Page 686 - Lokmanya Tilak Samagra (khand 2)

"
38 SAMAGRA TILAK- 2 • VEDANGA JYOTJ~HA
after making the necessary correction of altering -..i~r~~io into
m~rll!~o. He has also shown that the rule is derived from or
based on a sound mathematical reasoning. At the rate of 1809
1
Nak!lhatras in 124 pakshas of a Yuga the Moon traverses 175 ~4
Nak!lhatras in a dozen pakshas; and since she takes one day and
seven kalds to move through a Nak!lhatra ( R. 18, Y. 39 ), it will be
found that to complete 175 Nak!lhatras she requires 177 days and
19 kaltis of the 178th day. ln other words the time of the Moon's
entry into the !76th or the last parvan Nak!lhatra at the end of a
dozen pakshas is 19 kalds of the corresponding parvan day; and
similarly if the number of pakshas be two dozen, the number of
kalds would be 2 x 19 or 38, and so on. But having once missed the
true meaing of ~ B has unfortunately failed to follow up
this course in interpreting the second half of the present
verse; and S is led to radically alter the whole verse to suit
his guess about its contents. He cannot make anything out of
the verse except by artificially interpreting 3'1ll!'!iT to mean 4,
and changing a;offir1-r~n: into ~ti~r:, the word ~ in the latter
case being taken to mean the number 12. When one must resort
to such artifices to make a verse intelliglible, one may, I think,
very well suspect that he has missed its right meaning. The rule
obtained by S after so many changes, does not again give us the
time of the Moon's entry into the last parvan Nak~hatra; but only
enables us to convert the Nak!lhatra-amshas into kalas thereof,
which is quite besides the purpose in view. In my opinion the
second half of the verse is supplementary to the first; and that
after stating the rule for converting bhamshas into kalds at the
end of a dozen pakshas, the Vedanga proceeds to deal with the
case of pakshas in excess thereof- the ~ pakshas as it calls
them. How the second half of the verse should be interpreted
according to this view, will be seen from what follows.
ln the Rik recension this second half of the verse is thus
given:-

~<{~J~ f[~~ ~~~en: 1
and I think it is the correct reading. The Yajus text has ~Rm~o
and, adopting it, both B and S consider ~~ as a numeral
adjective qualifying 'fl6f: or ~lllr: understood, though eventually
they differ widely in their interpretations. At the first sight this
seems to be proper construction of the verse; for, according to