> There is an interesting point to note here. Does it mean that at the time
> of mahaabhaarata they are adding 2 months after 5 years? Or did bheeshma
> use this statement to simplify the matters. Let us calculate how much
> difference it makes. Let us call this hypothetical calendar
> mahaabhaarata calendar (MC).
>
> no. of days in 5 yrs according to MC = 62 * 29.5
> = 1829
>
> avg no. of days per MC year = 1829/5 = 365.8
>
> That is a difference of 0.55 days from the present calendar. This might
> look like a small difference, but it is enough to turn the seasons upside
> down in mere 350 years. If indeed there was a more accurate calendar
> at the time of mahaabhaarata, we have to assume that bheeshma slOka
> is only loosely true.
>
Well, if we take the lunar month to be 29.455 days in stead of
29.5 days, it would make the average year to be approximately equal to
the current measure of 365.25 (approximate) days. The question here is
what is the exact length of the lunar month? I am told that it is
approximately 29.530588 days, which makes Bhisma's average year to be
actually 0.9329 days longer. I have also read that the solar years are
getting longer every year by a small measure of time (current rate,
approximately a second a year) and that the early years were much shorter
than the current year. Would that also apply to the length of the lunar month
too?
Also, I thought that the current practice is to add one month
(adhika maasam) every three years to the calendar. At that rate, the
average year is even longer than the earlier calculation. Is there a
second adjustment that is made after every few such years (such as not
add a month every 60 lunar years or so, which would then compensate for
that increase)?
Regards. --- chowdary