-shattering and truly revolutionary discoveries in any field
> are rare: the truth of such claims often works out to be about inversely
> proportional to their impressiveness and their frequency.
Well, if there has been "much of misinformation", as in the case of assumption
of the Indian astronomy being derived from Greek astronomy, then even a little
bit of "real information" can be "truly revolutionary".
I think, the people on this forum are mature, capable and open-minded enough
to make up their own mind and need not be "told "as to what to trust and what
not to trust.
Best Regards,
Dinesh
--
Dinesh Maheshwari
Advanced Design Methods
Cypress Semiconductor
San Jose, CA, USA
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Tue Feb 08 2000 - 02:24:21 EST