The ancients were using both, a poornimanta system (a lunar month ending on a full moon day) as well as an amanta system (a lunar month ending on a new moon day).
Were they confused about it or was there something else?
Why does there still exist a controversy on this?
Once we are clear about the basics that Chaitra etc. months are the luni-sidereal solar months, there cannot be a room for co-existence of the two types of systems. If Sun and Moon are referred from the zero at the time when the Chaitra etc. months are supposed to begin the cycle, it has to be an amanta system since Shukla Pratipata (the first day of the bright half) would be the first lunar day and if the reference is when Sun is at zero and Moon is at 180 degree, it is a Poornimanta system as Krishna Pratipata (the first day of the dark half) would be the first lunar day.
In all the ancient texts the reference is specified as Sun and Moon being at zero and that makes it an amanta system by default.
The answer to this lies within the Vedas itself. Once we have learnt correctly how the seasons were identified from the Chaitra etc. months, we also learn that how they maintained superbly the co-existence of both the tropical as well as the sidereal. Thus, it is the seasonal lunar months that can either be poornimanta or amanta depending on how much the precession is from a particular reference of Chaitra etc. months.
My other articles "Article 6 - The poornima fluctuating zone" and "Time to think beyond the metonic cycle" shall also be read in conjunction with this article as they are linked.
The seasonal lunar months are not Chaitra etc. months. They are Madhu etc. months and exist independently. My book "Resolving the Indian Calendar Anomalies" has all the details regarding this. No Indian calendar is perfect that does not address this basic difference.
October 16, 2018
Devinder Dhingra
More to read
Copyright© Devinder Dhingra 2015-2024