These considerations put forward by Sir William Jones are further emphasized by the reflection that not only does the Grecian theory entail the improbability of the proud and jealous Brahmins adopting into their science and their mythology the teachings of foreigners; but that it also entails the greater improbability of the two rival Hindu sects, Brahmins and Buddhists, having at the same date and with equal enthusiasm adopted into their science and religious symbolism and calendars the same innovations.
Again the opinion of the Greek writers at the beginning of our era may be quoted as showing the high estimation in which, at that time of the world, Indian astronomy was held: as for instance in the life of Apollonius of Tyana (written about 210 A.D. by Philostratus), the wisdom and learning of Apollonius are set high above those of all his contemporaries; but from the sages of India he is represented as learning many things, especially matters of astronomy.[47]
[47] Apollonius of Tyana, Book iii. chapter 13.
This high opinion held by Greeks in regard to Indian astronomy may be contrasted with the very moderate praise bestowed on the Grecian science by Garga, a Hindu writer of, it is supposed, the first century B.C. He says:—
“The Yavanas (Greeks) are Mlechchas (non-Hindus, or barbarians), but amongst them this science (astronomy) is well established. Therefore they are honoured as Rishis (saints); how much more then an astronomer who is a Brahman?”[48]
[48] Romesh Chunder Dutt, Ancient India, p. 136.
Somewhat to the same effect speaks a Hindu author of a later date, Varāhamihira, who wrote an astronomical dissertation treating of five different works known to him on the science of astronomy. He says:—
“There are the following Siddhântas: The Pauliśa, the Romaka, the Vâsisṭha, the Saura, and the Paitámaha. Out of these five, the first two (the Pauliśa and Romaka, which appear to have been European treatises) have been explained by Lâṱadeva. The Siddhânta made by Pauliśa is accurate, near to it stands the Siddhánta proclaimed by Romaka; more accurate is the Sávitra (Saura)[49] (Sūrya Siddhānta, the Hindu standard work); the two remaining ones are far from the truth.”[50]
[49] This opinion of Varāha has been confirmed by modern European scholars. Burgess (from whose translations of the Sūrya Siddhānta we have already quoted) remarks, “in regard to ... the amount of the annual precession of the equinoxes, the relative size of the sun and moon as compared with the earth, the greatest equation of the centre of the sun, the Hindus are more nearly correct than the Greeks.” (Journal of the American Oriental Society, vol. vi. p. 480.)
[50] The Pañchasiddhântikâ. Edited by G. Thibaut, ch. i. § 3.