Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 2

No Contention on known astronomical facts or different equivalences between modern methods and ancient

eccentric-epicyle methods. Ascribing the Tycho Brahe model to Nīlakantha is a mistake – a mistake
occurred by adoptying the AR Rajaraja Varma explanation on Bhāskara-II’s method to Nīlakantha’s work
without acknowledging the Varma contribution and the general equivalence of the Siddhāntic model to
Tycho Brahe model. When Varma’s Bhāskara-II model = Tycho Model thesis is placed against Nīlakantha
= Tycho equivalence, Bhāskara-II = Nīlakantha and any claims of Nīlakantha revising the earlier
planetary theory to formulate the Tycho Brahe model becomes infructuous.
If Heliocentrism is correct with Nīlakantha, why he took Mean Sun as the centre of the Universe instead of
true sun? Shall anybody create a physical model of solar system with an invisible point as the centre? Why
did he compute latitudes with mean sun as referenc if he knew that the orbital planes actually passed
through the visible true sun?
In a physical model, in framing a real picture of the solar system, what role did abstractions like the
Deferents played? Computations had to preserve the apperance and beyond that no reality got percieved
before the time of Kepler. Epicycles were mathematically equivalent to preserve the appearance and
beyond that no reality existed with epicycle. Mean planets had nothing to do with reality in the epicycle
model.
Nīlakantha’s Universe had mean Sun as the centre?

1. I have no difference of opinion on the astronomical facts which you have explained. Not only
Nīlakantha’s method but also Bhaskara’s method can be shown to have parallels with the modern
geometric representation and derivation of longitudes.
 You have concluded on slide 30 that the Planetary Model of Nīlakantha was the same as that of
Tycho Brahe. For this conclusion, no innovation was required on Nīlakantha’s side. The ancient
Indian planetary model long before Nīlakantha as discussed by Bhāskara-II in his Golādhyāya and
Gantādhyāya is shown to depict or imply the Tycho Brahe model was shown by AR Rajaraja Varma
in his book.
 If Bhāskara-II model can be shown to be Tychobrahe model in 1896, and if it is shown in 1994 that
Nīlakantha model is Tycho Brahe, Bhāskara-II minus Nīlakantha is reduced to zero and any claims
of revision by Nīlakantha towards heliocentrism becomes meaningless.
 Why Āryabhata had to term the mean Mercury and Venus to be Śīghroccam? Mercury and Venus
periods were determined from observations of the Planets and he knew that the difference of their
revolutions with the sun also had astronomical significance. Without substantial thinking Āryabhata
would not have drawn a distinction between Mercury-Venus and Mars-Jup-Saturn. Every computed
period had an observational significance and certainly there were factors that inspired distinctive
methods from planet to planet. These distinctive methods shows that there was no general planetary
theory.
 It can be argued that Mean Planet in the case of Mars-Jupiter and Saturn for Āryabhata was heliocentric
mean position and therefore the application of Śīghra correction to the Mandasphutagraha. Role of sun
had been the same as that of the apogee and perigee with sun and moon – hence the sun was called
Śīghrocca, point where the correction was zero.
 Nīlakantha said that what is called in tradition as Śīghrocca in the case of Mercury and Venus are
heliocentric mean planets as is the case with Mars-Jupiter-Sat. He changed the terminology ignoring the
ancient rationale of the term. True longitude is that which is visible and mean planet is that which leads
to the true planet. As such the tradition, termed mean Sun as the mean planet for Mercury and Venus.
 Bhāskara is quoted by Varma and he gives a description of the equivalence of Siddhāntic model
with the Tycho Brahe model in the following words:
ªÉκ¨ÉxÉ ´ÉÞkÉä §É¨ÉÊiÉ JÉäSÉ®úÉä xÉɺªÉ ¨ÉvªÉÆ EÖò¨ÉvªÉä -<iªÉÉÊnù ´ÉSÉxÉä¹ÉÖ Oɽþ§É¨ÉhÉ´ÉÞkÉÉxÉÉÆ ¨ÉvªÉÆ ¦ÉÚ¨ÉvªÉÉiÉÂ
§É¹]õʨÉÊiÉ* ´ÉnùÎxiÉ SÉ EÖòVÉMÉÖ¯û¶ÉxÉè¶SÉ®úÉhÉÉÆ ¶ÉÒQÉÉäSSÉÆ ¦ÉÉxÉÖiÉÖ±ªÉÆ SɱÉiÉÒÊiÉ* +iÉÉä \ÉɪÉiÉä
Oɽþ§É¨ÉhÉ´ÉÞkÉÉxÉɨÉxiÉ®úɱÉ{ÉÉÊiÉÊxÉ EäòxpùÉiÉ ÊEòÎ\SÉnù{ɺÉÞiÉä Eòκ¨ÉzÉÊ{É Ê¤ÉxnùÉä ¦ÉÚÊ®úªÉ¨É´ÉÊiɹ`öiÉä*...
iÉlÉÉ SÉ EÖòVÉÉÊnù§É¨ÉhÉ´ÉÞkÉÉxÉÉÆ EäòxpùºlɺºÉxÉ ºÉÚªÉÇ& iÉè´ÉÞkÇ É躺ɽèþ´É ¦ÉÖ´ÉÆ {ÉÊ®úiÉÉä §É¨ÉÊiÉ* EÖòVÉÉnùªÉºiÉä iÉÖ
ªÉlÉɪÉlÉÆ ºÉÚªÉÈ {ÉÊ®úiÉÉä §É¨ÉÎxiÉ* B´ÉÆ EÖòVÉÉnùªÉÉä ªÉtÊ{É +\VɺÉÉ ¦ÉÖ´ÉÆ xÉ {ÉÊ®ú´Éä¹]õªÉÎxiÉ iÉlÉɃÊ{Éú
¦ÉÖ|ÉnùÊIÉhÉ´ÉÞkɺªÉ ºÉÚªÉǺªÉ |ÉnùÊIÉhÉEòÉÊ®úi´ÉÉiÉ {É®ú¨{É®úªÉÉ nùɺÉnùÉºÉ xªÉɪÉäxÉ ¦ÉִɺºÉ¨ÉÉxiÉÉnäù´É §É¨ÉxiÉÉä
où¶ªÉxiÉ <ÊiÉ ÊºÉnÂvù ªÉÊiÉ*
(a) Bhāskara-II states that the centre of the eccentric does not coincide with the centre of the
Earth.
(b) Computational model instructed by Bhāskara-II suggests that the Sun infact coincides with
the centre of the eccentric.
i. Bhāskara gives Śīghra epicycles only for Kuājdi tārāgrahas.
ii. A distinction is clearly drawn between those who go round the Earth and those who go
round Sun.
iii. Manda correction was sufficient for sun and moon while despite Manda correction, the
tāragrahas deviated from computed position except for conjunction and opposition from
Sun. Ancient Savants could have easily perceived that this conjunction-opposition effect
has something to do with the geometry of movements.
iv. It is clearly stated in Sūryasiddhānta and by Bhāskara that the latitude of Mercury and
Venus are to be reckoned from Śīghrocca. Obvious, that the savants were aware of the
distinction between Mean Planet in this case and the Śīghrocca. Had Mercury and Venus
been geocentric, why the correction should Vanish in conjunction with sun and latitude to
be reckoned from Śīghroccam?

v. When a great scholar like AR Rajaraja Varma could establish in 1896 that Bhāskara-II’s
method imply Tycho Brahe model, what is the claim of Tycho Brahe model with
Nīlakantha?
2. Does the equivalence of the epicycle model and elliptical orbits mean that the epicycles implied the
elliptical orbits?
I hope the quote I gave above from Varma shall dispell all your doubts regarding fact that the
Siddhāntic -Tycho Brahe equivalence had proponents 100 years before 1994. The man who initiated
the Nilakantha-Tycho idea from Varma’s book (which was available along with Āryabhatīya bhāsya
by Nīlakantha from KU Publication dept) took you people for a ride by hiding the work of Varma.
From your presentation I feel that the equivalence of geometrical constructions for computational
purpose is getting exaggerated to convey that Nīlakantha had revised the planetary theory to
approach the vicinity of Kepler. All these kinds of equivalences have been discussed in the past by
scholars and your group is heaping all the credit on Nīlakantha at the cost of great scholars like
Rajarja Varma who did the original work.
K. Chandra Hari