Discernment of the Truth of Astronomical Principles

In this way, the risk of imprecision original: sthūlatā; referring to mathematical rounding errors or conceptual vagueness arises; therefore, this is untenable. Indeed, the Solar and Civil measures are used here for the sake of bringing about the calculation, but the hand-measurements and other observational tools used in the Vedas are not the "Actual" Civil Day-count. Furthermore, regarding the simultaneous existence and non-existence of two points in time, there is an objection regarding the distinction between the two, because a contradiction arises in describing a single entity as having both properties.

Thus it is said: even the Solar measures must be considered by you according to the Mean measure. Where there is an actual existence of a quantity, the calculation of those days for the purpose of the Civil day-count is considered "unreal" at the time of sunrise. Therefore, the day-count which is calculated from the time of the solar sunrise at the creation original: sṛṣṭi; the start of the current cosmic cycle is established as "Actual" original: vāstava, as it is characterized by the specific time of the Sun’s rising for that birth-epoch.

It cannot be said that the day-count previously established by an "unreal" mean civil measure is invalid at the moment of sunrise. How could it be considered unreal? From the movement of the Mean Sun Madhyārka|The theoretical Sun moving at a constant speed along the celestial equator and the subsequent addition or subtraction of the difference in its movement, the True Day-count Sphuṭāhargaṇa|The day-count adjusted for the Sun's actual, non-uniform motion is achieved. If the days were not considered as whole units, how could they be "Actual"? Since the day-count is counted in whole units of days, why is it accepted as the Mean at the time of sunrise? In that system, if the count is based on those specific sunrises, how could the planetary weekday be correctly determined?

Furthermore, at the start of the Solar Year, the application of the Equation of Time Udayāntara|The correction required to synchronize the mean solar day with the actual sunrise and other factors would be inconsistent. In the context of the calculation, when the result is derived from the mean motion and its subsequent corrections, it becomes True original: spaṣṭa. Through the logic of the results, it is highly refined. How then can this be contested? In that system, the rule of the True motion of the Sun, which follows a fixed path on its eccentric circle Pratimaṇḍala|The off-center circle used in ancient astronomy to model the varying speed of planets, is unavoidable.

Now, as for what is called the "Actual Single Measure" by the ignorant: in that path, the Equation of Time is not established by two equal measures, but by the difference in time at the end of six months, resulting in a different mathematical conclusion. This is a heterogeneous calculation. original: 35; likely referring to a specific mathematical value in the calculation Therefore, in another set of day-counts, there is a heterogeneous planetary calculation, and there too, an intercalary difference of 35 occurs.

Moreover, there is a great contradiction: the minutes of the difference in motion between the planet and the Mean Sun are not refined when the two are uncorrected. By giving the Equation of Time correction, the logic of the apogee and perigee is addressed through the Sun's motion. It is said that in a part of a day, the Sun moves... original: 350; likely referring to the Sun's approximate movement in minutes or a related constant