1877 .] 
419 
explanation of the Jyotisha-Veddngct. 
fTtgH frrfti: II 
sjm%^T ^i^rf <r ^-Ti^rst I 
'JJI ^rfT II 
And about the nakshatra-measure : 
•qT^rTT fsr^FJWiT I 
V|v ^ || 
f^ng^re i 
^T^rf rj Wrpg^W II 
^TtIT % ^*1 ■gJWTiliX^r: ^R«T^R || 
The next thing we want is a statement of the manner in which a day 
is subdivided, v. 38. 
(A nadika) consists of ten and a twentieth kalas, a muhurta com¬ 
prises two nadikas, a day has thirty (nadikas) or six hundred and three 
kalas.” 
"With this we have to combine the statement made in verse 30, that 
one kala comprises one hundred and twenty-four kashthas and that made 
in v. 39 , that one kashtha consists of five aksharas. 
The measure of the savana day, expressed in kalas, is given already in 
v. 38 ; the length of the tithi expressed in the same measure amounts to 
593 (1830, the number of savana days in a yuga being multiplied by 
603, the number of kalas of one day, and the product being divided by 
1860, the number of tithis in one yuga). The length of the nakshatra day, 
* This verse is restored by conjecture only. The MSS. read : cTP^T^TTcn^TT- 
J 
KT 3 T'Nt^IT 0 or : ° Likewise they read in the preceding 
line : g ¥[ 0 'Ll 16 latter has been emendated into by Prof. Weber 
already who remarks that i s P r °ved from calculation to be erroneous. This is 
quite true, but it does not go far enough, the length of a nakshatra day not being 112 
lavas but 112 + lavas. The only thing which we may confidently look for even in 
the most ancient astronomical and mathematical works of India, is rigorous exactness in 
calculations of the above kind (a remark which we shall have to keep in eye in our at¬ 
tempts to reconstrue the meaning of the Jyotisha). Prof. Weber seems inclined to refer 
the u of our verse to the number of the sidereal months in one yuga. These are 
sixty-seven indeed ; but the mentioning of the number of the months, which can easily bo 
deduced from the stated number of the days, is of much smaller importance than the 
accurate statement of the length of the day. Thus the number of the lunar months also 
is not expressly stated by Garga. The corruption of the verse in question being very 
great the above emendation is of course only one of many we might adopt as far as the 
mere mode of expression is concerned; the sense would always have to be the same. 
2 a 
