Page 691 - Lokmanya Tilak Samagra (khand 2)

CRITICISM AND SUGGESTIONS 43
note. In column 3 ( b ) we have successive multiples of 11, or
in other words ll>'fila:~IU"I.J~,J'"r.i:; and half a ak~hatra, which requires
to be added in the case of a bright paksha ( ~s~ etc., ) will
be found to be so added in the case of aU uneven paksha in column
3 ( a ). For the iina-pak has commence after a dozen and so all
the uneven t1na-pakshas are bright. But there i an important
difference between these two results. The ver e ~: ~: etc.,
gives u only uch amshas as are in excess of the completed Nak-
ll!hatra · while by calculating according to the rule ~f.t-fbm;;ft:
etc., we get the whole of +1~, that is, the complete Nakll!hatras
ari ing out of it, a well a the amshas in excess thereof. And as
both these are required to be known for the purpose in hand, it
was necessary to give a separate rule for calculating the entire ~q
of the Moon.
Let us now see how the Vedanga derives the number of the
required kalas from this +!~. Immediately after the above verse,
the Rik recension has the following :-

-.4~1'! ~[ fG:<r~~Fr&t~~~<nt~~ I
-=n~s~it; :qJf~ rRS~ ~~~~ ~;,qlill R. 12; Y. 27
this order of the ver es is not, however, preserved in the Yajus
text; and both BandS have, in consequence, been. led to interpret
this verse independently. In their opinion it gives us a rule for
finding the number of days, (B. Lunar; S. civil) required by the
the Sun to traverse one complete Nak~batra; and that the
word ~~~ means the 14th day thereof. The word ~~ in. the
first half of the verse literally means ' having a third ( ~ ), '
' pos essed of a third in addition ' or, algebraically expre ed,
a+ 1/3 a, and not three-fourths as B interprets it. S aw the
difficulty and got over it by altering it into~. Both have again to
interpret +1~ to mean the remainder of a day, and not of a Nak-
~hatra ( +t ) as it naturally means. As for the second line S changes
it radically and B thinks that ~ in ~~ is the locative
of~ which as believed by him, means a nycthemeron in the
Vedanga. But this meaning of ~ is so unnatural that without
a special definition to that effect, it cannot, in my opinion be
accepted, even as a convention. Besides it is not nece asary to strain
the meaning in this way; and where it seems to be necessary I
would adopt the reading g instead, as Dikshit and others
have done in Y. 31, 37 and 38. Finally the rule obtained after