D EVELOPMENT OF M ATHEMATICS IN I NDIA

Bakshali Manuscript

K. Ramasubramanian
IIT Bombay

ATM W ORKSHOP @IIT B OMBAY

February 2013

Outline

Aryabhat
.ya: Part I
I

Discovery of the Bakshali Manuscript

Date of the Manuscript

Content of the Manuscript (that is extant)

Problems in deciphering & making overall assessment

Mathematical notation employed

The square root formula

I
I
I
I

Kayes misinterpretation
B B Dattas attempt found to be lacking!
Channabasappas interpretation
His plausible derivation consistent with the knowledge
available then

Some other interesting problems in BM

Lessons to learn from history

Discovery of the Bakshali Manuscript (BM)

I

BM was discoveredpurely by a stroke of luckby a farmer in

the year 1881 CE as he was excavating the soil, in a place called
Bakshali.1

It is in the form of birch bark, and only 70 folios are available. It

is hard to estimate as what fraction would have got lost and what
is available(?)

Providentially the discovered manuscript reached the right

hands, and after passing through several hands, finally reached
F R Hoernle, an indologist who had interest in unearthing
itsfor whatever purposes!

It was first edited and published in 1922 by G. R. Kaye.2

Another edition was brought out more recently by Takao Hayashi

in 1995.

This place is identified as a village 80 km from Peshawar (currently in

Pakistan).
2
It has been unambigously shown by scholars (Datta and others) that the
views expressed by Kaye were highly biased.

More detailed account of the discovery (Gupta)

An Inspector of Police named Mian An-Wan-Udin (whose tenant actually discovered

the manuscript while digging a stone enclosure in a ruined place) took the work to the
Assistant Commissioner at Mardan who intended to forward the manuscript to Lahore
Museum. However, it was subsequently sent to the Lieutenant Governor of Punjab
who, on the advice of General A Cunningham, directed it to be passed on to Dr Rudolf
Hoernle of the Calcutta Madrasa for study and publication. Dr Hoernle presented a
description of the BM before the Asiatic Society of Bengal in 1882, and this was
published in the Indian Antiquary in 1883. He gave a fuller account at the Seventh
Oriental Conference held at Vienna in 1886 and this was published in its Proceedings.
A revised version of this paper appeared in the Indian Antiquary of 1888. In 1902, he
presented the Bakhshali Manuscript to the Bodleian Library, Oxford, where it is still
(Shelf mark: MS. Sansk. d. 14).

Date of the Manuscript

I

There has been considerable debate regarding the date of BM.

The variation is almost a millenium!
I

Kaye3 unscrupulously attempted to place the BM around 12

century CE.
Datta and others4 based on a more careful
analysisplace it anywhere between 200400 CE.
Hayashi places somewhere in 78th century.

It is interesting to note that all of them try to arrive at the dates

mentioned above based on the analysis of language, script and
content of the manuscript.
I
I
I

.t)
Language G
ath
a (a variation of Sanskrit & Prakr
arad
Script S
a (used in the Gupta period 350 CE).
Content the nature of problems discussed in BM.

3
Unlike Colebrooke, the interpretations of Kaye are generally prejudiced
and distortedas we shall see soon.
4
Martin Levey and Marvin Petruck, Translation of Kushyar Ibn Labbans
Principles of Hindu Reckoning, The University of Wisconsin Press, pp. 6-7,
1965.

Folio of the manuscript (from web)

Refined - Folio of the manuscript (from web)

The vertical and horizontal lines are used to segregate

numerals and symbols from the main text.

They at times represent fractions, but without a horizontal

line as we keep using nowadays.

Problems in deciphering the manuscript

I

The style of writing in palm-leaf or birch bark is completely

different from the contemporary style for writing.

One can hardly find clear markers (sentence, paragraph,

chapter, etc.). There will be about 8-10 lines per folio (in just 2
inhces), very tightly packed..

This itself makes deciphering the content difficult.

In the case of BM, the problem is all the more acute:

I
I
I

due to the lonely copy of the Manuscript available today

it is in a deterioted condition and
it is completely disordered.

As regrds the authorship of BM, we hardly have any idea or clue

whatsoever.

The only information that is available in the form of colophon

mentions that it was written by a Brahman

ajaka
. a, idenfied as Ch
(king of calculator).

The square root formula

An interesting piece of mathematics found in BM concerns with
the formula for finding square root of a non-square number.

I Any non-square number Q may be expressed as A2 + b. The

following formula is given in the manuscript

Q=

A2

b 2
b
2A


+b =A+

b
2A 2 A + 2A

(1)

This is the famous Bakshali formula about which we will discuss

for a short while.

The formula due to Heron5 is:

p

b
Q = A2 + b = A +
2A

Evidently Bakshali formula is an improvised version of Heron

formula. How would have the author of BM arrived at the
formula?

A Greek mathematician who lived in the later half of 1st century AD

(2)

Kayes version of the square root formula

I

Kaye has reproduced the s

utra as follows:
akr.te slis..ta kr.ty
un
a ses.a cchedo dvisam
. gun.ah.
tadvarga dala sam
. slis..ta hr.ti suddhi kr.ti ks.ayah.

We write the above formula with a minor emendment in

Devanagari:

x +.tyUa:na.a:t,a Zea:Sa:.cCe +d.ea ;a.d:sMa:gua:NaH

A:kx+.tea ;
a(;;k
&+ a.ta Zua:
a;d:kx+. a.ta [a:yaH
ta:d:gRa:d:l .sMa:
a(;;:

We accept the emendment for the following reasons:

I
I
I

in its feminine form it cannot go as an adjective ...

in yet another place in the BM it is found correctly
by all probability the scribe might not have heard properly
and hence dropped t.

Kayes (incorrect) version of translation

I

Kaye has reproduced the s

utra as follows:

The above suutra has been translated by Kaye as

A:kx+.tea ;
a(;;kx+.tyUa:na.a:t,a Zea:Sa:.cCe +d.ea ;a.d:sMa:gua:NaH
&+ a.ta Zua:
a;d:kx+. a.ta [a:yaH
ta:d:gRa:d:l .sMa:
a(;;:
The mixed surd is lessened by the square portion and
the difference divided by twice that. The difference is
divided by the quantity and half that squarred is the
loss.

Datta describes the above translation as wrong and

b
meaningless as this now way leads to A + 2A
.

However, Kaye somehow tries to map the descriptionrather

uncrupulouslyto the Heron formula.

Interesting problems
*.a.a:na.Ma va:a.Na.ja.Ma ma:Dyea ma:a.Na:a.vRa:k+a:ya:tea ;a.k+.l ta.a.ea:+a ma:a.Na:a.va:k+a.a.a ma:a.Na:mUa:yMa
:pa.

;a.k+.ya:;
;vea:t,a . . . A:Da ;aa:Ba.a:ga :pa.a:d.Ma:Za :pa.*.
a:Ba.a:ga :Sa:qM +Za . ca

A jewel is sold among five merchants together. The price of the jewel is equal to half
the money possessed by the first together with the moneys possessed by the others, or
1
rd
3

the money possessed by the second together with the moneys possessed by the

others, or 14 th the money possessed by the third together with the moneys possessed
by the others, or 51 th the money possessed by the fourth together with the moneys
possessed by the others, or 16 th the money possessed by the fifth together with the
moneys possessed by the others. Find the cost of the jewel, and the money possessed
by each merchant.6

6
Here it may be mentioned that though the solution to the problem is
available in greater detail, the statement as such is not fully decipherable from
the manuscript (see for instance, Hayashi, 174-75.), and hence what has
been presented above is a partiallyyet faithfullyreconstructed version of it
given by CNS (38-39).

Interesting problems
Solution: If m1 , m2 , m3 , m4 , m5 be the money possessed by the five merchants, and p
be the price of the jewel, then the given problem may be represented as
1
m1 + m2 + m3 + m4 + m5
2

=
=
=
=
=

1
m2 + m3 + m4 + m5
3
1
m1 + m2 + m3 + m4 + m5
4
1
m1 + m2 + m3 + m4 + m5
5
1
m1 + m2 + m3 + m4 + m5
6
p.

m1 +

Hence we have
1
2
3
4
5
m1 = m2 = m3 = m4 = m5 = q (say).
2
3
4
5
6

Substituting this in any of the previous equations we get 377

q = p. For integral
60
solutions we have to take p = 377 r and q = 60 r , where r is any integer. In fact, the
manuscript is p = 377 and
answer provided in Bakhshal
m1 , m2 , m3 , m4 , m5 = 120, 90, 80, 75, 72 respectively.

Use of mathematical notations

I

BM is one the most important sources to know the kind of

notations employed in those times.
There are at least three different kinds of notations:
I

Notation to represent fractions This is done by placing

one number below the other without a horizontal bar.
Notation to represent negative quantities A -ve quantity is
denoted by a small cross resembling the + sign to the
right of it. This probably could be the deformed version of
the character , used in Devanagari.
Notation/Abbreviation for representing operations The

operations line + are denoted by the characters such as

, , which are abbreviations of the words denoting those
operations such as
,

yua mUa
I

yua: a.ta mUa:l

In Amarakosa (c. 400 CE), we have the statement

ya:dx:.cC;a ;a.va:nya:sea:t,a ZUa:nyea (place zero . . . )

I Taking ya:dx:.cC;a = ya.a:va.a.a.a:va:t,a, we find 0 for unknowns (x).

The first misconception !

A serious debate in 1820s: Charles Whish, George Hyne and John Warren
John Warren in his K
alasankalita

(1825

AD )

observes:

I have stated in a Note at the foot of page 93 . . . that in Mr. Hynes

opinion the Hindus never invented the Series7 referring to the
Quadrature of the Circle which were found in their possession in
various parts of India; and that Mr. Whish . . . after having first
expressed a belief that they were indigenous, had subsequently
reasons for thinking them entirely modern, and derived from the
Europeans; observing that not one of the Jyotish Sastras. . .
I now lay down the same (an account of the Series) before the
reader in that Gentlemans own language being well presented
that it cannot fail to interest much all the votaries of science.

7
I have ascertained beyond doubt, that the invention of infinite series of
these forms has originated in Malabar, and is not even to this day, known to
the eastward of the range of Ghats which divided that country, called in the
ancient times Ceralam, from the countries of Madura, Coimbatore, Mysore,
...

George Hynes letter to John Warren

M Y D EAR S IR ,
I have great pleasure in communiating the Series, to which I alluded . . .
C



1
1
+
...
,
1
3
5

p
12D 2
12D 2
12D 2
12D 2
+

+ ,
2
3.3
3 .5
33 .7
4D
4D
4D
2D +

+

(22 1)
(42 1)
(62 1)
#
"
1
1
1
+
+
+ .
8D
(22 1)
(62 1)
(102 1)
"
#
1
1
1
1
8D

.
2
2
2
2
(4 1)
(8 1)
(12 1)

4D

4D

3D +
16D

(33 3)

1
15 + 4.1

4D
(53 5)
1
35 + 4.3

+
+

4D
(73 7)
1
55 + 4.5

(3)

(4)
(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)


(9)

I am, my dear Sir, most sincerely, yours,

M ADRAS, 17th August 1825.

G. HYNE.

The dilemma of John Warren

In his K
alasankalita

John Warren observes (pp. 92-93):

Of their manner of resolving geometrically the ratio of the diameter
to the circumference of a circle, I never saw any Indian
demonstration: the common opinion, however is, that they
approximate it in the manner of the ancients, by exhaustion; that
is, be means of inscribed and circumscribed Polygons.8 However,
a Native Astronomer who was a perfect stranger to European
Geometry, gave me the well known series 1 13 + 15 &c . . .
This proves at least, that the Hindus are not ignorant of the
doctrine of series; but I could not understand whether he
pretended to make out . . .

I join in substance Mr. Hynes opinion, but do not admit that the
circumstance that none of the Sastras mentioned by Mr. Whish, who
used the series could demonstrate them, would alone be conclusive.
8

This seems to be, at best, a speculation since we do not find any text
describing this method. Moreover, the methods described in the texts employ
circumscribed polygonsthat too with an important difference.

George Hynes note to John Warren

I owe the following Note to Mr. Hynes favour.
The Hindus never invented the series; it was communicated
with many others, by Europeans, to some learned Natives
in modern times. Mr. Whish sent a list of the various
methods of demonstrating the ratio of the diameter and
circumference of a Circle employed by the Hindus to the
literary society, being impressed with the notion that they
were the inventors. I requested him to make further
inquiries, and his reply was, that he had reasons to believe
them entirely modern and and derived from Europeans,
observing that not one of those used the Rules could
demonstrate them. Indeed the pretensions of the Hindus to
such a knowledge of geometry, is too ridiculous to deserve
refutation.

The second misconception !

False attribution of verses; but a genuine confusion! (citation for Whishs paper)
I proceed to quote extracts from the Tantra Sangraham. The first, of the

measure called Anushtubvrittam,

is from the chapter upon sines, &c..
0
ardham

gun.an
nayet |
Vyas
. prathamam
. ntva tato va nyan

Sambandhanniyamascaivam
vyasavr
. vijneyo
. ttayoh. |
Having found radius, you may construct the sines; but you must
first know the proportion between the diameter and the
circumference.

The next is of the Gitivrittam measure:

varidhinihate

vyase
rupahr
agar
abhihate
|

. te vyasas

kuryat
||
trisaradivis
amasa
nkhy
abhaktamr
n
am
svam
pr
thak
kramat
.. .
. .
.
Mulltiply the diameter by 4, and from it subtract and add
alternately the quotients obtained by dividing four times the
diameter by the odd numbers 3, 5, 7, 9, 11&c..

Misconception gettting deep-rooted

Saraswati Amma (in 1962) observes:
. . . the Tantrasangraha,

published by the Trivandrum University

(sic) seems to contain one part only of the Text. The editors of the
Yuktibh
a.sa
had access to the complete Ms.9

Rajagopal and Rangachari (in 1976) observe:

. . . some extant manuscripts of the latter work (Tantrasangraha),

notably those taken into account in preparing the printed edition of

the work in the Trivandrum Sanskrit Series, lack the Sanskrit texts
corresponding to the mathematical results given above in modern
notation.

T. A. Saraswati, The development of mathematical series in India, Bull.

of the National Inst. of Science (New Delhi), No. 21 (1962), p. 334, fn. 9.
(cited by KVS in his Introduction to the edn. of Tantrasangraha.)

Infinite series for in a form of a verse

v.ya.a:sea va.a:a=; a.Da:

a.na:h:tea .+pa:&+tea v.ya.a:sa:sa.a:ga.=:a:a.Ba:h:tea
;aa:Za.=:a:a.d ;a.va:Sa:ma:sa:* +;a.a:Ba:+.m,a +NMa .~vMa :pxa:Ta:k, k +.ma.a:t,a ku +.ya.Ra:t,a
I

vy
ase v
aridhinihate 4 Diameter (v
aridhi)

r
upahr.te Divided by r
upa (number 1)

trisar
adi 3, 5, etc. (bh
utasankhy

a system)

I
I

vis.amasankhy

abhaktam Divided by odd numbers

.rn.am
. svam
. subtraction and addition

kram
at kury
at may be done in order


1 1 1
Paridhi = 4 Vy
asa 1 + + . . . . . .
3 5 7

Folio of Whishs PT of PL manuscript

v.ya.a:sa.a:Da :pra:Ta:mMa na.a:tva.a ta:ta.ea:va.a:nya.a:n,a gua:Na.a:n,a na:yea:t,a

A:na:nta.=M v.ya.a:sa.a.;d R .ea na:fe va.+.aa A: a.ta:nea:

a:Nq ma:*u+.\L .$ya.a:
*:+e
Le O;:l;a:*e+.yMua va.+Ua O;:a.a:a.k+.lu+ma.Ma
*:+.

A:a.va:fe v.ya.a:sa.a.;d R .ea O;:a.*:+nea va.+ea:NqU O;:a:f.ea:

u . ca.ea:u +.Ua
*:
.sMa:ba:nDaH 10 ;
a.na:ya:ma:(
Ea:vMa11 ;a.va:ea:ya.ea v.ya.a:sa:vxa.a:ya.eaH

v.ya.a:sa:vMua vxa.a:vMua ta:*:+ a.L+.lu+\L .sMa:ba:nDa:a.a:ya:mMa O;:a I;a v.ya.a:sa:aa:a I;a
10
11

Manuscript reads it as .sMa:ba:nDMa

Manuscript reads it as ;
a.na:ya:ma.*.
Ea :vMa

Folio of the original PL manuscript

v.ya.a:sa.a:Da :pra:Ta:mMa na.a:tva.a ta:ta.ea:va.a:nya.a:n,a gua:Na.a:n,a na:yea:t,a

A:na:nta.=M v.ya.a:sa.a.;d R .ea na:fe va.+.aa A: a.ta:nea:*: +ea:Nq ma:*u+.\L .$ya.a:*: +.Le O;:l;a:*e+.yMua
va.+Ua O;:a.a:a.k+.lu+ma.Ma A:a.va:fe v.ya.a:sa.a.;d R .ea O;:a.*:+nea va.+ea:NqU O;:a:f.ea:*:u . ca.ea:u+.Ua
.sMa:ba:nDaH 12;
a.na:ya:ma:(Ea:vMa13 ;a.va:ea:ya.ea v.ya.a:sa:vxa.a:ya.eaH
v.ya.a:sa:vMua vxa.a:vMua ta:*:+ a.L+.lu+\L .sMa:ba:nDa:a.a:ya:mMa O;:a I;a v.ya.a:sa:aa:a I;a
12
13

Manuscript reads it as .sMa:ba:nDMa

Manuscript reads it as ;
a.na:ya:ma.*.
Ea :vMa

Date of the PL manuscript

h:a=H k+ea:M ta.ea:\L+a:

a.ya.=;aa I;+.pa:ta.a:ma:t,a ;
a. ca:*:, ma.a:sMa I;+.pa:ta.Ma ta.a:yya: a.ta
O;:Lu+. a.ta:ya:t,a I+ta h:a=H
This was written in the Kollam year 920, on the 20th day of
Month Simha.

Kollam 920 corresponds to 1740 in the Gregorian calendar.

Note: The state of the PL Manuscript is quite appalling! . . .