पञ्चसिद्धान्तिका (आचार्य वराहमिहिर - सूर्य, रोमक, पौलिश, वासिष्ठ एवं पितामह सिद्धान्त)

INTRODUCTION XV
The edition of Pañcasiddhāntikā which is now issued is also based on the manuscripts used for the
two above-said editions. The question that would naturally arise here would be: Why then is the
need for another edition when no new source material is to be had? The answer is threefold:
i. First, it was felt that in reconstructing the text from the corrupt manuscripts, which alone are
available, both TS and NP have subscribed to an editorial principle voiced by Thibaut when he says:
“What, in the attempt to reconstitute the text of an astronomical or mathematical work, has chiefly
to be kept in view, is of course to arrive at rules which are capable of being proved mathematically.
This consideration has, in more than one place, led us to introduce changes even where such
appeared hardly to be required by the external form of the traditional text.” (Introduction, p.lxi),
And, this they have done to an extent which seems to be hardly justified in editing a classical text.
Then again, such emendations are often inserted without specific indication, especially in the
edited text of NP, with the result that the reader takes the emended text as the ‘real’ manuscript
text. The translation and interpretations that follow are, primarily, based on the emended text and
not on the ‘real’ text. In fact, an editorial principle which has to be applied with the utmost caution
and in as limited a manner as possible, seems to have been used rather extensively.
In the present edition of Pañcasiddhāntikā, the principle of sthitasya gatiś cintanīyā, ‘justification of
the extant reading should be thought of’, has been primarily adhered to, alongside the correction
of the copyist’s errors by visualising the psychology of the scribe who is illiterate with reference both
to the language and the subject of the text. ‘Real’ emendations have been comparatively small and
far between. In all cases, however, when changes had to be made to the manuscripts readings, they
have been specifically indicated by their being placed within curved brackets in the case of scribal
errors and in square brackets in the case of editorial supplementation. And, whenever there has
been an emendation, the reasons for suggesting the emendation have been given in the Notes that
follow each verse.
ii. Secondly, in a number of places, TS nor NP do not seem to have caught the correct import
of the text and this has affected their Translation and Notes. All these have been attempted to be
rectified. In many places, the untenability of the TS and NP readings, translations and notes have
also been pointed out.
iii. Thirdly, and what is most important, special effort has been made to digest the textual verses
fully, and offer, in the case of knotty places and apparently vague passages, detailed interpretations
and elucidations, adumbrated with tables and illustrations. Moreover, a number of examples have
also been worked out to illustrate the rules enunciated by Varāhamihira.
Under the circumstances, it is to be hoped that the present publication will form another step
towards understanding and evaluating the principles and practices of early Indian astronomy.
2. Source Material
A-B. The available manuscripts of Pañcasiddhāntikā, of which five have been collated for prepar-
ing the present edition, fall into two recensions which have been designated as A and B. Common
corruptions and omissions indicate that even these two recensions go back to a common original
which too should have been far from perfect in the matter of accuracy. The technical nature of the
work, brizzling with unusual terminology, have made the scribes commit all types of imaginable
errors except in the case of well-known words and expressions. These errors include, as a reference
to the footnotes recorded in the edition would show, wrong spellings, erratic sandhi-s and splitting