Three Purāṇic Statements on the Shape of the Earth

The article analyses an argument given in Jnānarāja's Siddhāntasundara (ca. 1500) on the shape of the earth according to the Purāṇas. The argument involves the use of the word gola, 'ball, globe,' in the Purāṇas, a Purāṇic statement about the mountain Meru being north of everywhere, and a Purāṇic comparison of the earth to a mirror. The article concludes that Jnānarāja breaks with the Purāṇas as well as the traditional commentaries on these texts, and further suggests that we might have to rethink the dictionary definition of gola.


Three Purāṇic Statements on the Shape of the Earth Toke Lindegaard Knudsen
State University of New York at Oneonta

I N T RO D U C T IO N T HE PRESENT ARTICLE is part of an investigation into how authors of Sanskrit
astronomical treatises thought about, critiqued, and used cosmographical material from the Purāṇas, a corpus of Hindu religious texts. The focus is on an argument on the Purāṇic conception of the shape of the earth presented by the astronomer Jñānarāja (fl. 1500) in the Siddhāntasundara at the dawn of the Early Modern period in Indian history. 1 In the argument, Jñānarāja cites and interprets three Purāṇic statements about the shape of the earth. The argument offers insights into how cosmographical material from the Purāṇas was understood and used at the time of Jñānarāja.

S I D D H Ā N TA S A N D P U R Ā Ṇ A S
S INCE AT LEAST THE TIME of the astronomer Varāhamihira (fl. sixth century), Indian astronomers composing Siddhāntas were aware of and reacted to cosmographical ideas from other traditions, including both Buddhism and Jainism. 2 However, since the Siddhāntic astronomers belonged to the religious tradition we today call Hinduism, the most important tradition of cosmography that they engaged with was perhaps that of the Purāṇas. 1 In the following, the term "India" will refer to South Asia in general. 2 Varāhamihira lived in Ujjain in the sixth century CE (Pingree 1970-94: 5.563-595;1976;Plofker and Knudsen 2008b). A Siddhānta is a comprehensive Sanskrit treatise on astronomy and cosmography. As an example of the rejection of a Jain opinion, in Pañcasiddhāntikā 13.8 (Neugebauer and Pingree 1970-1: 1.110), Varāhamihira rejects the Jain idea that there are two suns and two moons. DOI

THE PURĀṆAS
A corpus of texts belonging to the Hindu tradition of India, the Purāṇas were composed over a long period of time, from the middle of the first millennium CE to the middle of the second millennium CE. The corpus is far from monolithic. Additions and other changes were regularly made to existing Purāṇas, and new Purāṇas would continue to be composed according to various sectarian and regional standpoints. As a consequence, it is difficult to date individual Purāṇas, and even sections of Purāṇas. 3 As a corpus, the Purāṇas are often considered to be primarily religious texts. More broadly, the Purāṇas are encyclopedic in nature, covering a vast range of subjects. Over time, the Purāṇic corpus grew into a large repository of Brahmanic learning. As part of that process, the cosmographical material in the Purāṇas was expanded and developed. The composite nature of the Purāṇic texts is illustrated by the traditional view that a Purāṇa should possess five components (pañcalakṣaṇa): (1) the creation of the universe; (2) the destruction of the universe; (3) the genealogy of gods and sages; (4) the reigns of the Manus; and (5) the history of the solar and lunar races. 4 Two Purāṇas, the Bhāgavatapurāṇa and the Viṣṇupurāṇa, each of which contains large sections on cosmography, will be important in the following. Rocher considers both texts to be among the "better established and more coherent" Purāṇas. 5 In terms of relative chronology, the Viṣṇupurāṇa is considered older than the Bhāgavatapurāṇa.

THE COSMOGRAPHY OF THE PURĀṆAS
Purāṇic cosmography consists of and preserves an intermingling of many different ideas from different periods of time. In particular, it contains ideas contrary to the science of astronomy as practised in ancient and medieval India. For example, it is stated in some Purāṇas that the sun is closer to the earth than the moon is. 6 The Purāṇas conceive of the universe as the brahmāṇḍa, a word meaning "Brahmā's egg." As such, the word brahmāṇḍa itself offers a clue to the shape of the universe, namely, oval, or perhaps even spherical. Inside the brahmāṇḍa is the earth as well as multiple regions not accessible to human beings, including Svarga, the heavenly realm, and the Pātālas, the seven subterranean regions.
3 On the dating of the Purāṇas, see Rocher 1986: 100-103. 4 For a discussion of the five characteristics of a Purāṇa, see Rocher 1986: 24-30. For a discussion of the Purāṇas as religious docu-ments, see Rocher 1986: 104-115. 5 See Rocher 1986 See, for example, Viṣṇupurāṇa 2.7.5 (Śarmā 1985: 92v) and Bhāgavatapurāṇa 5.22.8 (K. Śāstrī 1966: 495 The earth is frequently described by the Sanskrit word bhūmaṇḍala in the Purāṇas. The word is a compound word formed by combining two words, bhū, "the earth," and maṇḍala, "circular, round; circle." The literal meaning of bhūmaṇḍala is therefore "earth-circle." As such, there is no doubt that the idea of a round earth is present in the Purāṇas. However, the word "round" is ambiguous in Sanskrit, just as it is in English, where a plate, a bracelet, and a ball can be described as "round" despite having different geometrical shapes. The Purāṇas describe the bhūmaṇḍala as covered by continents or landmasses (dvīpa) and oceans. At the bhūmaṇḍala's center is a round continent known as Jambūdvīpa, which is subdivided into regions (varṣa) separated from each other by mountain ranges. Meru, the world-mountain, is located at the center of Jambūdvīpa. It is in Jambūdvīpa that human beings live, and the region Bhāratavarṣa corresponds to India. Surrounding Jambūdvīpa is an alternating series of seven oceans 7 and seven continents. The oceans and continents are annular in shape (ring-shaped), and the further they are from Jambūdvīpa, the larger they are. Beyond the continents and oceans, the circular Lokāloka mountains mark the boundary for reach of the sun's light.
Overall, the bhūmaṇḍala, as described in the Purāṇas, is enormous in size, vastly larger than the earth described in the Siddhāntas. It is clear, therefore, that the Purāṇic concept of the bhūmaṇḍala is different from "the earth" as we think of it today. 8

THE SHAPE OF THE EARTH IN THE PURĀṆAS
One interpretation of the Purāṇic bhūmaṇḍala is that it represents the earth as a flat disk. As we will see in the following, some astronomers from the Siddhāntic tradition believed that the cosmography of the Purāṇas operates with a flat earth. Some modern scholars likewise hold that the earth is flat in Purāṇic cosmography. 9 In this interpretation, the bhūmaṇḍala exists as a large circle inside the brahmāṇḍa. More specifically, it is the Great Circle that divides the brahmāṇḍa into two equal halves.
There is evidence that indigenous traditions saw the bhūmaṇḍala as a flat disk. One example is a model of the universe found in the Hanūmānḍhokā palace in Kathmandu, Nepal. The model, which dates from 1656 CE and is "likely based on Purāṇic concepts", 10 depicts the earth precisely as a flat disk. 11 However, there are no known Purāṇic passages that explicitly state that the earth is flat. Besides flatness, there are other possible interpretations of the shape of the bhūmaṇḍala, including the earth having the shape of an inverted bowl. For example, some Purāṇas describe the earth as resembling a turtle shell, that is, having a convex shape, after a destruction has burned away trees and grass. 12 Without a clear and unambiguous Purāṇic statement on the earth's shape, there is no certain answer to the question of what the shape of the earth is according to the Purāṇas. Furthermore, given how the Purāṇas have evolved over time and place, even if such a statement was available in some Purāṇa, there is no way to be sure that it would apply consistently across the numerous and different Purāṇic texts (even different parts of the same Purāṇa) and their traditional commentaries.

THE COSMOGRAPHY OF THE BHĀGAVATAPURĀṆA
The cosmographical sections of the Bhāgavatapurāṇa warrant an additional comment. Like much of Sanskrit literature, the Purāṇas are composed in verse. But the chapters on cosmography in the Bhāgavatapurāṇa, which are found in the fifth section (skandha) of the text, are in prose rather than in verse.
It is not clear why the Bhāgavatapurāṇa contains material written in prose, but perhaps the reason is that Purāṇic cosmography involves both a technical vocabulary and huge numbers. Plofker notes that, Since Sanskrit (like other languages) generally has only one standard number word for each number, it can be difficult to fit such words into the metrical structure of verses so as to convey a desired mathematical meaning without ruining the scansion of the verse. 13 In the Siddhāntas, which are composed in verse, the problem is solved by employing systems that allow numbers to be expressed in a different way than the corresponding number words. One example is the object-number (bhūtasaṅkhyā) system, which provides synonyms for standard number words. 14 But such systems are not followed in the Purāṇas, in which the standard number words are consistently used. As a result, the Viṣṇupurāṇa sacrifices clarity in its cosmographical parts in order to present the material in versified form. In contrast, the prose account in the Bhāgavatapurāṇa has more clarity and detail. 15 It is possible, therefore, that a desire for clarity and ease of expression is behind the decision to use prose in the Bhāgavatapurāṇa's cosmographical chapters.
Whatever the reason is for the use of prose in the Bhāgavatapurāṇa's cosmographical chapters, these chapters stand out in the voluminous Purāṇa, and have attracted significant attention in the commentarial tradition.

PURĀṆIC MATERIAL IN CLASSICAL INDIAN ASTRONOMY
The approach to Purāṇic cosmography taken by many prominent Siddhāntic astronomers is to incorporate compatible elements into their own model while rejecting incompatible elements. An example of the incorporation of a compatible element is the astronomers' placing of Meru, the world mountain, at the earth's North Pole. An example of the rejection of an incompatible element is the astronomers' refutation of the Purāṇic idea that the sun is closer to us than the moon is. 16 Minkowski refers to this approach as the "standard accommodation," and describes it as "substantially standardized, if not quite a stable and uniform one". 17 First articulated in Lalla's Śiṣyadhīvṛddhidatantra in the eight or early ninth century CE, the standard accommodation was followed for many centuries, propagated by prominent astronomers like Śrīpati (fl. 11 cent.) and Bhāskara II (b. 1114). 18 JÑĀNARĀJA In contrast to the standard accommodation is the approach taken by the scholarastronomer Jñānarāja in the treatise Siddhāntasundara, composed around 1500 CE.
Jñānarāja belonged to a Brahman family with a long history of study and scholarship. He lived in Pārthapura, which has been identified as the modern Pathri in Maharashtra. At the time, Pārthapura was a center for astronomy, and Jñānarāja's family was just one of the families of astronomers residing there. 19 Jñānarāja had two sons, who both contributed to the field of astronomy: Cintāmaṇi, who composed an extensive commentary on his father's Siddhāntasundara called the Grahagaṇitacintāmaṇi, and Sūryadāsa, a polymath who wrote on a vast range of subjects. 20 The key difference between Jñānarāja's approach to Purāṇic cosmography and that of his predecessors is his concern with the authority of the Purāṇas. Contrary to Lalla, Śrīpati, Bhāskara II, and others, Jñānarāja never rejects cosmographical ideas from the Purāṇas. Moreover, he does not hesitate to reject 16 For a detailed account, see Plofker 2005: 66-70. 17 Minkowski 2004 The astronomer Lalla lived in Gujarat in the eight or early ninth century CE (Pingree 1981: 22;1970-94: 5.545). The astronomer Śrīpati lived in Maharashtra in the 11th century CE (Pingree 1981: 25). The astronomer Bhāskara II, a towering figure in the Siddhāntic tradition, was born in 1114 CE and lived in what is now Karnataka state (Pingree 1970-94: 4.299-300 tenets from the Siddhāntas in order to preserve the validity of statements from the Purāṇas.
The Siddhāntic tradition holds that the earth does not require external support to remain motionless in space, specifically rejecting the claim that such support is needed. Jñānarāja, however, endorses the Purāṇic position that the earth needs the support of divine beings for its position to remain fixed in space, and explicitly rejects the argument against external support given in the Siddhāntaśiromaṇi of Bhāskara II. 21 Jñānarāja even redefines the meaning of the word "up" in order to preserve the validity of a Purāṇic description. 22 It is noteworthy that Jñānarāja is silent on the Purāṇic claim that the sun is closer to the earth than the moon is. If this idea were accepted, however, the Siddhāntas' cosmological model would break down. For example, the model would no longer be able to scientifically account for eclipses, an important topic in astronomy. For this reason, Jñānarāja's silence is not surprising. Rather than engaging with a problem that would expose a rift between the Purāṇas and the Siddhāntas, he omits a discussion of it in order to avoid calling the authority of the Purāṇas into question.
There is no doubt that within the Siddhāntic tradition, Jñānarāja acts as an apologist for the Purāṇas. An important question arises from this observation: Does Jñānarāja's emphasis on Purāṇic authority mean that he follows the traditional interpretation of the Purāṇas? In other words, is Jñānarāja's interpretation of the Purāṇas (or at least of the relevant passages of the Purāṇas) in agreement with the traditional understanding of the texts given in the many commentaries on the Purāṇas? This question will be explored later in the article.

THE SHAPE OF THE EARTH
It is well known that a central tenet of Siddhāntic cosmology is that the earth is small in size and spherical in shape. However, parallel to this Siddhāntic conception of the earth as a small sphere, other traditions had their own ideas about the size and shape of the earth.
In the Siddhāntasundara, Jñānarāja enters into a discussion of how the Purāṇas describe the shape of the earth. He presents an argument based on three statements, which he claims are Purāṇic, to refute the idea, held by his predecessors in the Siddhāntic tradition, that the Purāṇas describe the earth as flat.
The standard accommodation of the Siddhāntic tradition contains different arguments against a flat earth. More specifically, these arguments refute the idea, generally said to be held by an unspecified "some," that the earth resembles the surface (tala) or belly (udara) of a mirror. 23 The first astronomer to mention the mirror simile is Bhāskara I. In his commentary on Āryabhaṭa's Āryabhaṭīya from 629 CE, we find the following statement: 24 भ ुवं तावदये शकटाकारां दप र्णवृ ताकारां च मयते For one thing, other people believe that the earth is shaped like a cart or has the shape of a round mirror.
The idea of a cart-shaped earth does not seem to be Purāṇic, 25 and later astronomers do not mention it. But the mirror simile is subsequently cited by Lalla, Caturveda Pṛthūdakasvāmin, Śrīpati, Bhāskara II, and Jñānarāja. 26 23 The use of one of the words udara or tala with a word for "mirror" indicates the reflective surface of the mirror ("belly" indicating the front as opposed to the back), if it at all changes the meaning of "mirror." The astronomers use udara and tala synonymously. For example, Śrīpati uses udara in Siddhāntaśekhara 15.8 and tala in 15.9 (Miśra 1932-47: 2.138-139). Pingree (1983: 356) translates darpaṇodara as "concave mirror," but there is no evidence that the Siddhāntic astronomers understood the simile to imply concavity. In fact, they use "mirror," "belly of a mirror," and "surface of a mirror" synonymously in the simile, the tertium comparationis of which they understand to be flatness. 24 Shukla 1976: 250. Note that śakaṭākārā in the printed edition has been corrected to śakaṭākārāṃ.  (Shastri 1998: 1.404), Jambūdvīpa is said to have the shape of a cart. In Hindu cosmography, Jambūdvīpa is the central circular continent of the bhūmaṇḍala. But in pre-Mahāyāna Buddhist cosmography, Jambūdvīpa refers to the Indian subcontinent only (see Sadakata 1997: 31). In this Buddhist context, Jambūdvīpa "is a trapezoid, the short side facing outward. In fact, it is virtually a triangle. It has three sides of 2,000 yojanas each; the short side is 3.5 yojanas" (Sadakata 1997: 30-31 and 33, fig. 11 (Knudsen 2008: 262-263). The astronomer Caturveda Pṛthūdakasvāmin lived around 864 CE (Pingree 1970-94: 4.221-222).
The astronomer Brahmagupta composed the Brāhmasphuṭasiddhānta in 628 CE at the age of 30 (Pingree 1970-94: 4.254-257, 5.239-240 It is clear from the texts that the Siddhāntic astronomers understood the simile (comparing the earth to a mirror) to mean that the earth is flat. For example, Lalla writes the following in the Śiṣyadhīvṛddhidatantra: 27 अिमतामवनीं पचक्षते स ुसमां के चन दप र्णोपमाम ् Some say that the earth is immense; others that it is perfectly flat like a mirror.
The first of the Siddhāntic astronomers to identify the source of the mirror simile is Bhāskara II, who cites the simile in the Siddhāntaśiromaṇi: 28 यिद Unfortunately, Bhāskara II does not reveal where in the Purāṇas the mirror simile is found. Besides Bhāskara II, the only other astronomer to identify the source of the mirror simile is Jñānarāja, who also points to the Purāṇas. A detailed discussion of Jñānarāja's treatment of the mirror simile is found in the next section.
Additionally, in his compendium on India, the Muslim scholar Al-Bīrūnī (born 973 CE) writes that some people in India hold that the earth is flat like a mirror. He further notes that sayings about the shape of the earth are especially common among the followers of the Purāṇas. 31 27 See Śiṣyadhīvṛddhidatantra 20.6 (B. Chatterjee 1981: 1.232). Lalla presents arguments against the earth being flat in Śiṣyadhīvṛddhidatantra 20.34-37 (B. Chatterjee 1981: 1.237). 28 Siddhāntaśiromaṇi 2.3.11 (D. Apte 1943-52: 1.40). 29 See the Vāsanābhāṣya on Siddhāntaśiromaṇi 2.3.11-12 (D. Apte 1943-52: 1.40). This work is not to be confused with Caturveda Pṛthūdakasvāmin's commentary of the same name on the Brāhmasphuṭasiddhānta. 30 The word purāṇe is here interpreted as a singular standing for the whole category. 31 Sachau 1910: 267-268. Al-Bīrūnī cites Brahmagupta as his source.
However, as noted by Pingree (1983: 356), the information given by Al-Bīrūnī is not from Brahmagupta, but appears to be from Caturveda Pṛthūdakasvāmin's commentary on Brahmagupta's Brāhmasphuṭasiddhānta.

JÑĀNARĀJA ON THE PURĀṆAS AND THE SHAPE OF THE EARTH
As one would expect from a member of the Siddhāntic tradition, Jñānarāja maintains that the earth is spherical in shape. Not only does he state that the earth is a sphere, he gives a number of scientific arguments for the sphericity of the earth. 32 However, unlike his predecessors, Jñānarāja does not attempt to refute the supposedly Purāṇic belief that the earth flat like a mirror. He argues instead that the mirror simile has been misinterpreted and that a spherical earth is consistent with the cosmographical statements in the Purāṇas. In other words, Jñānarāja makes the point that a spherical earth is supported not only by scientific demonstrations, but also by Purāṇic authority. 33 JÑĀNARĀJA'S ARGUMENT Jñānarāja presents his argument on the Purāṇas and the shape of the earth in two Sanskrit verses in the Siddhāntasundara's first chapter, the chapter on cosmography ( Jñānarāja does not reveal the identity of the obstinate people that he reprimands, nor does his son Cintāmaṇi in his commentary on the above two verses. Minkowski refers to them as "offstage voices". 35 The most obvious candidates are: 1. The traditional guardians and interpreters of Purāṇic lore.
2. The astronomers of the Siddhāntic tradition.
We know that the Siddhāntic astronomers ascribe the mirror simile to another tradition (identified as the Purāṇic tradition by Bhāskara II and Jñānarāja), and that they interpret the simile to mean that the earth is flat. However, it would be odd for Jñānarāja to state that the astronomers are ignorant about arguments for and demonstrations of the spherical shape of the earth. On the other hand, Jñānarāja assumes that his antagonists know specific, perhaps obscure, Purāṇic passages, which points to the first possibility. This group is also not likely to know the Siddhāntas' arguments that the earth is a sphere. As things stand, though, it is not clear exactly who Jñānarāja has in mind.
The question of Jñānarāja's antagonists aside, the two verses introduce three separate statements, all of which are attributed to the Purāṇas: 1. bhūgola, "earth-sphere." 2. sarvato meruḥ saumyadiśi, "Meru is north of everywhere." 3. ādarśatalopamā or mukuratalanibhatvam, "resembling the surface of a mirror" or "resemblance to the surface of a mirror." The argument can be broken down as follows: Jñānarāja claims that the word bhūgola and the statement sarvato meruḥ saumyadiśi are (1) found in the Purāṇas, and (2) indicate that the earth is a sphere. According to Jñānarāja, even though his antagonists are aware of these two statements (and presumably know how they should be interpreted), they nonetheless proceed to cite a third Purāṇic statement, ādarśatalopamā, as evidence that the earth is described as flat in the Purāṇas. However, according to Jñānarāja, his antagonists are misinterpreting 35 Minkowski 2004: 356. HISTORY OF SCIENCE IN SOUTH ASIA 9 (2021) 128-166 the third statement, which he argues means only that the earth locally appears to be flat. 36 In the following, each of the three statements in Jñānarāja's argument will be carefully analyzed. Attention will be given to the context of the statements in the Purāṇas, as well as to how the statements have been interpreted by the traditional commentators-and whether Jñānarāja's interpretation of the statements deviates from this context and traditional interpretation. 37 More specifically, it is a compound word formed as a combination of the word bhū, which means "the earth," and the word gola. In Jñānarāja's verse, it occurs as part of a larger compound, sadbhūgolapadam, translated as "the straightforward (sat) word (pada) bhūgola" above. 38

SCHOLARLY DICTIONARIES ON GOLA AND BHŪGOLA
Before Jñānarāja's argument can be properly critiqued, it is essential to have a full understanding of the meaning(s) of the Sanskrit word gola. The most commonly used scholarly dictionaries all have an entry for gola.
Böhtlingk and Roth's Sanskrit-Wörterbuch, an extensive Sanskrit-German dictionary published between 1855 and 1875, gives Kugel, that is, "ball, globe," as the primary meaning of both gola and the related word golaka. 39 Besides references to Sanskrit-Sanskrit lexicons, the dictionary states that this meaning of gola is attested in Bhāgavatapurāṇa 3.23. 43, 5.16.4, 40 5.20.38, 5.20.43, and 5.25.12, as well as Gītāgovinda 1.16. 41 In these examples, gola and golaka occur with bhū, either in 36 This is an old Siddhāntic argument. See, for example, Śiṣyadhīvṛddhidatantra 20.35 (B. Chatterjee 1981: 1.237). 37 Due to its popularity, the Bhāgavatapurāṇa has attracted more commentaries than any other Purāṇa. We often do not know much about the individuals who wrote the commentaries. A brief note on the commentators on the Bhāgavatapurāṇa is given by Tagare (1986: lxvi-lxix 41 Each of the Bhāgavatapurāṇa passages will be carefully discussed in the following. For the Gītāgovinda, see Telang 1937: 17, but note that the verse is numbered differently in Telang's edition of the text. The Gītāgovinda, a famous poem, falls outside of the Purāṇic context and will not be considered here. However, it can be noted that a quick survey shows that the available commentaries on the Gītāgovinda mainly gloss gola as maṇḍala, "circle." HISTORY OF SCIENCE IN SOUTH ASIA 9 (2021) 128-166 one of the compound forms bhūgola and bhūgolaka, or, in the case of Bhāgavatapurāṇa 3.23.43, in the form bhuvo golaṃ.
Monier-Williams' A Sanskrit-English Dictionary from 1899 and Apte's The Practical Sanskrit-English Dictionary from 1890 similarly both give "ball, globe" as the primary meaning of gola and golaka. 42 Mayrhofer's Kurzgefaßtes etymologisches Wörterbuch des Altindischen = A Concise Etymological Sanskrit Dictionary lists only "globe, ball, jar in the form of a ball" as the meanings of gola. 43 For the compound word bhūgola, Böhtlingk and Roth give the meaning Erdkugel, "earth-ball," and Monier-Williams gives "earth-ball, the terrestrial globe, earth." Böhtlingk and Roth have no entry for bhūgolaka, but Monier-Williams has "the terrestrial globe." Apte and Mayrhofer have no entries for bhūgola and bhūgolaka. 44 It is important to note that while the dictionaries of Böhtlingk and Roth, Monier-Williams, and Apte give "ball, globe" as the primary meaning of gola, they also give a secondary meaning, namely, "circle." Taken in this secondary sense, the word gola can be understood as a synonym of the word maṇḍala, "circular, round; circle." As we have seen, the Purāṇas commonly use the word bhūmaṇḍala, "earth-circle," to describe the earth. Using the secondary meaning of gola, it is possible to interpret the word bhūgola as a synonym of the word bhūmaṇḍala. However, the scholarly dictionaries do not give any examples from Sanskrit literature of gola used in the sense of "circle," but only refer to Sanskrit-Sanskrit lexicons.

SANSKRIT-SANSKRIT LEXICONS ON GOLA AND BHŪGOLA
Though a careful study of the history of the words gola and golaka in the traditional Sanskrit-Sanskrit lexicons (kośas) will not be undertaken here, a quick survey shows that the early lexicons mostly do not provide relevant information. However, the following is worth noting: The Śāśvatakośa has golaka as guḍa, "ball". 45 The Medinīkośa, which Vogel places between 1200 and 1275 CE, 46 is the earliest lexicon to give maṇḍala, "circle,"  (Telang 1936: 126)), a celebrated play by Bhavabhūti (8th century CE). However, the context does not provide valuable insight into the precise meaning of the word. 45 See Śāśvatakośa 383 (Kulkarni 1929: 34). The lexicon also has "son of a widow" for golaka, but that meaning is not relevant 46 Vogel 1979: 347. as a synonym of gola. 47 Contrary to Böhtlingk and Roth, the 19th-century Sanskrit-Sanskrit lexicon Śabdakalpadruma gives Bhāgavatapurāṇa 3.23.43 as an example of the use of gola in the sense of maṇḍala, citing the Medinīkośa as an authority for this sense of the term. The Śabdakalpadruma furthermore cites Hemacandra (born 1088 CE) as an authority for the definition sarvavartula, "round everywhere," that is, "spherical," of gola. 48 THE WORD BHŪGOLA IN THE SIDDHĀNTAS Before proceeding to a discussion of the occurrences and meaning of the word bhūgola in the Purāṇas, it is necessary to discuss its meaning in the Sanskrit treatises on astronomy.
The word gola is a technical term in the Siddhāntic tradition. In the context of astronomy, the word gola and the equivalent word golaka mean either "sphere" or "hemisphere." Neither gola nor golaka are found in the Vedāṅgajyotiṣa, the earliest text on astronomy in India, 49 and golaka is used only as the name of a certain conjunction of planets in the Yavanajātaka of Sphujidhvaja. 50 The earliest attestation of the word golaka meaning "hemisphere" is the Paitāmahasiddhānta, which Pingree dates to the first half of the 5th century CE. 51 Āryabhaṭa uses gola both as "sphere" and as "hemisphere" in the Āryabhaṭīya, composed in 499 CE. Subsequent astronomers, including Brahmagupta, Varāhamihira, Lalla, Bhāskara I, and Bhāskara II, use gola as both "sphere" and as "hemisphere" as well.
In other words, the Indian astronomical tradition has consistently used the word gola (and its equivalent golaka) to denote a sphere or a hemisphere since at least the time of Āryabhaṭa.
When it comes to the word bhūgola, all Indian astronomers, including Āryabhaṭa, Varāhamihira, 52 Brahmagupta, Lalla, Bhāskara I, Bhāskara II, and, as we have seen, Jñānarāja, use it in the sense of "earth-sphere." That is, the earth is a sphere. The Siddhāntic tradition accepts as a basic tenet that the earth is spherical in shape. The compound word bhūgola (or an equivalent thereof) is the tradition's standard nomenclature for the spherical earth of its model. 51 For the dating of the Paitāmahasiddhānta, which is part of the Viṣṇudharmottarapurāṇa, see Pingree 1967-8: 473. For the occurrence of gola in the sense of "hemisphere," see the Viṣṇudharmottarapurāṇa 2.171 (Śrīkṛṣṇadāsa 1912: 298v In the following, we will carefully go through each occurrence of the word in the Bhāgavatapurāṇa, a text we know from Sūryadāsa that Jñānarāja was familiar with, to try to ascertain whether the word bhūgola can be taken to indicate a spherical earth. However, we will not enter into a discussion of the occurrences in the other three Purāṇas. It is not certain that Jñānarāja used these texts, and the occurrences of bhūgola in them do not add anything substantial to the discussion. Can the word gola in the verse be taken as evidence that the earth is considered a sphere in the Bhāgavatapurāṇa? As noted previously, Böhtlingk and Roth's Sanskrit-Wörterbuch cites this verse as an example of the word gola used in the sense of Kugel, that is, "ball." However, the commentators do not see the text's use of the word as warranting any special discussion. Śrīdharasvāmin, Vijayadhvaja Tīrtha, Visvanātha Cakravartin, Śukadeva, Giridhara, and Gaṅgāsahāya all gloss gola as maṇḍala, "circle". 59 No commentator takes the discussion beyond this gloss, and some commentators do not even comment on the word. In other words, bhuvo golaṃ is seen by the traditional commentators as having the same meaning as bhūmaṇḍala. As we have noted, in support of this interpetation, the Śabdakalpadruma cites this verse as an example of the use of the word gola in the sense of maṇḍala, "circle." Bhāgavatapurāṇa 5. 16 O great king, no human being, not even one with a lifespan like that of the gods, can adequately understand by the mind or [express] by speech, the extent of the Lord's mighty manifestation through māyā and the guṇas. Therefore, we will mainly describe the characteristics of the bhūgolaka from its names, form, extent, and qualities.
Bhāgavatapurāṇa 5.16 opens with King Parīkṣit asking the sage Śuka for detailed information about the earth. The present passage is the beginning of Śuka's reply. Importantly, the Bhāgavatapurāṇa uses the word bhūmaṇḍala, "earth-circle," when King Parīkṣit makes his request for knowledge. 61 Furthermore, as Śuka continues his reply, he uses the word kuvalaya twice. 62 The word ku means "the earth" and the basic meaning of the word valaya is "bracelet," hence "circle." As such, the word kuvalaya is synonymous with bhūmaṇḍala. There is no indication that the bhūmaṇḍala in Parīkṣit's question is any different from the bhūgolaka and kuvalaya in Śuka's reply. In other words, the three words denote the same thing and are used interchangeably in this section of the Bhāgavatapurāṇa.
The commentators do not engage with the word bhūgolaka. This is not surprising since it is clear from the text itself that bhūgola is used as a synonym of bhūmaṇḍala. As such, we should be careful with arguments that infuse the word gola with special significance in this context. 59 K. Śāstrī 1965: 859, 861, 862, 863 and K. Śāstrī 1968: 167. 60  So far [that is, up to the Lokāloka mountains], the arrangement of the world with respect to its dimensions, characteristics, and manifestations has been considered by the sages. The Lokāloka mountain range [has a measurement of] a quarter of the bhūgola, which is calculated to be five hundred million yojanas.
According to Böhtlingk and Roth's Sanskrit-Wörterbuch, the word bhūgola means Kugel, that is, "ball," in this passage. But that is not reflected in the commentaries, the majority of which are silent on the word bhūgola. However, one commentator, Viśvanātha Cakravartin, whose commentary on the Bhāgavatapurāṇa was completed in January 1705, presents an explanation: telling us that bhūgola does not mean that the earth is a sphere or a hemisphere. Rather, the earth exists within a sphere (the brahmāṇḍa). 65 It is noteworthy that gola and golaka mean "hemisphere" in Viśvanātha Cakravartin's commentary, a meaning used in the Siddhāntic tradition, but not attested in earlier commentaries on the Bhāgavatapurāṇa. Not only that, the commentary also uses the word khagola, "sphere of the heavens," which is a technical term in the Siddhāntas. However, Viśvanātha Cakravartin does not interpret bhūgola to mean that the earth is a sphere, but follows a traditional understanding of the shape of the earth.
It appears that Viśvanātha Cakravartin is engaging with words and concepts coming from the Siddhāntic tradition. Unlike Jñānarāja, Viśvanātha Cakravartin is not attempting to reconcile the inconsistencies between the cosmographies of the Siddhāntas and the Purāṇas. However, another follower of the Purāṇas, Nīlakaṇṭha Caturdhara, who flourished in the second half of the 17th century, attempted such a reconciliation. 66 Later commentators on the Bhāgavatapurāṇa likewise engaged in an attempt to reconcile the two cosmographies. 67 It is possible that Jñānarāja's engagement with Purāṇic cosmography led to this development.
To summarize, according to Viśvanātha Cakravartin's interpretation, the word bhūgola means "the earth within a sphere," not "the earth that is a sphere." While gola and golaka have the sense of "hemisphere," a spherical shape is not attributed to the earth. Once again, Böhtlingk and Roth's Sanskrit-Wörterbuch states that this verse uses bhūgola in the sense of "Kugel," that is, "ball." None of the commentators engage in a discussion of the word. However, Vīrarāghava and Jīva Gosvāmin use the word bhūmaṇḍala in their commentaries instead of bhūgola, as does Vaṃśīdhara, who is quoting Jīva Gosvāmin. 69 In other words, there is no indication that the word bhūgola in 5.25.12 is used in a different sense than bhūmaṇḍala.
Bhāgavatapurāṇa 10.8.37 Perhaps the most important occurrence of bhūgola in the Bhāgavatapurāṇa is verse 10.8.37. The verse is part of the story of the god Kṛṣṇa, the most popular episode of the Bhāgavatapurāṇa. As such, the verse has attracted much more attention than the other four occurrences of bhūgola in the text. It is precisely this verse that Jñānarāja's son Sūryadāsa cites as an example of an occurrence of bhūgola in the Purāṇas. Note that this occurrence of bhūgola is not cited in Böhtlingk and Roth's Sanskrit-Wörterbuch.
In the story, which takes place during Kṛṣṇa's childhood, Kṛṣṇa's friends inform Kṛṣṇa's mother Yaśodā that Kṛṣṇa has eaten dirt. When Yaśodā looks into Kṛṣṇa's mouth, she sees the entire universe: 70 सा

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ON THE WORD BHŪGOLA IN THE BHĀGAVATAPURĀṆA
Given the evidence from Sanskrit texts and modern scholarly dictionaries, we see that the earliest attestations of the word gola in the sense of "sphere" come from the Indian astronomical tradition. The scholarly dictionaries give the nontechnical attestations of the word in this sense as the Bhāgavatapurāṇa, the poem Gītāgovinda, and the Nāradapañcarātra. However, as we have seen, it is not clear at all that the word means "sphere" in the Bhāgavatapurāṇa like it does in the Siddhāntic tradition. In fact, it appears that the Bhāgavatapurāṇa uses the word gola to mean "round" in a general sense, and as a synonym of maṇḍala, 'circular, round; circle.' An example in support of this interpretation is provided by the model of the universe in the Hanūmānḍhokā palace in Kathmandu, Nepal, which was mentioned earlier. The earth, represented as a flat disk in the model, has the word bhūgola, glossed as pṛthvī, "the earth," inscribed on it. 73 If there were different opinions about the shape of the earth among the followers of the Purāṇas, as there surely was, the word "round" would apply to them all: the earth as a flat disk, the earth as an inverted bowl, and the earth as a sphere. In other words, the meaning "round" in a vague sense, as conveyed also by the English word "round," would fit the context well.
In Kāvya (Sanskrit high poetry), it is considered a fault when a word is repeated in the same verse. 74 In Sanskrit literature in general, there is similarly a tendency to avoid repetition of a word in a verse. To avoid such repetitions, a synonym is used when a word is needed a second time in the same verse. It is natural, therefore, that the authors of the Purāṇas would need synonyms of the word maṇḍala.
To summarize, it seems unlikely that the word gola is used in the sense of "sphere" in the Purāṇas. Rather, the word is used in the general sense of "round," serving as a synonym to the word maṇḍala. Bhāskara II starts by defining the cardinal directions east and west to be the directions of the rising and setting sun, respectively. With the east and west points thus determined, he proceeds to use them to determine the north and south points.

NO RT H N E S S O F M E RU T HE SECOND OF THE THREE STATEMENTS attributed to the Purāṇas by
The method is outlined in Figure 1, where and denote the east and west points, respectively. Two circles with the same radius are drawn, one centered at and the other at . The common radius is chosen so that the two circles intersect at two distinct points, denoted and in the figure. The "fish figure" mentioned in the verse is formed by the two thick arcs. It is this figure that determines the points and in Bhāskara II's construction.
The straight lines and are perpendicular to each other. Since and are the east and west points, it follows that and are the north and south points, respectively. Moreover, the line coincides with the local meridian, for which reason it will reach the North Pole if extended toward the north. It follows that Meru, which the Siddhāntas say is located at the North Pole, is due north of any given location on the earth. Furthermore, in his refutation of the the earth being flat with Meru at its center, Bhāskara

If the Golden Mountain [that is, Meru] is the cause of night, why is it not seen when it is between them [that is, when Meru is between the observer's position and the sun 77 ]?
If Meru is to the north, why does the sun rise to the south?
In the last half-verse, Bhāskara II essentially states that Meru lies to the north by the Purāṇas' own admission. 78 It is clear that the statement sarvato meruḥ saumyadiśi is consistent with a spherical earth. However, it is not clear that the statement contradicts the earth having another shape. Jñānarāja does not present any arguments for why the statement implies a spherical shape of the earth, and, in fact, it does not. There are shapes other than a sphere that are consistent with the statement, such as an inverted bowl.

DIRECTIONS AT MERU
More broadly, the statement sarvato meruḥ saumyadiśi is connected to the question of whether there are directions at Meru. In the cosmography of the Siddhāntas, it is not meaningful to speak of directions at Meru; there is only one direction at Meru, namely, south. However, the astronomer Lalla mentions the belief that there are directions at Meru. 79 While Lalla does not identify who in ancient India believed that there are directions at Meru, it is likely that he had the followers of the Purāṇas in mind. For example, the Viṣṇupurāṇa states that the region Harivarṣa is south of Meru while the region Ramyakavarṣa is north of Meru. 80 Bhadrāśvavarṣa and Ketumālavarṣa are similarly said to be east and west of Meru, respectively. 81 The Bhāgavatapurāṇa and other Purāṇas have similar descriptions. 82 If such Purāṇic passages are what Lalla had in mind, the critique is largely unjustified. While the Purāṇas speak of places east, west, north, and south of Meru, such passages define the cardinal directions "in relation to the centre of the world, which is occupied by Meru." 83 The descriptions are therefore based on a bird's-eye view of Jambūdvīpa, where east, west, north, and south are absolute directions defined with respect to Meru. Bhāratavarṣa (India) is considered to be the southern part of Jambūdvīpa. The region on the other side of Meru from Bhāratavarṣa is similarly considered to be the northern part of Jambūdvīpa, and therefore described as being north of Meru. Regions east and west of Meru are determined similarly. 84 In daily and religious life, however, east is understood in precisely the same way as Bhāskara II defines it in the Siddhāntaśiromaṇi, namely, as the direction of the rising sun. In other words, Meru is always to the north because it is on the left side of a person facing the rising sun, that is, who is facing east. The Devībhāgavatapurāṇa is less likely to be Jñānarāja's source than the Viṣṇupurāṇa, which is why we will focus on the latter Purāṇa in the following.  (Śarmā 1985: 98r). 93 The Sanskrit root tap means "to give out heat" but can also mean "to shine." Both meanings are probably intended here, but given the exception that will be mentioned subsequently, the emphasis in the translation is on the sun emitting light.
HISTORY OF SCIENCE IN SOUTH ASIA 9 (2021) 128-166 likewise sends out light] behind and on either side, with the exception of Brahmā's court on top of Meru, the mountain of the gods. The rays of the sun that reach Brahmā's court are repelled by the palace's luster and reverse course. Therefore, in the northern quarter it is always night during the day [here, in our location], since Meru is north of all dvīpas and varṣas.
According to the passage, the sun emits an equal amount of heat and light in all directions. There is an exception to the reach of the sun's light, however. The city of the god Brahmā lies on the top of Meru, 94 and the luster of Brahmā's court in the city drives away any sunlight that reaches it. Since Meru is north of all dvīpas and varṣas, it follows that by "northern quarter" (diśy uttarasyāṃ), the Viṣṇupurāṇa means the region of Jambūdvīpa on the other side of Meru from the observer. It is left unexplained by the text itself why Meru is north of everywhere, but two commentators offer interpretations.
Viṣṇucitti In other words, Meru is located to the north because it is always on the left side of a person facing the rising sun. Similarly, Lokāloka is to the south because it is on their right side. The same reason is given in the Devībhāgavatapurāṇa, as we saw above.
When it is day for an observer, then, since Brahmā's court blocks sunlight, it is night in the northern quarter, that is, the region on the opposite side of Meru from the observer. This is essentially an explanation of why the sun cannot be seen at night. The reason, according to the Viṣṇupurāṇa, is that Meru blocks the sun's light.

MERU AS THE CAUSE OF NIGHT
The idea that Meru is the cause of night for the inhabitants of the earth is cited and refuted by some Siddhāntic astronomers. As summarized by the astronomers, the idea is that night occurs in a location when the sun is on the other side of Meru and therefore covered by the mountain. According to Lalla: 97 तमसा मे रुभ ुवा िवभावरी [Some say that] night is [caused] by the darkness produced by Meru.
Lalla refutes this idea by offering an objection: If night for the human beings on the earth is caused by Meru covering the sun, then how does night occur for the gods, who live on Meru? 98 As we have already seen, Bhāskara II objects to the notion that night is caused by Meru covering the sun by asking why in that case human beings cannot see Meru. 99 After all, Meru is said to be of immense size in the Purāṇas.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ON THE SECOND STATEMENT
If taken at face value, the statement sarvato meruḥ saumyadiśi naturally makes us think of Meru as the North Pole, and thus of the earth as spherical in shape. However, a close examination of the context in the Viṣṇupurāṇa shows that the statement does not imply a spherical earth. The Viṣṇupurāṇa employs two distinct usages of the cardinal directions. Jñānarāja, however, interprets sarvato meruḥ saumyadiśi with reference to only one of them, the one used in the Siddhāntas. Additionally, the statement in the Viṣṇupurāṇa is based on a premise explicitly rejected by the Siddhāntic tradition, namely, that Meru is the cause of night. As such, Jñānarāja's interpretation of the statement as implying a spherical earth is not supported by the Viṣṇupurāṇa itself, nor by the traditional commentaries on 97 See Śiṣyadhīvṛddhidatantra 20.4 (B. Chatterjee 1981: 1.232 Resembling the surface of a mirror.
As discussed above, a line of Siddhāntic astronomers, starting with Bhāskara I, have cited this mirror simile, understanding it to mean that the earth is flat. Jñānarāja, who holds that the statement is Purāṇic, argues that this is a false understanding. Prior to Jñānarāja, the only astronomer to identify the Purāṇas as the source of the statement was Bhāskara II. However, the same identification is given by the Islamic scholar Al-Bīrūnī. There are two interpretations of the passage. Some understand it to refer to two separate regions of the bhūmaṇḍala, while others understand it to refer to one region only. 101 Regardless of which interpretation is followed, the passage asserts the existence of a region of the bhūmaṇḍala that is golden and resembles a mirror. We will refer to this region as the Golden Land. It is important to note that the 100 Bhāgavatapurāṇa 5.20.35 (K. Śāstrī 1966: 457 Golden Land is not the entire bhūmaṇḍala, but rather a region extremely far away from the area inhabited by human beings.
The Bhāgavatapurāṇa passage raises two difficulties: 1. The passage does not compare the earth to a mirror. 2. The point of the comparison to a mirror does not appear to be that the Golden Land is flat.
Regarding the first difficulty, it is hard to imagine why anyone would take Bhāgavatapurāṇa 5.20.35 as evidence of a flat earth in Purāṇic cosmography. However, there are some things to consider: 1. The antagonists in Jñānarāja's argument misinterpret ādarśatalopamā as bhūr ādarśatalopamā sakalā. In other words, they misunderstand, or worse, misrepresent, the statement to apply to the entire earth. The word bhūmi, translated above as "region," has the more common meaning of "the earth." The context makes it clear that bhūmi does not mean "the earth" in Bhāgavatapurāṇa 5.20.35. Though it seems unlikely, perhaps a careless reading of the passage could lead someone to think that the earth is compared to a mirror (bhūmiḥ ādarśatalopamā). 102 2. Even if the passage is Jñānarāja's source for the mirror simile in the Purāṇas, it is questionable whether it is also his predecessors' source. As we have seen, Bhāskara I's commentary on the Āryabhaṭīya, the first known attestation of the mirror simile in a Sanskrit astronomical text, predates Jñānarāja's Siddhāntasundara by close to nine centuries. It is entirely possible that Bhāskara I is referring to a different passage (or to an oral tradition rather than a literary passage). 103 Many of the astronomers who cite the mirror simile may have done so merely on the authority of their predecessors, without a specific passage in mind. 3. Bhāskara II identifies the Purāṇas as the source of the mirror simile. It is possible that Jñānarāja accepted the Purāṇic provenance on the authority of Bhāskara II, then looked for a Purāṇic reference, finding When it comes to the second difficulty, we need to consider the tertium comparationis when a Sanskrit text compares something to a mirror. The mirrors of ancient and medieval India were made of metal. 105 Different alloys were used to achieve a mirror that would not easily break as well as have a surface with good reflective properties. The polishing process to achieve a reflective surface was extensive, and a mirror would subsequently need regular cleaning to retain its reflective properties.
The earliest known comparison of an object to a mirror is found in the Kātyāyanaśrautasūtra from about 300 BCE, where the point of comparison is roundness. 106 This is consistent with the archeological record, which shows that mirrors from ancient India were round or at least oval. 107 In later texts, such as the Nāṭyaśāstra, the comparison seems to indicate both flatness and smoothness/glossiness. 108 Considering that the metal mirrors used in ancient and medieval India had to be cleaned regularly to remain reflective, the comparison might also indicate that the object is spotlessly clean.
Neither roundness nor flatness seem to apply to the Golden Land. Since the Golden Land is made of gold, the point of its comparison to a mirror appears to be that it has reflective properties. Alternatively, it could indicate that the surface of the Golden Land is smooth and glossy.
The Golden Land has the peculiar property that objects placed in it are irretrievably lost, for which reason it is shunned by living beings. 109  Vīrarāghava's explanation implies that the "belly of a mirror" is convex, so that objects roll off it. 111 Whatever Vīrarāghava imagines the shape of the Golden Land to be, it is not flat. If we follow Vīrarāghava's explanation, flatness is not implied by the comparison of the Golden Land to a mirror.
RĀMĀYAṆA 4.45.12 Besides Bhāgavatapurāṇa 5.20.35, there are no known passages in the extant Purāṇas in which the earth, or a portion of the earth, is compared to a mirror. But there is such a verse in the Rāmāyaṇa.
The Rāmāyaṇa does not belong to the category of Purāṇa, but it is a text that was informative, and often authoritative, for the followers of the Purāṇas. As such, it is reasonable to consider evidence from the Rāmāyaṇa here, though it should be noted that there is no indication that Jñānarāja had the Rāmāyaṇa in mind when he composed Siddhāntasundara 1.1.27-28.
The context for the Rāmāyaṇa verse is a story in which Sugrīva is chased across the sky by his brother Vālin, the king of Kiṣkindhā. Flying high in the sky, Sugrīva describes the earth below him as follows: 112 आदशर् तलसकाशा ततो वै पृ िथवी मया अलातचकपितमा दृटा गोपदवतदा Then I saw the earth, resembling the surface of a mirror and the circling of a torch, like [it was just] the hoof-print of a cow.
The verse uses two images to describe how the earth appears to Sugrīva: earth as round. Since roundness is a quality associated with mirrors in ancient and medieval India, the two images could reinforce each other in expressing the roundness of the earth. The verse therefore does not rule out that the earth has the shape of, say, an inverted bowl. Furthermore, Lefeber's summary of the commentaries on the verse does not indicate that the commentators understood the earth to be a flat disk. The commentators explain that the image of a circling torch is used because the earth is encircled by a mountain range or to indicate the high speed at which Sugrīva is moving, and the image of a mirror's surface is used because Sugrīva can see clearly all of the objects on the earth below him.
In other words, the precise shape of the earth is not clear from the verse or from the commentators' exposition of it. That the earth is a flat disk is a possibility, but other shapes are not ruled out.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ON THE THIRD STATEMENT
The main problem with the third statement is that there is no extant Purāṇic passage that fits the argument in Siddhāntasundara 1.1.27-28. Jñānarāja's Purāṇic source is almost certainly Bhāgavatapurāṇa 5.20.35, but the passage supports neither the interpretation attributed to Jñānarāja's antagonists nor that of Jñānarāja himself. Jñānarāja understands the mirror simile to apply to only 1/100 of the earth's surface, that is, the earth appears flat locally though it is in fact a sphere. But this is just an old Siddhāntic argument, first articulated by Lalla as an argument against the idea that the earth is flat. 115 It does not apply to the context of Bhāgavatapurāṇa 5.20.35.
It is not unreasonable to think that a passage comparing the earth to a mirror, similar to the verse we saw in the Rāmāyaṇa, was at some point part of one of the Purāṇas (or can still be found in a manuscript somewhere). If so, Jñānarāja must not have known about it. Furthermore, even if so, we must consider what the tertium comparationis would be. As we have seen, the tertium comparationis need not be flatness, but could easily be roundness. 116 In other words, if the mirror simile is found in the Purāṇas, it could simply convey that the earth is round, an old Purāṇic idea. and later astronomers' engagement with the text. 117 Though Jñānarāja engages with Purāṇic material in the Siddhāntasundara, there is no evidence that he otherwise wrote about or interpreted the Purāṇas. Sūryadāsa writes that Jñānarāja wrote three other works besides the Siddhāntasundara-on horoscopy (jātaka), rhetoric (sāhitya), and the art of singing (gītaśāstra). 118 These works are no longer extant, but the topics do not indicate that they deal with the Purāṇas, at least not directly.
In general, Jñānarāja seems to have been a conservative and pious Hindu, who clearly was committed to the Purāṇas. We have seen that Jñānarāja acted as an apologist for the Purāṇas within the Siddhāntic tradition. He defended Purāṇic ideas to the point of rejecting tenets from the Siddhāntas, thereby asserting the relevance of the Purāṇas. He silently omitted ideas from the Purāṇas that would prove problematic in astronomy, such as the sun being closer to the earth than the moon is. More specifically, Jñānarāja sought an integration of two cosmographical systems-that of the Siddhāntas and that of the Purāṇas-which to educated observers at the time must have appeared to be mutually contradictory.
In our analysis of the three Purāṇic statements cited by Jñānarāja, we saw that Jñānarāja's interpretation of the first two amounts to imposing a Siddhāntic understanding on the passages. The word bhūgola is understood to mean that the earth is a sphere, a meaning taken from the Siddhāntas, and the northness of Meru is understood without reference to the ways in which the Purāṇas use the directions. Jñānarāja's interpretation of the third statement, where Purāṇic evidence is lacking for the interpretation given by the astronomers, is a repetition of an old Siddhāntic argument.
Jñānarāja's argument was effective. In today's scholarly dictionaries, the entries on gola, golaka, and bhūgola reflect his interpretation. The evidence from the Bhāgavatapurāṇa and its commentaries should be taken into account when the meaning of bhūgola is under discussion.
At the time of Jñānarāja, the Bhāgavatapurāṇa was growing in popularity, and the number of commentaries was increasing fast. Given the Bhāgavatapurāṇa's popularity and reputation, it would not be surprising if the text, including its cosmography, caught the attention of some astronomers. If so, a plausible explanation for Jñānarāja's attempt at a synthesis of the two cosmographies is that the popularity and reputation of the Bhāgavatapurāṇa provided an impetus for reevaluating the Siddhāntic tradition's relationship to Purāṇic cosmography.
As we have seen, the commentaries on the Bhāgavatapurāṇa predating Jñānarāja agree on the interpretation of the word bhūgola in the text. But despite a consensus among the commentators, there is enough ambiguity in the Purāṇas' cosmographical accounts to allow for an intervention in the interpretation of the texts. As such, the stage is set for Jñānarāja to argue that there are no contradictions between the two cosmographies.
Another possible explanation is that the Siddhāntic astronomers, like other groups, felt a need for unification among Hindus. Nicholson notes that Hindu scholars working on philosophy were concerned about Islam: "Philosophical authors writing in Sanskrit do not acknowledge Islam explicitly. But the perceived threat of Islam motivated them to create a strictly defined category of āstika philosophical systems, systems that professed belief in the authority of the Veda." 119 Jñānarāja does not mention Islam in the Siddhāntasundara, but he lived in an Islamic kingdom and must have been aware of Islam. 120 While the astronomers preceding Jñānarāja are not known to have engaged in the demonizing of Muslims that was done by other Hindu groups, 121 they could have shared similar concerns. In other words, Jñānarāja could have been motivated by such concerns to integrate the Hindu tradition of astronomy closely with Hindu religion as expressed in the Purāṇas.
Whatever his reasons might have been, Jñānarāja's attempt at a reconciliation between the cosmography of the Purāṇas and the cosmography of the Siddhāntas had a significant impact. His successors in the Siddhāntic tradition followed him and studied this cosmographical reconciliation. Later on, Purāṇic commentators did the same.

ACK NOW L E D G E M E N T S
T HIS PROJECT has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement no. 701709. Special thanks to David Buchta, whose insightful comments greatly improved the article. I am also thankful to Dominic Goodall, Corinna Wessels-Mevissen, and Kenneth Zysk for their help.