पञ्चसिद्धान्तिका (आचार्य वराहमिहिर - सूर्य, रोमक, पौलिश, वासिष्ठ एवं पितामह सिद्धान्त)

110 PAÑCASIDDHĀNTIKĀ IV. 35 the unmaṇḍala to the prime vertical is got.) Add to it the time of half-cara. This is the time from sunrise for the Sun to reach the prime vertical. The following is the work: (i) Sin (arc corresponding to time from unmaṇḍala to prime vertical) = 240 ′ × sin dec × colat ÷ (sin lat × day-diameter) (ii) The arc in degrees of (i) is to be got. Dividing by 6, the time in nāḍīs is got. (iii) The time got by (ii) + the half-cara is the time after sunrise, for the Sun to cross the prime vertical. Note that the formula here given is what we arrived at earlier, as what the author’s formula reduces to in verses 32-33. Then, why is this repetition? In the previous two verses, the work was not given clearly and fully. Here it is clear and full. Now for the reading: From the words khajinaghnī krāntijyā lambaghnī, it is clear that the product of two sines must be the divisor. Therefore, we have corrected dhruvaguna dyudairghyahṛtā into dhruvaguna-dyudairghya-hatā, which is otherwise also a better reading. Other small corrections have been made according to the idea intended to be expressed, and according to syntax. Thus it is clearly seen that in the work sin colat appears as part of the numerator, and sin lat. as part of the denominator, from which it can be seen clearly that the formula is concerned with finding the time of the Sun’s rise from unmaṇḍala to the prime vertical, and not the half-cara. The mention of the half-cara here is just to say that it should be added to find the whole time. However, both TS and NP have been misled by the mention of the expression ‘half-cara’ into thinking that the formula itself is to find the half-cara, with the result that they take the numerator as the denominator, and the denominator as the numerator, not realising that by their interpreta- tion the rule for half-cara would be a repetition, because in IV. 26 also the same has been given, and in the same form, which NP, too, have, noticed and observe: “This in fact, is only a repetition of IV. 26. It is here out of place.” (pt.II, p.43). But it may be asked whether the work according to our interpretation is not a repetition of the work of the previous two verses. We say the work as given here is clear, succinct and full. But then what is the use of the two previous verses? The work there given is easy to explain on the basis of the rule for the Rt. ascension of the ecliptic point, gone before. Or, that method perhaps is that of the Paulīśa, the author giving the same in a better form here. The example on this has already been worked out in Example 12. [समशङ्कुः तच्छाया च] उत्तरगोलेऽर्कज्या काष्ठा(न्त)गुणा ध्रुवज्यया भक्ता | ताः शङ्कुलिप्तिकाऽऽख्यास्ताभिः सममण्डल(च्छा)या || ३५ || 34a. A1. षजिनघ्नी; A2. त्रजिनघ्नी d. C.D. सकल b. C.D. लम्बहता ध्रुवगुणा. A. हितात् A. दिनवृद्ध्यर्द्धः; C. दिवसवृद्ध्यर्द्धः; c. A. तच्चापंश D. दिन[वि]वृद्ध्यर्धः