Page 650 - Lokmanya Tilak Samagra (khand 2)

INTRODUCTION 3

tance and antiquity. He did not stop here, but attacked Sir W.
Jones, Colebrooke and other scholars for maintaining the oppo-
site view. This drew forth a sharp reply from Colebrooke who
clearly showed how Bentley's method u ed exclusively by itself
was utterly unreliable. As Bentley's view is now generally
rejected by all scholars, it is unnecessary to go further into the
petails of the position maintained by him. In spite of its faults,
his work however contains some ingenious suggestions which
we shall notice later on. It is enough to state here that side by
side with this controversy, there was also raised and discussed
another important question viz. whether the Indian astronomical
methods, described in these post-Vedic works were borrowed
from the Greeks wholesale or whether the Indian astronomers
who had already a science of their own, improved it by such
hints received from Alexandria, as two civilised nations, when
they come in contract, are generally glad to receive from each
other in the interest of cientific progress. Colebrooke held the
latter view; and Rev. Burge s, who translated the Surya Sid-
M.nta while he wa a missionary at Ahmednagar in our Presi-
dency, is of the same opinion. But Prof. Whitney, who edited and
published the translation with notes under the auspices of the
American Oriental Society in 1860, has not a word to say in
favour of the Indian Astronomers, whom he considers incapable
of originating any scientific theory or making any even tolerably
accurate observations. He has therefore come to the conclusion
that the Indians were wholesale borrowers in this respect. The
prestige which Whitney enjoyed on account of his great learn-
ing and scholarship unfortunately contributed to render, for
sometime, his judgment acceptable, in preference to that of
Colebrooke. But it has been shown by Shankar B~lkfi~hl].a Dik~hit,
a practical Indian a tronomer possessing a wider acquaintancet
with the whole of the Indian astronomical literature, in his im-
portant work on the 'History of Indian Astronomy' publish-
ed in Marathi in 1896, that Whitney's view is simply the result
of his prejudices, that it is entirely oppo ed to a number of astro-
nomical facts disclosed in the Indian SiddMntas, and that Cole-
brooke has said utmost that can be said on the subject. In support
ofDikshit's rejoinder, we may further mention the fact, overlooked
by Whitney and his followers, but noticed by Plunkett in his
work on ' Ancient Calendars and Constellations, ' published