114 Journal of the Asiatic Society of;Bengal. [ March, 1908. 
246 ; 316 ; 330 ; 335 ; 370). “ This author,” he says, “is not identi 
cal with the elder Ar ryabhata, but he Wye to his followers, for 
he quotes him and follows his example” (i., 246). e infer from 
pura ; but Weber, Kern and Bhau Daji say distinctly that he was, 
and the opening verse of the Ganita indicates its author as belong- 
ing to Kusumapura, 
Aryabhata was an innovator. He attempted to free at least 
one department of knowledge from corrupt beliefs, and, as an al- 
e read (India, I., 376) that Brahmagupta was so intoler- 
ant that he was blind to the truth “from sheer hatred of Arya- 
bhata, whom he abuses excessivel . He is rude enough to com- 
pare Aryabhata to a worm, which, “eating the wood, by chance 
describes certain characters in it, without understanding them 
and withont intending to draw them. ‘He, however, who knows 
these things thoroughly stands opposed to Aryabhata like the lion 
against gazelles, They are not capable of letting him see their faces.’ 
In such offensive terms he attacks Aryabhata and as him.” 
The cause of this vilification is Aryabhata’ s unorthodoxy as 
indicated in other passages. For example, Brahmagupta states 
that Aryabhata’s ies hie wag eclipses was not in accord- 
ance with the Veda and “ the book Smritz composed by Manu and 
dogma and that is not allowed” (Indie II., 111). “ Further,” 
‘Albirani writes (I., 373), “ Brahmagupta says that Aryabbata 
considers the four yugas as the four equal parts of caturyuga. 
Thus he differsfrom the doctrine of the book smriti...and he 
who differs from us is an opponent.” 
ater Hindu opinion was more favourable, at least in inten- 
also suggests ef ate, Demat “ Divine Passed dawned upon 
such interpretations in the twentieth century is rather disconcert- 
ing. 
Ill. 
The most interesting personage connected with Aryabhata is 
a certain Pulisa. Albiruni — their names together on many 
