bhatīya. If so, were they based on a lost work of Āryabhata, on the work of another Āryabhata, or were they based on later texts composed by followers of Āryabhata rather than on a work by Āryabhata himself? Especially valuable would be a careful study of Prthūdakasvāmin or Caturvedācārya, the eleventh- century commentator on Brahmagupta, who, to judge from Sudhākara’s use of him in his edition of the Brāhmasphutasiddhānta, frequently disagrees with Brahmagupta and upholds Āryabhata against Brahmagupta’s criticisms.
The present translation, with its brief notes, makes no pretense at completeness. It is a preliminary study based on inadequate material. Of several passages no translation has been given or only a tentative translation has been suggested. A year’s work in India with unpublished manuscript material and the help of competent pundits would be required for the production of an adequate translation. I have thought it better to publish the material as it is rather than to postpone publication for an indefinite period. The present translation will have served its purpose if it succeeds in attracting the attention of Indian scholars to the problem, arousing criticism, and encouraging them to make available more adequate manuscript material.
There has been much discussion as to whether the name of the author should be spelled Āryabhata or Āryabhatta.[1] Bhata means “hireling,” “mercenary,”
- ↑ See especially Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, 1865, pp. 392-93; Journal asiatique (1880), II, 473-81; Sudhākara Dvivedī, Ganakataranginī, p. 2.
