Āryabhata and Vishnuchandra, Brahmagupta says: 'If a man declares these things illusory he stands outside the generally acknowledged dogma, and that is not allowed.'
Of Varāhamihira. Alberuni writes: 'In former times, the Hindus used to acknowledge that the progress of science due to the Greeks is much more important than that which is due to themselves. But from this passage of Varāhamihira alone (see paragraph 2 above) you see what a self-lauding man he is, whilst he gives himself airs as doing justice to others;' but in another place (ii, 110) Alberuni says: 'On the whole his foot stands firmly on the basis of truth and he clearly speaks out the truth……Would to God all distinguished men followed his example.'
Of Brahmagupta, Alberuni writes (ii, 110): 'But look, for instance, at Brahmagupta, who is certainly the most distinguished of their astronomers……he shirks the truth and lends his support to imposture……under the compulsion of some mental derangement, like a man whom death is about to rob of his consciousness……If Brahmagupta……is one of those of whom God says, "They have denied our signs, although their hearts knew them clearly, from wickedness and haughtiness," we shall not argue with him, but only whisper into his ear—"If people must under circumstances give up opposing the religious codes (as seems to be your case), why then do you order people to be pious if you forget to be so yourself"……I, for my part, am inclined to the belief that that which made Brahmagupta speak the above mentioned words (which involve a sin against conscience) was something of a calamitous fate, like that of Socrates, which had befallen him, notwithstanding the abundance of his knowledge and the sharpness of his intellect, and notwithstanding his extreme youth at the time. For he wrote the Brahmasiddhānta when he was only thirty years of age. If this indeed is his excuse we accept it and drop the matter.'
