> As for astronomical references, there are a dozen papers by Narahari
> Achar which show the independence of Hindu astronomy from Babylonian
> astronomy on scientific grounds,...
It should be noted that there are some serious questions about the accuracy
of such statements. One is basic to the subject matter. How does one tell
"independence" of "astronomies"? If Indian astronomy was somehow "better" or
more accurate than Babylonian astronomy that only shows improvement, not
independence. E.g., Copernician astronomy was "better" than Ptolemaic
astronomy, but certainly not independent. Achar asserts that the oldest
Indian astronomical literature reveals concepts that were indigenous to
Indian religious practices. This may be true, but the Greeks and Romans did
precisely the same thing in using basic Babylonian data. After all,
Ptolemy's use of Babylonian observations in the Almagest demanded translating
as basic as the ("religious") name for the planet Venus. What can be
asserted is that the basic evidence of systematic observations in Mesopotamia
is much older and that the quantitative methodology could have been imported
into India, however it was later applied.
It should be noted that by all appearances, Indic astronomy would have not
done badly by borrowing from Bablyonian astronomers. See A. Sachs & H.
Hunger, Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts from Babylonia," (Vol. I 1988)
52, 176-179 (precision accuracy in astronomically retrocalculating
Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year and the year Alexander entered Babylon.) To the
extent that Indic astronomy was accurate, it would presumably yield precisely
the same type of results, wherever it originated.
Steve Long