सिद्धान्तशिरोमणि: गणिताध्याय (भास्कराचार्य - ग्रहगणित, मध्यमाधिकार व स्पष्टाधिकार सटीक)

543
shall be zero, if the declinations were to be equal and of
opposite directions.
Here ends the Pātādhyāya.
Note Bhāskara gives two examples in the course
of the commentary, one, to show the fallacy in asserting
that there would be a pāta when the Sun is in an even
quadrant, the Moon in an odd quadrant and the Moon's
declination is less than that of the Sun; and the other to
show the fallacy in asserting that the pāta has elapsed
when it is still to take place, and that it is still to occur
when it has already elapsed. He quotes the example given
in his Golādhyāya wherein the longitudes of the Sun,
Moon and Rāhu are 120°, 60° and 180° respectively, there
being no Ayanāṁśas. (Since at the time of Lalla, there
were no Ayanāṁśas, Bhāskara gives such an example),
Since the Sun is in an even quadrant and the Moon in
an odd quadrant, Bhāskara says, that as per the verse of
Lalla ‘सूर्यापमात् ओजपदोद्भवात् etc.’ there should be a
pāta. But since the longitude of Rāhu is 180°, Ketu
is at the equinoctial point so that the lunar orbit
lies between the ecliptic and the equator. Hence the
declination of the Moon remains smaller than that of
the Sun for a good length of time never equalling the
declination of the Sun. This, Bhāskara says, is a fallacy
regarding ‘भावाभावत्व’ ie. ‘Is there a pāta or not’ because
when there is actually no pāta, Lalla's criterion leads to
assert that there is one. It may be reiterated here, that
Lalla gave a general criterion ignoring the latitude of the
Moon ie. supposing the Moon to be moving on the ecliptic.
Bhāskara takes the latitude also into consideration and
proves that there is no pāta.
In the second example, which Bhāskara gives, he tries
to show the fallacy with respect to “गतेष्यत्व” ie. asserting
that a pāta has elapsed when it is still to occur, and that
it is to occur when it has already elapsed.