________________
( 52 )
The clear meaning of this is that in case of kshaya tithi the former tithi should be taken in its place and in case of Briddhi, the latter tithi should be taken for performances, that is to say the latter sunrise which is touched by the same tithi should be odserved. This injunction is quite natural and proper. In reality there is neither kshaya nor Briddhi of any tithi. All the tithis exist for the period of their duration. The performance of the Parba must be observed when it actually exists. In case of Kshaya tithi the situation is that the tithis preceeding Kshaya exists at the time of the sunrise; after some time the Kshaya tithi begins and terminates before the next sunrise. So really speaking, the Kshaya tithi exists on the same day in which the former tithi touches the sunrise. Therfore, the Parba should be observed on the date in which the former tithi touched the sunrise, after giving the Parbatithi designation instead of the former tithi.
Similarly in case of Briddhi when the Parbatithi touched two sunrises the latter Sunrise is taken for observance of Parba after designating the second only as the Parbatithi. If the former sunrise is taken there would be no distinction between the ordinary titki and the Briddhi tithi. Therefore, the latter should be observed. This is also supported by reasoning.
Now the question is which tithi should be designated as Parba and observed. For that the injunction is that the former tithi should be counted as Kshaya or Briddhi both. suppose Astami tithi is Kshaya, then Saptami is counted as Kshaya tithi. If Astami is Briddhi then latter astami is taken for observance as astami and the former Saptami is considered as Briddhi.
Shree Sudharmaswami Gyanbhandar-Umara, Surat
www.umaragyanbhandar.com
