Astronomical Siddhantas - Indian or Foreign???

Generally, many scholars say that India borrowed her astronomy from Greece and Babylon based on some wishful thinking and some statements of Varahamihira and Al-Beruni. In this short essay, we will verify the validity of such arguments.

Recently, the above hypothesis is being proved wrong by referring to various Jain astronomical works which bridge the gap between the period of Vedanga Jyotisa and Siddhantic period. While the Indians ‘may have’ borrowed some ideas like using geometry in astronomy from the Greeks, their astronomical works are largely indigenous and are not mere copies/translations of the Greek texts.

One of the oft repeated arguments of the ‘foreign origin’ school is that Al-Beruni has identified Paulisa Siddhanta with Paulus of Alexandria.

There is no tradition among the Hindus about any Paulus of Greece (Yavana Desa) connected with the Paulisa Siddhanta. The name of the author is ‘Pulisa’. To be noted is the fact that ‘puli’ is a Tamil word for tiger. Hence one need not identify Pulisa with any foreign author. In all probability, he should have been a South Indian rather than a Greek. One reason why Al-Beruni would have considered the work to be named after Paulus is that he knew the Greek astronomers and hence when he saw a name quite close to the name ‘Paulus’, he must have considered it to be named after Paulus of Alexandria. Even from his description of the book in Chapter 14 of his work, one can find that the identification of ‘Paulisa’ with Paulus of Alexandria was done by him and was not told to him by any local informer/pundit. Being so, the act of some scholars in pointing out this passage as an evidence for the external origin of Indian astronomy appears to be an absurd proposition.

Next, we shall take the work ‘Romaka Siddhanta’. In this case, it is possible that the word ‘Romaka’ refers to ‘Rome’ as Al-Beruni claims. But so far, no such Greek/Roman work is known which appears to be the origin of Romaka Siddhanta. The influence of Ptolemy is not to be found in this work. Also, the claim that it was first compiled by Romaka Rishi is advanced by the Indian pundits. Incidentally, it is also possible that the work was composed in India by some European (or his descendent) who had taken to the Indian way of living (like Heliodorus who became a Bhagavata). All in all, one can accept that Romaka Siddhanta was indeed a creation of a foreigner or that some ideas from Rome (or Greece) were incorporated in it.

Next comes the ‘Surya Siddhanta’. Exactly one verse in the Siddhanta speaks about Maya venturing to Romaka to receive the knowledge of astronomy from a barber in that city. It does not give any details of the travel. If indeed the author had traveled to Rome to acquire such knowledge, he would have mentioned atleast some of the difficulties he faced. A question may arise as to why such a verse is found if the author had not traveled to Rome. The following points give a more than satisfactory reply:

The work is claimed to be written by Maya at the end of Krta Yuga.
It is also claimed that the Sun God personally instructed Maya on the nuances of astronomy.
In India, people used to believe that the foreign lands are impure and that only India is the holy land. The Sun God is claimed to have taken the birth of a barber in Rome due to a ‘shaap’.
Thus, we can see that the travel to Rome is part of a mythical story in which Rome most probably got a place because of it being an impure land and it was also one of the most popular cities of the ancient world and hence, the author may have been attracted to it.
Moreover, as in the case of Romaka Siddhanta, no influence of Ptolemy in found (i.e.) the tables given are independent of the Greek/Babylonian tables.

Finally, one question remains. If Indian astronomy is an indigenous development, why is it that in two specific cases, Rome is involved?

The only explanation devoid of extremities can be this:

Ancient Indians had great interest in the night sky as various astronomical happenings are mentioned in the Vedas and such happenings formed the basis for determining the time of their Yagnas.

As shown by Chandra Hari in his paper ‘On the Origin of Sidereal Zodiac and Astronomy’ in ‘Indian Journal of History of Science 33(4), 1998’, the fixed sidereal Zodiac was adopted from the ancient Indians by the Babylonians. But the development of astronomy was somewhat hampered because of the fact that Indians failed to apply advanced geometrical techniques in the field of astronomy. They had attained considerable development in arithmetic and algebra which they used in astronomy with limited success (e.g. Jain astronomical texts).

In the meanwhile, Greeks had obtained greater proficiency in geometry and applied that science in the field of astronomy with spectacular results. Indians came to know about these techniques (application of geometry in astronomy) through the traders and applied them in their own way which was somewhat different from those of Ptolemy. In fact that Ptolemy’s tables are not found in Indian astronomical texts and hence, we can be sure that his ‘Almagest’ had never reached India. Thus, we can say that Indians borrowed some ideas from the Greeks but used them to produce an indigenous system of their own.

(To be noted is the fact that the above analysis has been done on the basis that 'Romaka' refers to Rome or its inhabitants. If any evidence relating to any Indian city known by the same name or any evidence realting to Romaka being a mythical city of Indian mythology (like the cities on Meru), then we can definitely say that Siddhantic astronomy is entirely indigenous as there are no other evidences which point out that they have a foreign origin.)