Page 700 - Lokmanya Tilak Samagra (khand 2)

52 SAMAGRA TILAK - 2 • VEDANGA JYOTI~HA

into the next Nak~hatra, on the next tithi day, and so on. This
rule is given in the following verse :-
'1T: q~'l1J~'i'ti<.?l~ltl ~ fuN'>J:.. I
:l:I'J%q~ 'ti<:?Rfli~~ fclm1:J1:J'i<t\: 'f.Z'5T: II R. 21: Y. 21.
The verse is correctly interpreted by B and also by Mr. Dikshit
before him. S tries to improve on this, but his refinements are,
in my opinion, uncalled for. I quote the verse here, not for the
purpose of discussing its meaning; but more to point out that the
words Q"~JClJififi<;Sf: at the beginning of this verse distinctly presup-
pose a rule for finding the ka/as of the Moon's entry into the last
parvan Nak~hatra, and that no such rule is to be found in the
Vedanga, unless the verse~~ +1~ etc. ( R. 12; Y. 17) be inter-
preted in the way proposed by me above.
Hitherto we have the verses giving rules for ascertaining
three lunar positions, viz. ( 1 ) her parvan position in space, ( 2 )
the time of her entry into the last parvan Nak~hatra, and ( 3) that
of her entry into the tithi Nak~hatra. Her tithi Nak~hatra in
space or in other words, her tithi Nak~hatra has now to be ascer-
tained. The verse which gives a rule for the purpose is contained
not in the Rik but only in the Yajus text. It runs as follows
fuN'~p:%1i ~f~<lT>J:.. I
~~~fa"~ II Y. 20.
Grammatically there is no flaw in the verse, and read straight off,
it means - ' One should indicate the tithi Nak~hatra by multi-
plying the tithi by 11, adding (to it) the Nak~hatra amshas of the
parvan, and dividing (the sum) by the total number of the Nak-
~hatras (that is, 27 ). ' B seems to have translated it correctly.
But his explanation shows that he has misunderstood the rule
as well as its reason. S was, therefore, justified in looking for
another explanation; but, as usual, he tries to improve only
by ingeniously changing V:'fi~+~ffi into Ol~i~ and even
then he is unable to show that the verse gives us the exact
numter of amshas of the tithi Nak~Jhatra in question, for his
results falls short by 9/15 of an amsha per tithi. He has also to
interpret +~e~ a meaning 124 instead of 27 as it naturally
means. If we however, disabuse our mind, of the idea that the
rule gives us the amshas of the tithi NakQhatra and not merely
the Nak~Jhatra itself, all these difficulties at once disappear. The