![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
The History channel says that the Mahabharata discusses UFOs... http://www.history.com/media.do?id=ufosightings_mahabarata_broadband&action=clip. Timneu22 ( talk) 04:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
In response to the recent nomination of this for GA status, I thought it would be desirable to discuss some improvements. The following two thoughts occurred to me yesterday.
Imc ( talk) 18:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
The article says that this is the only complete English translation. I am reading it now, and I was surprised to find a sexually explicit passage had been translated not into English but into Latin! It occurs in Section CIV of the Sambhava sub-parvan of the Adi-parvan. Here's the relevant section from Project Gutenberg:
""In this connection there is another old history that I will recite to you. There was in olden days a wise Rishi of the name of Utathya. He had a wife of the name Mamata whom he dearly loved. One day Utathya's younger brother Vrihaspati, the priest of the celestials, endued with great energy, approached Mamata. The latter, however, told her husband's younger brother--that foremost of eloquent men--that she had conceived from her connection with his elder brother and that, therefore, he should not then seek for the consummation of his wishes. She continued, 'O illustrious Vrihaspati, the child that I have conceived hath studied in his mother's womb the Vedas with the six Angas, Semen tuum frustra perdi non potest. How can then this womb of mine afford room for two children at a time? Therefore, it behoveth thee not to seek for the consummation of thy desire at such a time. Thus addressed by her, Vrihaspati, though possessed of great wisdom, succeeded not in suppressing his desire. Quum auten jam cum illa coiturus esset, the child in the womb then addressed him and said, 'O father, cease from thy attempt. There is no space here for two. O illustrious one, the room is small. I have occupied it first. Semen tuum perdi non potest. It behoveth thee not to afflict me.' But Vrihaspati without listening to what that child in the womb said, sought the embraces of Mamata possessing the most beautiful pair of eyes. Ille tamen Muni qui in venture erat punctum temporis quo humor vitalis jam emissum iret providens, viam per quam semen intrare posset pedibus obstruxit. Semen ita exhisum, excidit et in terram projectumest. And the illustrious Vrihaspati, beholding this, became indignant, and reproached Utathya's child and cursed him, saying, 'Because thou hast spoken to me in the way thou hast at a time of pleasure that is sought after by all creatures, perpetual darkness shall overtake thee.' And from this curse of the illustrious Vrishaspati Utathya's child who was equal unto Vrihaspati in energy, was born blind and came to be called Dirghatamas (enveloped in perpetual darkness). And the wise Dirghatamas, possessed of a knowledge of the Vedas, though born blind, succeeded yet by virtue of his learning, in obtaining for a wife a young and handsome Brahmana maiden of the name of Pradweshi. And having married her, the illustrious Dirghatamas, for the expansion of Utathya's race, begat upon her several children with Gautama as their eldest. These children, however, were all given to covetousness and folly. The virtuous and illustrious Dirghatamas possessing complete mastery over the Vedas, soon after learnt from Surabhi's son the practices of their order and fearlessly betook himself to those practices, regarding them with reverence. (For shame is the creature of sin and can never be where there is purity of intention). Then those best of Munis that dwelt in the same asylum, beholding him transgress the limits of propriety became indignant, seeing sin where sin was not. And they said, 'O, this man, transgresseth the limit of propriety. No longer doth he deserve a place amongst us. Therefore, shall we all cast this sinful wretch off.' And they said many other things regarding the Muni Dirghatamas. And his wife, too, having obtained children, became indignant with him."
The passage is also partially Latinised on
Sacred Texts.
Eroica (
talk)
16:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I have noticed that of recent there have been many people editing the entry Mahābhārata, adding anti-Hindu derogatory comments (seemingly by someone Islamic, because the words used were mostly of Arabic origin). I request the administrator to kindly lock the entry so as to prevent further non-genuine editing. The Mahābhārata is a book of great wisdom and should thus be respected.
Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.247.66.107 ( talk) 15:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
The list of translations is rather long, and is begininng to detract from the article. How about moving them to a new article? Imc ( talk) 17:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
The Map has so many countries (including Sri Lanka) as parts of Mahabarath.. I think they are not Marabarath, what you have in that MAP is the countries who took part in that war.. There are no evidence to believe that they are part of Mahabarath.
Do, who ever drew that map, has any sources to support his idea?
This is very wrong..
—Preceding unsigned comment added by C nirosh ( talk • contribs) date 03:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I won't make the changes without some authorization or agreement with others here, but I really think that given the subject and the nature of the larger opus that is Wikipedia, all the BC references should be changed to BCE and the AD to CE. 19:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC)~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sesesq ( talk • contribs)
why? the two sets of abbreviations are 100% synonymous. -- dab (𒁳) 09:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
The following moved from the head of this page
I am removing this ..
"The Greek writer Dio Chrysostom (ca. 40- 120) reported, "it is said that Homer's poetry is sung even in India, where they have translated it into their own speech and tongue."
This is just "Dio Chrysostom" opinion and he or his supporters had no exact idea about when Mahabharatha was written.And this matter is still on dispute. If it is a translation how Mahabharatha became ten times the large in volume? It is more believable if somebody say iliad is translation of Mahabharata.e.g. check the character Phoenix_(mythology) ,which is a exact portait of a charcter in Mahabharatha and Ramayana. -- 121.247.150.7 ( talk) 12:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Category:Mahābhārata is itself a category within Category:Hindu texts. — Robert Greer ( talk) 22:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I have changed the Parva names and created hyper links to new non-existing pages. Please create new Parva pages and expand the existing Parva Pages.
Srinivas G Phani ( talk) 10:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
The Section on English translations reads more like a brochure / publicity section. I think this can be removed without any information loss. There are several translations, and I feel that there is no point in iterating on them. -- Nvineeth ( talk) 17:01, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
The result of the move request was page moved. There is consensus against IAST spelling as of now. — harej ( talk) ( cool!) 22:24, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Mahābhārata → Mahabharata — The earlier request move was closed too fast, and oppositions poured in later. I noticed Talk:Kali#Requested_move, I propose we follow the same rationale in naming here. common English spellings like Shiva, Ganesha (FA article) are used in the title, not the IAST Śiva or Ganeśa, which though academic, are known to small group of scholars and readers of books written by scholars. The majority of common Indians will not recognize Śiva, they will recognize Shiva as newspapers, magazines use the common English spelling. Redtigerxyz Talk 06:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Having read this very interesting article, i am concerned that it may not pass current GA criteria, particularly with regard to sourcing. Is there a regular editor here who has access to the sort of sources that would be needed? If so, i can add tags to places i think need sources, but i think it is pretty clear that scripture and interpretaions need verifying. The plot itelf would be improved by giving some indication of where in the epic it occurs (verse number or whatever the acedemic standard is). Either way, i will start a Good article reassessment in about a week, as the listing assessment was very minimal. I am also suprised to see very little literary, critical or even religious analysis, so this may need expansion to meet the broadness criterion. Yob Mod 11:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
This article had a very poor GA review, and i noticed some problems so intended to do an individual assessement. I had concerns about sourcings (and added a few "citation needed" and "who" tags) and also broadness. There are few examples i could look to for precedent, but i consider sections on religious significance, themes, and analysis of the writing style to be essential for ancient epics.
User:Redtigerxyz has the expertise and willingness to work on this in the future, but he preffered a community GAR first in order to get more input on what was needed to pass broadness for such an article (and any other requirements for this to be GA in the future). As this is such an important article, and i think it will need more work than a typical hold period would allow, i agreed that a community GAR is better.
Note, in it's current state, i would say Delist for failing criteria 2b) and 3. Yob Mod 09:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Just saw this ; Probably this is not true. Appreciate if more knowledgeable editors looks into it. -- Nvineeth ( talk) 15:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
The word for "snake sacrifice" is "sarpasattra" (or: sarpasatra). The Wikipedia text omits the letter "a" in the third syllable. Dear EDITORS: please correct this 'erratum'. VishNu Shaastrii - Sanskrit teacher for about 30 years. Aschvetahata ( talk) 00:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
According to this article the Mahabharata is the longest epic poem in the world, however the entry for Epic of Manas makes the claim that Manas is twice as long as the Mahabharata. Can anyone clarify? Si1965 ( talk) 11:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
i want to inform u that there are some versions of mahabharata in south india which contains 1,30,000 verses in it,It was bhandarkar institute pune who collects the manuscripts of mahabharata all over south asia and they took only common verses among all manuscripts.it was their attempt to make most authentic version of mahabharata,it contains 90000 verses including harivansh parva.so it is beyond doubt that mahabhata is longest poem in the world —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rudasharman ( talk • contribs) 11:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
i want to inform you,that there in nothing mention in mahabharata regarding this,the source that have you given does not tell about this.As i see in Kisari Mohan Ganguli version on scared texts "Vyasa executed the compilation of the Bharata, exclusive of the episodes originally in twenty-four thousand verses; and so much only is called by the learned as the Bharata. Afterwards, he composed an epitome in one hundred and fifty verses, consisting of the introduction with the chapter of contents. This he first taught to his son Suka; and afterwards he gave it to others of his disciples who were possessed of the same qualifications. After that he executed another compilation, consisting of six hundred thousand verses. Of those, thirty hundred thousand are known in the world of the Devas; fifteen hundred thousand in the world of the Pitris: fourteen hundred thousand among the Gandharvas, and one hundred thousand in the regions of mankind. Narada recited them to the Devas, Devala to the Pitris, and Suka published them to the Gandharvas, Yakshas, and Rakshasas: and in this world they were recited by Vaisampayana, one of the disciples of Vyasa, a man of just principles and the first among all those acquainted with the Vedas. Know that I, Sauti, have also repeated one hundred thousand verses". [1]there is no mentioning about jaya having 8800 verses in it. Now as u mention Mahabharata (shlokas 81, 101-102),then it is not present in Critical Edition of the Mahabharata by Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Pune,most authentic version of mahabharata.However in gita press gorakhpur version A verse like this has been given,but its transalation given by you is wrong.Vyas actually said that there are 8800 secret verses out of 100,000 in mahabharata,which actual meaning is only known to him,sukha and sanjy.
so i request you to remove 8800 verses claim of jaya,because it it neither mention in mahabharata. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.240.21.119 ( talk) 19:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
i am agree with the above statement,i didnot find that verse in Critical Edition of the Mahabharata by Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Pune,and in Kisari Mohan Ganguli version on scared text its translation is wrongly Interpretated by u —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.160.178.38 ( talk) 09:01, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
it's really a fake claim that jaya existed with 8800 verses,this verse {Mahabharata (shlokas 81, 101-102)} does not exist in Critical Edition of the Mahabharata by Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Pune,most authentic version of mahabharata.so this claim should be removed from the main article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.240.42.172 ( talk) 17:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
can there is no answer to my question then what is the advantage of this discussion,i asked about jaya 8800 verse claim but no body answered,this shows a poor response activity from wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.240.115.92 ( talk) 16:17, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
(Copied from User Talk:Mitsube)
This is the passage from Gupta and Ramachandran, p.4:
Scholars recognise at leat three redactions in the Mahābhārata as we have it today.1 The first one is by Kṛṣṇa Dvaipāyana Vyāsa consisting of 8,800 verses, called Jaya; the second by Vaiśampāyana comprising 24,000 verses, known as Bhārata, and the third (the present form) composed of a lakh of verses called the Mahābhārata was given to us by Sauta. For convenience, a tabulated form of the redactions is given on page three (Table 1).21 Mahābhārata, Critical Edition, I, 56, 63
2 Vaidya, op. cit., 1967, p.11
where Vaidya's book is given in a footnote on p2: Vaidya, R.V, A Study of Mahabharata -- A Research, Poona, 1967. The biblio section of the Mahabharata article gives the citation as I verified it from the New York Public Library catalogs online. rudra ( talk) 13:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Here,The question is not to take any reference from any secondry sources,but it is to take a reference from reliable and authentic source,the source here mentioned by rudra is very old and not so much appresiable.you can easly see that author used a old critical version of mahabharata in 1967,because at that time not so much research had been done on mahabharata.if you see new version published after doing a lot of research by bhandarkar institute poona on behalf of which old version Gupta and Ramachandran gave that statement.bhandarker institute removed that verse because it was not present in the most of manuscripts they found.i think you are well aware of bhandarkar institute poona,because most of world scholar use this version as a mahabharata reference.
it will be preferable to use new research or article to show that claim,because no reknowned scholars like michael witzel have given such type of statement.so i will prefer you to use a secondry source from authentic and reknowned scholars,However i You want to keep this claim further in mahabharata article,then mention it seperately,because it contradicts with the statement that is given in 2nd paragraph of wikipeda mahabharat article,where it is claimed as 24000 verse as a intial version -- 115.240.86.179 ( talk) 05:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
@ Abecedare,thanks for giving that source,i think now rudra may give a neutral veiw —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.240.86.179 ( talk) 06:01, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
In newworld encyclopedia this caim has not been done however 24000 verses as a core portion is accepted.THey have also removed this 8800 verse claim.see [1].i think if you want to keep this claim behalf of some secondry article,then you should represent it as "At least three redactions of the text are recognized by some scholars",instead of "At least three redactions of the text are recognized".so that everybody may understand it is a scholar opinion,not a true fact in mahabharata itself.it will resolve the whole discussion.because it is represented with the facts that are saying about claims present in mahabharata.-- 115.240.69.242 ( talk) 13:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi rudra!i read the whole mahabharata article and found some mistakes interpolated from sources,like 90,000 verse in mahabharata whether source cited claims one lakhs(as u cited above), MS SPITZER MANUSCRIPT is dated around KUSHAN PERIOD and absence of anushasan parva has been shown only,whether virata parva was also absent. [2]
i am sure that "verse no." information in this line is wrong.either you can simply see these texts or for secondry reference see correct "verse no." here,it is like "The earliest known references to the Mahabharata and its core Bharata date back to the Ashtadhyayi (sutra 3.4.4) or Pāṇini(6.2.38). --Mayurasia 20:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
The Āśvalāyana Gṛhyasūtra reference is correct. The Panini reference is debatable and probably should be rephrased. A.6.2.38 enumerates the words for which the word mahā retains its ( archaic) accent when compounded with them. In this list of words is bhārata, so, in a technical sense, both "bhārata" and "mahābhārata" are in A.6.2.38. (Exactly what Panini was referring to in the case of "bhārata" is not clear, though.) But yes, we need a good source. Notably, the Encyclopedia Indica entry you've provided, written by one C.C.Pande. also has the 8800 story.:-) rudra ( talk) 01:13, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
@rudra,I requset you to reform or rearrange this whole "MAHABHARATA" article because its seems very complex,some thing are repeated twice,some reference are missing or they are interpolated in wrong sense,it doesnot seem like interesting or authentic.I hope you will improve this article as you have done in anothers.I accept it may take some time,but i will be keenly interested in this,Now i will provide secondry sourse references to you,so it may be useful to you,I have read many article of yours and i think you are a very good expert and you will make this article readable and authentic.Thank u--Mayurasia 09:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayurasia ( talk • contribs)
i finally got source which contradicts 8800 verse claim,see Jhon Brockington contradicts it in his article,in this whole topic is disscused that how some scholars misinterpeted 8800 verse as a sepereate 8800 verse version as "jaya".I think it is enough for now,because this source cleary shows 8800 verses as a misinterpetation by some poor indian scholars.I hope now it will not a problem to delete this misinterpeted information.Thank you--Mayurasia 11:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
U can also see EPIC UNDERTAKINGS By Muneo Tokunaga,where he simply support Brockington statement.and also research done by these two is new,while source provided by u is of 1966.So finally we have atleast five scholars who contradicts 8800 verse claim,they are
Peter J. Claus, Sarah Diamond, Margaret Ann Mills also mention 24000 verse as a first redaction So all these respectable author have rejected 8800 verse as a first redaction. I think its enough facts to remove 8800 verse claim from wikipedia,which doesnot believe in folk stories --Mayurasia 10:06, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
For 8800 verses reference in Adi Parva,It is present in Gita Press gorakhpur mahbharata verse no 1.1.81,this verse has been removed by Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute poona,because it was present in very few manuscripts,until 1960 when first edition was come,it contained this verse,but later they removed this verse due to lack of its presence in manuscripts see article by Muneo Tokunaga.Although if we consider old verse then its true meaning is like Brockington Statement in his article-- Mayur ( talk) 19:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Okay, interim report. First, the 8800 verses bit is very likely an error. C.V. Vaidya traces it to Macdonell (presumably, his influential History of Sanskrit Literature) and Weber (History of Indian Literature). However, there are plenty of indications that the MB had at least 3 major redactions. For one thing, the MB itself claims three beginnings. And Vaidya points out that the main structure involves a 3-layer frame story: (1) Sauti conveying to Saunaka and the sages (2) Vaisampayana's recital, at Janamejaya's sarpasattra, of (3) Vyasa's original tale. Further, the name "Jaya" is mentioned. We don't know its size, or even if it was different from the Bhārata. So, we have three beginnings, three layers of framing, and three names. But only two numbers: 24,000 an 100,000. Only the 8800 bit is apocryphal, apparently associated with an interpolation (in some Northern recensions) of the tale of Ganesha being Vyasa's scribe. rudra ( talk) 13:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your interesting comments regarding the term Adibharata. I regret that I am unfamiliar with the term Adibharata in connection with the Mahabharata, but that means very little since this is not an area I am very studied in. I am learning a great deal by following this conversation. Is it correct that your sources consider it a "first bharata" or "original bharata", based on ādi meaning first or primary or original? Please clarify if you are referring to adi (अदि) or ādi (आदि) as I am guessing. If possible, can you provide a line number to the Critical Edition that should be examined in connection with this? Or is it your point that use of the term Adibharata has been cut from the Critical Edition? I am having some difficulty finding that term in the version of the text that I have available.
The only online search results that I find for "adibharata" refer to Adibharata as a work on Natya-sastra (dramatics), which is also called bharata.
Neither Adibharata nor Ādibharata are listed in Sörensen's index to names in the Mahabharata (cf. pp. 13-16) although Sörensen does list Jaya in the sense of a self-referential term for the work. Neither Adibharata nor Ādibharata are listed in the index to Winternitz' "History of Indian Literature". Neither Adibharata nor Ādibharata are listed in Dikshitar’s "The Purāṇa Index", but via Google Books I did find an unrelated story about a person named Ādibharata told in the Vishnu Purana (irrelevant, so not cited here).
Regarding self-referential use of the term Mahābhārata within the text of the Mahābhārata itself, in the Critical Edition (1.1.10a) the bard Ugraśravas begins his recitation by saying "śrutvāhaṃ tā vicitrārthā mahābhāratasaṃśritāḥ" which von Buitenen (1973, p. 20) translates as "I myself listened to these stories of manifold import that form part of The Mahābhārata." Again in 1.1.209a we have the story of how the text was literally weighed in scale to compare it with the four Vedas. The Mbh. was found heavier, so: mahattvād bhāravattvāc ca mahābhāratam ucyate, translated by von B. as "Therefore, because of its size and weight, it is called The Mahābhārata." Also see 1.53.32a, 1.53.35c, 1.56.1c, etc. (I think a lot of such lines can be found with some effort).
If I have misunderstood the issues you are trying to raise, please forgive and give more detail. Buddhipriya ( talk) 21:23, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
1)first one was composed by vyasa in 100,000 verses p6 2nd paragraph,lets say it "vyas mahabharat"(A mahabharata version composed by vyas).Vyas composed 100 parva in it see p.19 2nd last paragraph
2)these 100,000 verses was recited by Vaisampayana to sages see p6 2nd paragraph,page 5 last paragraph.Lets say it "Vaisampayana mahabharata"(A mahabharata version retold by Vaisampayana,which include verses called by Vaisampayana + original 100,000 verses of vyasa that was recited by Vaisampayana)
3)This "Vaisampayana mahabharata" was retold by sauti to all sages(it is given in the begining of the mahabharata),Lets say this "sauti mahabharata"(A Vaisampayana mahabharata version retold by sauti,which includes verses called by Sauti himself + verses called by Vaisampayana + original 100,000 verses of vyasa).Sauti also converted 100 parva composed by vyas into 18 parva of mahabharata see p.19 2nd last paragraph
4)last final form is as we see now,it was recorded or retold by someone(we donot know) during or after sauti conversation of mahabharata with sages,it includes verses called by Sauti himself + verses called by Vaisampayana + original 100,000 verses of vyasa + some extra verses added by unknown writer who wrote this mahabharata final version in manuscript.
This is the passage from The Mahabharata - A Criticism By C. V. Vaidya-2006,(It was C. V. Vaidya's book in 1967 of which Gupta and Ramachandran gave citation for 8800 verse claim in their book as rudra cited above),This is the same author improving his mistakes in his new book edition.the passage is on page.2:
THE ORIGINAL WORK-The original epic was probably in its nature a history and not a didaetic work.it is specially called itihasa or history and the name which vyasa gave to history was "jaya" or "Triumph".The very first invocation verse contain a mention of this name "Tatojayamudirayet".We have the same name again given to the work in the last parva also.The lenght of the historical poem of vyasa cannot be ascertained with any exactness,though it is probable that it must have been a long one even then,considering the ambitious scheme of the author,the importance and grandeur of the events described and the facility with which the anushtub shlokas can be composed by a gifted author.Mcdonell's remarks the lenth of the original poem of vyasa is mentioed as 8800 shlokas.This is in our opinion is not true,and for this remarks,perhaps,a foot-note in weber.1 is resposible.This figure is given in Mahabharata ,as number of kuta shlokas or riddles,of which we shall have to speak hereafter,and not as the number of shlokas in the original Mahabharata itself.It is mentioned in the mahabharata that vyasa composed his poem in three years,working day and night.it would be natural to expect that vyasa would begin his work with an account of himself 1 Footnote no-206,weber,page-187*"ashtau shloka sahasrani ashtau shloka shatanicha,aham vedmi shuko vetti sanjay vetti va na va-Adi(1.1.81)"*which meaning is "there are 8800 kuta verses in mahabharata which meaning i know,shuka know,whether sanjay know or donot know i can't say".
-- mayurasia-- 115.240.47.57 ( talk) 14:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
there is a sloka "nArAyanam namaskrutya naram chaiva narOttamam, deveem saraswatim vyAsam tatO jayamudeerayet"
Here the jaya , as per katapayAdhi sankhya denotes eighteen. In fact this sloka is recired before chanting Mahabharata ( 18 parvas), Gita (18 adhyAyAs), Srimad Bhagavatam ( 18000 verses). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apexpreci123 ( talk • contribs) 07:28, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Forgive me if this has been cited before, as I am not sure what sources have already been picked clean. I found the following passage in Mani that does a good job of summarizing the "three stages" view from a traditional perspective. In this version, Mani is depending on traditional understandings of the sources we have been reviewing. It should be compared with the more nuanced version I already cited in CHI.
Source: Vettam Mani, Purāṇic Encyclopaedia, 1975 English edition (reprint Delhi 1979 et seq.), Motilal Banarsidass, p. 122, ISBN 81-208-0597-6.
Begin quotation from article "BHARATA (MAHĀBHĀRATA);" capitalization throughout is as in source:
The original name of the Bhārata which Vyāsa composed was 'Jaya'. In the first Chapter of Ādi Parva is this śloka to support this statement:
Nārāyaṇaṁ namaskṛtya Naraṁ caiva narottamaṁ / Devīṁ Sarasvatīṁ caiva Tato Jayamudīrayet //
After the death of the Pāṇḍavas and the Kauravas the disciples of Vyāsa, Sumantu, Jaimini, Paila, Śuka and Vaiśampāyana gave this book great publicity. They wrote books based on this story of Bhārata of which only the 'Bhārata' of Vaiśampāyana and the Aśvamedha Parva of Jaimini are now available.
Vyāsa's Bhārata was first expounded by Vaiśampāyana at the Sarpa-satra of Janamejaya. At the request of Janamejaya, Vaiśampāyana added some more facts to the original work known then as 'Jaya'. Jaya with the accretions came to be known as Bhāratasaṁhitā. Sūta who narrated this story to Śaunaka and others at the forest of Naimiśa added some more matter to the Bhāratasaṁhitā and made it larger. The present Mahābhārata is this expanded edition.
The following facts prove that the Mahābhārata has thus passed through three stages of evolution:
1) This book is known by three names: Jaya, Bhāratasaṁhitā and Mahābhārata.Note 1
2) There is a reference to the three parts of the book in Śloka 66, Chapter I of Ādi Parva.Note 2
3) There are three different opinions regarding the total number of ślokas in the Mahābhārata. According to Ugraśravas there are 8800 verses, according to Vyāsa 24000 verses and according to another statement a lakh of verses.Note 3
4) The narration appears to be of three different kinds, descriptive, philosophical and oratorical, indicative of three different authorships.
5) Sāta and Vaiśampāyana have made accretions to the original work 'Jaya' of Vyāsa.
Viewed with these facts we are led to believe that Vyāsa has composed only the very essence of Mahābhārata comprising 8800 ślokas and that work was known as 'Jaya' as referred to in the first invocatory verse of the epic. Vaiśampāyana added a few verses of his own and brought the number to 24,000 and gave the book the name of 'Bhāratasaṁhitā'. It was Sūta who made many more additions and made the book so big as to fetch it the name of `Mahābhārata'. The epic which is now current among us contains a lakh of verses and it took perhaps centuries to get this transformation of the book from 'Jaya' to 'Mahābhārata'.
Note 1: (a) Jayo nāmetihāso'yaṁ / Śrotavyo vijigitṣuṇā (Śloka 22, Chapter 62, Ādi Parva). (b) Caturviṁśati sāhasrīṁ / Cakre bhāratasaṁhitām / Upākhyānairvinā tāvad / Bhāratam procyate budhaiḥ (Śloka 78, Chapter I, Ādi Parva). ([c, mislabeled bullet "3" in source]) Refer to the śloka given in para I.
Note 2: Manvādi Bhārataṁ kecid / Āstikādi tathāpare / Tathopari carādanye / Viprāḥ samyagadhīyire.
Note 3: Idaṁ śatasahasraṁ tu Iokānām punyakarmaṇām / Upākhyānaiḥ saha jñeyamādyaṁ bhāratamuttamam / Caturvimśati sāhasrīṁ cakre bhāratasaṁhitām / Upākhyānairvinā tāvad bhārataṁ procyate budhaiḥ / Aṣṭau ślokasahasrāni Aṣṭau ślokaśatāni ca / Ahaṁ vedmi śuko vetti Sañjayo vetti vā na vā. (Ādi Parva, Chapter I)
End quotation from article "BHARATA (MAHĀBHĀRATA)" Buddhipriya ( talk) 22:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
You sometimes read it's the "world's longest epic", and sometimes you read it's the second longest after the Epic of King Gesar. Sometimes you read that the Epic of Manas is the world's longest. It is easy to produce sources that state anything at all, the problem is to assess the reliability, and the quotability of such sources, and to mention them as attributing an opinion, not a fact. Otherwise it won't do to keep three articles on different epics on Wikipedia, all of them containing a referenced "world's longest" claim.
Also, we are an encyclopedia, not the Guinness Book of Records.
Fwiiw, it is probably fair to say that the Mbh is the longest epic that has received a fixed standard redaction. -- dab (𒁳) 11:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
sure, this can be mentioned somewhere under "textual history and structure". It should just be referenced properly, phrased carefully, and if at all possible kept out of the lead section. -- dab (𒁳) 13:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
I think adding 100 sub-parva Name-list in the table provided in the article will stretch it badly,should it be added seperately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Myth&Truth ( talk • contribs) 14:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Longest poem claim should be readded,because it is famous that mahabharata is the longest epic poem in the world-- Duckbuunny ( talk) 21:14, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
(Not sure of the spelling of the middle name.) Her doctoral thesis some decades ago extracted the verses (about 3000) in a particular archaic form (old trishtubh) & showed that they tell the story clearly & coherently. In other words she argued this was the original. Have no scholars more recently taken any notice of this? Peter jackson ( talk) 15:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
{{editsemiprotected}}
I would like to add a link to my podcast, which is about the Mahabharata. Please add the following to the bottom of the "External Links" section. Perhaps it would also be helpful to add a link to the TV series, which I've found on YouTube. See my suggested edit below. Thanks!!!
Lorenzomanzo (
talk)
17:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
"somewhere in the eighth or ninth century" doesn't have "BC" at the end of statement, giving wrong impression of AD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.208.69 ( talk) 02:13, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
{{editsemiprotected}} Mahabharat is not the epic of India. It is a Hindu epic.
Prabeshlohani ( talk) 21:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Not done
The poetic rendition of the story of Risyasringa is not one of the best poetry I've read. But then, having no benchmark with other English poetic renditions of tales of the Mahabharata, it is not clear to me why this line alone warrants deletion. -- Fgpilot ( talk) 07:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Why is his opinion about Iliad (not even Mahabharata) featuring high up in the article in the historical references section? Every time I push it down to cultural references section, it is undone and brought back at the top of the article. This article is about the MAHABHARATA, not about Homer's works or its translation to Sanskrit, etc. If Mahabharata predates Iliad and Odyssey, it is fine; but is Dio's opinions about how Homer's works were known in India that important that it has to feature right in the first few paragraphs on an article on the Mahabharata? Would it be acceptable if we placed Kalidasa's opinion about Homer, in the main body of the article on Iliad? -- Fgpilot ( talk) 10:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, the article as you've redacted it presents a section on historical references that implies that scholars have found no early evidence from outside India of the existence of the Indian epics, and of the Mahabharata in particular.
Yet countless reliable sources assert (or at the minimum have to acknowledge the arguments of those other reliable sources who assert), against your opinion about the importance of this, that the passage in Dio is (to quote Moriz Winternitz, "our earliest external evidence of the existence of the Mahabharata in the 1st century A.D." [7] Your opinion just can't carry weight against the importance scholars have attached to this evidence on precisely the subject of Mahabharata#Historical references. Now, the scholars may be wrong, but when such a variety of scholars has considered a piece of evidence so important to a topic, it's notable enough to be discussed there even if only to present stronger evidence on the other side! But the four sentences you're removing are hardly disproportionate to the WP:N established by the WP:RS such as Moritz and Christian Lassen and Arthur Anthony Macdonell [8]. More recent scholars who have addressed the subject still agree with the interpretation presented in the text you're removing [9], and many Indian writers have presented the same interpretation (which is both likely to be true and supports the antiquity and fame of the Indian epic): Google Books points to discussions of the Dio passage in works by Suniti Kumar Chatterji, M.R. Yardi, Har Bilas Sarda, etc. etc. The text in question refers to such uniquely important evidence that any competent discussion of "early historical references to the Mahabharata" (including this Wikipedia article) has no choice but to address it.
I invite you to set aside the dispute and acknowledge, simply, that this preeminently meets the Wikipedia standards for inclusion under the topic Mahabharata#Historical references. It's okay not to have realized that before, but if this accumulation of evidence for the fact doesn't persuade, I think we need the help of outside comment on the strength of the argument for inclusion. Wareh ( talk) 14:46, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
This following concern of mine is still not addressed by the reverts: The first and third paragraphs are stylistically very different from the second paragraph in the "Historical reference" section. They directly talk about Mahabharata and my edits on the second paragraph was primarily to bring stylistic coherence. I still don't see why it is getting reverted. I have no choice but to attempt an edit on this paragraph -- sometime in the future, as right now I've got stuff to attend to. Fgpilot ( talk) 17:25, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Regarding this revision, which attempts to address style and succinctness concerns without removing relevant material:
I have been following this debate with considerable interest and tend to agree with Fgpilot here. Especially the quotes about Homer's poetry being sung in India and "such is the greatness of one man's poetry" are clearly irrelevant in an article on the Mahabharata. Removing these lines does not of course diminish the greatness of Homer or his poetry, it just makes the article on Mahabharata a bit more readable. Sunayana ( talk) 07:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I would not mind a competently and correctly written replacement for the Dio paragraph. But Fgpilot's versions continues to contain several errors. So I'm replacing it with the superior version. The difference is 1500 bytes (previous version) vs. 1100 bytes (Fgpilot's version), so I think all the talk of disproportionate attention and long-windedness is a red herring. Let's just try to get it correct. Here is what was deficient in Fgpilot's version:
As I've indicated above, Fgpilot's ideas that this historical evidence has to do with seeing Indian epic in non-Indian terms or demoting the full citizenship of the Mahabharata in world literature are absurd and demonstrably untrue. The only reason to care that evidence of the great Sanskrit epic Mahabharata may have reached a Greek writer 2000 years ago is because we are scientifically and encyclopedically interested in the great Sanskrit epic Mahabharata for its own sake! I feel this has been a misunderstanding, based on the false belief that this passage tends in the tiniest to do anything other than lay out evidence of antiquity and importance about what was going on in Indian literature.
If a French visitor to London provides a unique early piece of evidence for the performance of Shakespeare's plays, is it an imperialist Francomaniac who discusses that evidence in an article on Shakespeare's play? No, it's someone who cares about the historical evidence for Shakespeare's career and his works as they existed closer to his time than to ours. Period. Wareh ( talk) 16:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
The section summarizing the events when Duryodhana humiliated himself in Indraprastha needs to be corrected. While the popular notion is that Draupadi had laughed at him and insulted him in the Ganguli version and other texts it is apparent that she wasn't even present when the incident occurred. Rather it was the Pandav brothers that were present and had laughed at Duryodhana.
SECTION XLVI
Vaisampayana said,--"That bull among men, Duryodhana, continued to dwell in that, assembly house (of the Pandavas). And with Sakuni, the Kuru prince slowly examined the whole of that mansion, and the Kuru prince beheld in it many celestial designs, which he had never seen before in the city called after the elephant (Hastinapore). And one day king Duryodhana in going round that mansion came upon a crystal surface. And the king, from ignorance, mistaking it for a pool of water, drew up his clothes. And afterwards finding out his mistake the king wandered about the mansion in great sorrow. And sometime after, the king, mistaking a lake of crystal water adorned with lotuses of crystal petals for land, fell into it with all his clothes on. Beholding Duryodhana fallen into the lake, the mighty Bhima laughed aloud as also the menials of the palace. And the servants, at the command of the king, soon brought him dry and handsome clothes. Beholding the plight of Duryodhana, the mighty Bhima and Arjuna and both the twins--all laughed aloud. Being unused to putting up with insults, Duryodhana could not bear that laugh of theirs. Concealing his emotions he even did not cast his looks on them. And beholding the monarch once more draw up his clothes to cross a piece of dry land which he had mistaken for water, they all laughed again. And the king sometime after mistook a closed door made of crystal as open. And as he was about to pass through it his head struck against it, and he stood with his brain reeling. And mistaking as closed another door made of crystal that was really open, the king in attempting to open it with stretched hands, tumbled down. And coming upon another door that was really open, the king thinking it as closed, went away from it. And, O monarch, king Duryodhana beholding that vast wealth in the Rajasuya sacrifice and having become the victim of those numerous errors within the assembly house at last returned, with the leave of the Pandavas, to Hastinapore.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m02/m02046.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sejalpat ( talk • contribs) 00:36, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
{{editsemiprotected}} There is a line in Valmiki's Ramayana "Yatha H'e Chor: s (sa) tatha h'e budhasthagtm' nastik mat viddhi" (ayodhya kaand), meaning "Like a thief is punishable similarly protestants of vedas i.e. Budha (those who adhere to the teachings of Lord Budha too are punishable)" This clearly shows that Budhism was in existence when Ramayana was written. Mahabharta happened after Ramayana, hence we can assume the date of Mahabharta to be not earlier than 563 BC
Indresh.saluja ( talk) 12:35, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
{{ editsemiprotected}} Translation of Mahabharata into Telugu as Srimad Andhra Mahabharatamu happened over a period of centuries. Nannaya Bhattaraka (11 century A.D) was the first, though he translated only two and a half chapters. Tikkana (A.D 1205 - 1288) translated the next 15 parvas, but did not undertake translating the half-finished Aranya Parvamu left by Nannaya. The Telugu people remained without this last translation for more than a century, until it was translated by Yerrapragada (14 century A.D). The Telugu style adds colourful description to the original sanskrit work while keeping the majority of the story intact.
Please add this paragraph under Versions, translations, and derivative works. Syanaman ( talk) 02:22, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
The family tree can be augmented to include Janamejaya's mother Madravati and son Shatanika. Nshuks7 ( talk) 16:27, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
As I put my referenced data from reliable sources, two most popular books on mahabharata by
From J. L. Brockington book it is discussed that however the compilation of the epic was done over a long period of time(400BC-400Ad) but its origin may be traced up to 8th or 9th century BC. you can read it here
In 2nd book same thing is discuused by Maurice Winternitz, Moriz Winternitz on page 446 that" Mahabharata attained its present form between 400BC to 400Ad and it is also discussed ( on page 452 in 3rd paragraph) that Some elements of our present mahabharta can be traced back up to vedic time.
Let me know you that these two books are reliable and popular reference book for the study of the epic, so I am reinserting this referenced data.-- Luky ( talk) 20:32, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Lostinindia/Luky, this is just the usual lame attempt to artificially inflate the probable age of Sanskrit texts by cherry-picking soundbites from scholarly literature. This is such a common occurrence on Wikipedia that I reverted without even raising an eyebrow. I don't know why it is so important that these texts must be as old as at all possible, I just know it isn't intellectually honest to always and exclusively parade around the absolutely earliest dates that have ever been proposed as "the" most probably age.
Most of the Mbh was compiled during the period 400 BCE to 400 CE. There may be a remote historcal nucleus around 800 BCE. The article has been well aware of these facts long before you came along. -- dab (𒁳) 15:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
I feel that the story written in the article is incomplete and wish to write the complete story as many small stories have been missed. Would I get the permission to do so? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sudarsananush89 ( talk • contribs) 14:49, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
About la mention of Yavanas (Ionics or greeks) into Mahabharata The text probably reached its final form by the early Gupta period (ca. 4th c. CE).[2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.222.73.152 ( talk) 09:33, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Is it possbile that there are some historical bases about weapons ?
I rembember some historical hellenistic tecnologies as the”greek fire” with siphons . That can to be carried on barrows or on ships or even by hand. Other weapons are burning mirrors similar to those used by Archimedes in siege of Syracuse and in Alexandria pharos. Or others machines that launch fire balls.
Antonino http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_fire http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lighthouse_of_Alexandria http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Syracuse_%28212_BC%29
—Preceding
unsigned comment added by
84.222.73.152 (
talk)
09:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
I think there are elements in Mahabaratha much older of 400 bce, there are a possible links with a common proto-Indo-European myth: 1-A figure of Krishna (rationalist and cynical almost machiavellian) is similar to the role of Athena in Iliad. 2-Arjuna and the relationship with the son does not like the story of Achilles and Patroclus? 3-The fighting in duels between heroes 4-the honour to be an “auriga” in the chariots and strong relation with heroe. (Very asian steppe) 5-the fear of heroes and no-sense of war to see Arjuna and Hector, 6-the stoicism of the duty beyond of the good and the evil (knowing to be in wrong side) 7- the path of heroe to transcend the individuality to accept the death.
There are many other elements that I do not cite for not be tedious How can you explain these similarities without a common ancestral myth ?
Antonino —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.222.77.198 ( talk) 08:21, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
I want to ask .What is historical status of this story .Is it a fiction or realy happend this war — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rasoolpuri ( talk • contribs) 16:26, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
The History channel says that the Mahabharata discusses UFOs... http://www.history.com/media.do?id=ufosightings_mahabarata_broadband&action=clip. Timneu22 ( talk) 04:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
In response to the recent nomination of this for GA status, I thought it would be desirable to discuss some improvements. The following two thoughts occurred to me yesterday.
Imc ( talk) 18:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
The article says that this is the only complete English translation. I am reading it now, and I was surprised to find a sexually explicit passage had been translated not into English but into Latin! It occurs in Section CIV of the Sambhava sub-parvan of the Adi-parvan. Here's the relevant section from Project Gutenberg:
""In this connection there is another old history that I will recite to you. There was in olden days a wise Rishi of the name of Utathya. He had a wife of the name Mamata whom he dearly loved. One day Utathya's younger brother Vrihaspati, the priest of the celestials, endued with great energy, approached Mamata. The latter, however, told her husband's younger brother--that foremost of eloquent men--that she had conceived from her connection with his elder brother and that, therefore, he should not then seek for the consummation of his wishes. She continued, 'O illustrious Vrihaspati, the child that I have conceived hath studied in his mother's womb the Vedas with the six Angas, Semen tuum frustra perdi non potest. How can then this womb of mine afford room for two children at a time? Therefore, it behoveth thee not to seek for the consummation of thy desire at such a time. Thus addressed by her, Vrihaspati, though possessed of great wisdom, succeeded not in suppressing his desire. Quum auten jam cum illa coiturus esset, the child in the womb then addressed him and said, 'O father, cease from thy attempt. There is no space here for two. O illustrious one, the room is small. I have occupied it first. Semen tuum perdi non potest. It behoveth thee not to afflict me.' But Vrihaspati without listening to what that child in the womb said, sought the embraces of Mamata possessing the most beautiful pair of eyes. Ille tamen Muni qui in venture erat punctum temporis quo humor vitalis jam emissum iret providens, viam per quam semen intrare posset pedibus obstruxit. Semen ita exhisum, excidit et in terram projectumest. And the illustrious Vrihaspati, beholding this, became indignant, and reproached Utathya's child and cursed him, saying, 'Because thou hast spoken to me in the way thou hast at a time of pleasure that is sought after by all creatures, perpetual darkness shall overtake thee.' And from this curse of the illustrious Vrishaspati Utathya's child who was equal unto Vrihaspati in energy, was born blind and came to be called Dirghatamas (enveloped in perpetual darkness). And the wise Dirghatamas, possessed of a knowledge of the Vedas, though born blind, succeeded yet by virtue of his learning, in obtaining for a wife a young and handsome Brahmana maiden of the name of Pradweshi. And having married her, the illustrious Dirghatamas, for the expansion of Utathya's race, begat upon her several children with Gautama as their eldest. These children, however, were all given to covetousness and folly. The virtuous and illustrious Dirghatamas possessing complete mastery over the Vedas, soon after learnt from Surabhi's son the practices of their order and fearlessly betook himself to those practices, regarding them with reverence. (For shame is the creature of sin and can never be where there is purity of intention). Then those best of Munis that dwelt in the same asylum, beholding him transgress the limits of propriety became indignant, seeing sin where sin was not. And they said, 'O, this man, transgresseth the limit of propriety. No longer doth he deserve a place amongst us. Therefore, shall we all cast this sinful wretch off.' And they said many other things regarding the Muni Dirghatamas. And his wife, too, having obtained children, became indignant with him."
The passage is also partially Latinised on
Sacred Texts.
Eroica (
talk)
16:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I have noticed that of recent there have been many people editing the entry Mahābhārata, adding anti-Hindu derogatory comments (seemingly by someone Islamic, because the words used were mostly of Arabic origin). I request the administrator to kindly lock the entry so as to prevent further non-genuine editing. The Mahābhārata is a book of great wisdom and should thus be respected.
Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.247.66.107 ( talk) 15:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
The list of translations is rather long, and is begininng to detract from the article. How about moving them to a new article? Imc ( talk) 17:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
The Map has so many countries (including Sri Lanka) as parts of Mahabarath.. I think they are not Marabarath, what you have in that MAP is the countries who took part in that war.. There are no evidence to believe that they are part of Mahabarath.
Do, who ever drew that map, has any sources to support his idea?
This is very wrong..
—Preceding unsigned comment added by C nirosh ( talk • contribs) date 03:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I won't make the changes without some authorization or agreement with others here, but I really think that given the subject and the nature of the larger opus that is Wikipedia, all the BC references should be changed to BCE and the AD to CE. 19:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC)~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sesesq ( talk • contribs)
why? the two sets of abbreviations are 100% synonymous. -- dab (𒁳) 09:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
The following moved from the head of this page
I am removing this ..
"The Greek writer Dio Chrysostom (ca. 40- 120) reported, "it is said that Homer's poetry is sung even in India, where they have translated it into their own speech and tongue."
This is just "Dio Chrysostom" opinion and he or his supporters had no exact idea about when Mahabharatha was written.And this matter is still on dispute. If it is a translation how Mahabharatha became ten times the large in volume? It is more believable if somebody say iliad is translation of Mahabharata.e.g. check the character Phoenix_(mythology) ,which is a exact portait of a charcter in Mahabharatha and Ramayana. -- 121.247.150.7 ( talk) 12:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Category:Mahābhārata is itself a category within Category:Hindu texts. — Robert Greer ( talk) 22:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I have changed the Parva names and created hyper links to new non-existing pages. Please create new Parva pages and expand the existing Parva Pages.
Srinivas G Phani ( talk) 10:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
The Section on English translations reads more like a brochure / publicity section. I think this can be removed without any information loss. There are several translations, and I feel that there is no point in iterating on them. -- Nvineeth ( talk) 17:01, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
The result of the move request was page moved. There is consensus against IAST spelling as of now. — harej ( talk) ( cool!) 22:24, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Mahābhārata → Mahabharata — The earlier request move was closed too fast, and oppositions poured in later. I noticed Talk:Kali#Requested_move, I propose we follow the same rationale in naming here. common English spellings like Shiva, Ganesha (FA article) are used in the title, not the IAST Śiva or Ganeśa, which though academic, are known to small group of scholars and readers of books written by scholars. The majority of common Indians will not recognize Śiva, they will recognize Shiva as newspapers, magazines use the common English spelling. Redtigerxyz Talk 06:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Having read this very interesting article, i am concerned that it may not pass current GA criteria, particularly with regard to sourcing. Is there a regular editor here who has access to the sort of sources that would be needed? If so, i can add tags to places i think need sources, but i think it is pretty clear that scripture and interpretaions need verifying. The plot itelf would be improved by giving some indication of where in the epic it occurs (verse number or whatever the acedemic standard is). Either way, i will start a Good article reassessment in about a week, as the listing assessment was very minimal. I am also suprised to see very little literary, critical or even religious analysis, so this may need expansion to meet the broadness criterion. Yob Mod 11:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
This article had a very poor GA review, and i noticed some problems so intended to do an individual assessement. I had concerns about sourcings (and added a few "citation needed" and "who" tags) and also broadness. There are few examples i could look to for precedent, but i consider sections on religious significance, themes, and analysis of the writing style to be essential for ancient epics.
User:Redtigerxyz has the expertise and willingness to work on this in the future, but he preffered a community GAR first in order to get more input on what was needed to pass broadness for such an article (and any other requirements for this to be GA in the future). As this is such an important article, and i think it will need more work than a typical hold period would allow, i agreed that a community GAR is better.
Note, in it's current state, i would say Delist for failing criteria 2b) and 3. Yob Mod 09:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Just saw this ; Probably this is not true. Appreciate if more knowledgeable editors looks into it. -- Nvineeth ( talk) 15:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
The word for "snake sacrifice" is "sarpasattra" (or: sarpasatra). The Wikipedia text omits the letter "a" in the third syllable. Dear EDITORS: please correct this 'erratum'. VishNu Shaastrii - Sanskrit teacher for about 30 years. Aschvetahata ( talk) 00:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
According to this article the Mahabharata is the longest epic poem in the world, however the entry for Epic of Manas makes the claim that Manas is twice as long as the Mahabharata. Can anyone clarify? Si1965 ( talk) 11:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
i want to inform u that there are some versions of mahabharata in south india which contains 1,30,000 verses in it,It was bhandarkar institute pune who collects the manuscripts of mahabharata all over south asia and they took only common verses among all manuscripts.it was their attempt to make most authentic version of mahabharata,it contains 90000 verses including harivansh parva.so it is beyond doubt that mahabhata is longest poem in the world —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rudasharman ( talk • contribs) 11:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
i want to inform you,that there in nothing mention in mahabharata regarding this,the source that have you given does not tell about this.As i see in Kisari Mohan Ganguli version on scared texts "Vyasa executed the compilation of the Bharata, exclusive of the episodes originally in twenty-four thousand verses; and so much only is called by the learned as the Bharata. Afterwards, he composed an epitome in one hundred and fifty verses, consisting of the introduction with the chapter of contents. This he first taught to his son Suka; and afterwards he gave it to others of his disciples who were possessed of the same qualifications. After that he executed another compilation, consisting of six hundred thousand verses. Of those, thirty hundred thousand are known in the world of the Devas; fifteen hundred thousand in the world of the Pitris: fourteen hundred thousand among the Gandharvas, and one hundred thousand in the regions of mankind. Narada recited them to the Devas, Devala to the Pitris, and Suka published them to the Gandharvas, Yakshas, and Rakshasas: and in this world they were recited by Vaisampayana, one of the disciples of Vyasa, a man of just principles and the first among all those acquainted with the Vedas. Know that I, Sauti, have also repeated one hundred thousand verses". [1]there is no mentioning about jaya having 8800 verses in it. Now as u mention Mahabharata (shlokas 81, 101-102),then it is not present in Critical Edition of the Mahabharata by Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Pune,most authentic version of mahabharata.However in gita press gorakhpur version A verse like this has been given,but its transalation given by you is wrong.Vyas actually said that there are 8800 secret verses out of 100,000 in mahabharata,which actual meaning is only known to him,sukha and sanjy.
so i request you to remove 8800 verses claim of jaya,because it it neither mention in mahabharata. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.240.21.119 ( talk) 19:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
i am agree with the above statement,i didnot find that verse in Critical Edition of the Mahabharata by Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Pune,and in Kisari Mohan Ganguli version on scared text its translation is wrongly Interpretated by u —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.160.178.38 ( talk) 09:01, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
it's really a fake claim that jaya existed with 8800 verses,this verse {Mahabharata (shlokas 81, 101-102)} does not exist in Critical Edition of the Mahabharata by Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Pune,most authentic version of mahabharata.so this claim should be removed from the main article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.240.42.172 ( talk) 17:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
can there is no answer to my question then what is the advantage of this discussion,i asked about jaya 8800 verse claim but no body answered,this shows a poor response activity from wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.240.115.92 ( talk) 16:17, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
(Copied from User Talk:Mitsube)
This is the passage from Gupta and Ramachandran, p.4:
Scholars recognise at leat three redactions in the Mahābhārata as we have it today.1 The first one is by Kṛṣṇa Dvaipāyana Vyāsa consisting of 8,800 verses, called Jaya; the second by Vaiśampāyana comprising 24,000 verses, known as Bhārata, and the third (the present form) composed of a lakh of verses called the Mahābhārata was given to us by Sauta. For convenience, a tabulated form of the redactions is given on page three (Table 1).21 Mahābhārata, Critical Edition, I, 56, 63
2 Vaidya, op. cit., 1967, p.11
where Vaidya's book is given in a footnote on p2: Vaidya, R.V, A Study of Mahabharata -- A Research, Poona, 1967. The biblio section of the Mahabharata article gives the citation as I verified it from the New York Public Library catalogs online. rudra ( talk) 13:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Here,The question is not to take any reference from any secondry sources,but it is to take a reference from reliable and authentic source,the source here mentioned by rudra is very old and not so much appresiable.you can easly see that author used a old critical version of mahabharata in 1967,because at that time not so much research had been done on mahabharata.if you see new version published after doing a lot of research by bhandarkar institute poona on behalf of which old version Gupta and Ramachandran gave that statement.bhandarker institute removed that verse because it was not present in the most of manuscripts they found.i think you are well aware of bhandarkar institute poona,because most of world scholar use this version as a mahabharata reference.
it will be preferable to use new research or article to show that claim,because no reknowned scholars like michael witzel have given such type of statement.so i will prefer you to use a secondry source from authentic and reknowned scholars,However i You want to keep this claim further in mahabharata article,then mention it seperately,because it contradicts with the statement that is given in 2nd paragraph of wikipeda mahabharat article,where it is claimed as 24000 verse as a intial version -- 115.240.86.179 ( talk) 05:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
@ Abecedare,thanks for giving that source,i think now rudra may give a neutral veiw —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.240.86.179 ( talk) 06:01, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
In newworld encyclopedia this caim has not been done however 24000 verses as a core portion is accepted.THey have also removed this 8800 verse claim.see [1].i think if you want to keep this claim behalf of some secondry article,then you should represent it as "At least three redactions of the text are recognized by some scholars",instead of "At least three redactions of the text are recognized".so that everybody may understand it is a scholar opinion,not a true fact in mahabharata itself.it will resolve the whole discussion.because it is represented with the facts that are saying about claims present in mahabharata.-- 115.240.69.242 ( talk) 13:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi rudra!i read the whole mahabharata article and found some mistakes interpolated from sources,like 90,000 verse in mahabharata whether source cited claims one lakhs(as u cited above), MS SPITZER MANUSCRIPT is dated around KUSHAN PERIOD and absence of anushasan parva has been shown only,whether virata parva was also absent. [2]
i am sure that "verse no." information in this line is wrong.either you can simply see these texts or for secondry reference see correct "verse no." here,it is like "The earliest known references to the Mahabharata and its core Bharata date back to the Ashtadhyayi (sutra 3.4.4) or Pāṇini(6.2.38). --Mayurasia 20:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
The Āśvalāyana Gṛhyasūtra reference is correct. The Panini reference is debatable and probably should be rephrased. A.6.2.38 enumerates the words for which the word mahā retains its ( archaic) accent when compounded with them. In this list of words is bhārata, so, in a technical sense, both "bhārata" and "mahābhārata" are in A.6.2.38. (Exactly what Panini was referring to in the case of "bhārata" is not clear, though.) But yes, we need a good source. Notably, the Encyclopedia Indica entry you've provided, written by one C.C.Pande. also has the 8800 story.:-) rudra ( talk) 01:13, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
@rudra,I requset you to reform or rearrange this whole "MAHABHARATA" article because its seems very complex,some thing are repeated twice,some reference are missing or they are interpolated in wrong sense,it doesnot seem like interesting or authentic.I hope you will improve this article as you have done in anothers.I accept it may take some time,but i will be keenly interested in this,Now i will provide secondry sourse references to you,so it may be useful to you,I have read many article of yours and i think you are a very good expert and you will make this article readable and authentic.Thank u--Mayurasia 09:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayurasia ( talk • contribs)
i finally got source which contradicts 8800 verse claim,see Jhon Brockington contradicts it in his article,in this whole topic is disscused that how some scholars misinterpeted 8800 verse as a sepereate 8800 verse version as "jaya".I think it is enough for now,because this source cleary shows 8800 verses as a misinterpetation by some poor indian scholars.I hope now it will not a problem to delete this misinterpeted information.Thank you--Mayurasia 11:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
U can also see EPIC UNDERTAKINGS By Muneo Tokunaga,where he simply support Brockington statement.and also research done by these two is new,while source provided by u is of 1966.So finally we have atleast five scholars who contradicts 8800 verse claim,they are
Peter J. Claus, Sarah Diamond, Margaret Ann Mills also mention 24000 verse as a first redaction So all these respectable author have rejected 8800 verse as a first redaction. I think its enough facts to remove 8800 verse claim from wikipedia,which doesnot believe in folk stories --Mayurasia 10:06, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
For 8800 verses reference in Adi Parva,It is present in Gita Press gorakhpur mahbharata verse no 1.1.81,this verse has been removed by Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute poona,because it was present in very few manuscripts,until 1960 when first edition was come,it contained this verse,but later they removed this verse due to lack of its presence in manuscripts see article by Muneo Tokunaga.Although if we consider old verse then its true meaning is like Brockington Statement in his article-- Mayur ( talk) 19:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Okay, interim report. First, the 8800 verses bit is very likely an error. C.V. Vaidya traces it to Macdonell (presumably, his influential History of Sanskrit Literature) and Weber (History of Indian Literature). However, there are plenty of indications that the MB had at least 3 major redactions. For one thing, the MB itself claims three beginnings. And Vaidya points out that the main structure involves a 3-layer frame story: (1) Sauti conveying to Saunaka and the sages (2) Vaisampayana's recital, at Janamejaya's sarpasattra, of (3) Vyasa's original tale. Further, the name "Jaya" is mentioned. We don't know its size, or even if it was different from the Bhārata. So, we have three beginnings, three layers of framing, and three names. But only two numbers: 24,000 an 100,000. Only the 8800 bit is apocryphal, apparently associated with an interpolation (in some Northern recensions) of the tale of Ganesha being Vyasa's scribe. rudra ( talk) 13:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your interesting comments regarding the term Adibharata. I regret that I am unfamiliar with the term Adibharata in connection with the Mahabharata, but that means very little since this is not an area I am very studied in. I am learning a great deal by following this conversation. Is it correct that your sources consider it a "first bharata" or "original bharata", based on ādi meaning first or primary or original? Please clarify if you are referring to adi (अदि) or ādi (आदि) as I am guessing. If possible, can you provide a line number to the Critical Edition that should be examined in connection with this? Or is it your point that use of the term Adibharata has been cut from the Critical Edition? I am having some difficulty finding that term in the version of the text that I have available.
The only online search results that I find for "adibharata" refer to Adibharata as a work on Natya-sastra (dramatics), which is also called bharata.
Neither Adibharata nor Ādibharata are listed in Sörensen's index to names in the Mahabharata (cf. pp. 13-16) although Sörensen does list Jaya in the sense of a self-referential term for the work. Neither Adibharata nor Ādibharata are listed in the index to Winternitz' "History of Indian Literature". Neither Adibharata nor Ādibharata are listed in Dikshitar’s "The Purāṇa Index", but via Google Books I did find an unrelated story about a person named Ādibharata told in the Vishnu Purana (irrelevant, so not cited here).
Regarding self-referential use of the term Mahābhārata within the text of the Mahābhārata itself, in the Critical Edition (1.1.10a) the bard Ugraśravas begins his recitation by saying "śrutvāhaṃ tā vicitrārthā mahābhāratasaṃśritāḥ" which von Buitenen (1973, p. 20) translates as "I myself listened to these stories of manifold import that form part of The Mahābhārata." Again in 1.1.209a we have the story of how the text was literally weighed in scale to compare it with the four Vedas. The Mbh. was found heavier, so: mahattvād bhāravattvāc ca mahābhāratam ucyate, translated by von B. as "Therefore, because of its size and weight, it is called The Mahābhārata." Also see 1.53.32a, 1.53.35c, 1.56.1c, etc. (I think a lot of such lines can be found with some effort).
If I have misunderstood the issues you are trying to raise, please forgive and give more detail. Buddhipriya ( talk) 21:23, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
1)first one was composed by vyasa in 100,000 verses p6 2nd paragraph,lets say it "vyas mahabharat"(A mahabharata version composed by vyas).Vyas composed 100 parva in it see p.19 2nd last paragraph
2)these 100,000 verses was recited by Vaisampayana to sages see p6 2nd paragraph,page 5 last paragraph.Lets say it "Vaisampayana mahabharata"(A mahabharata version retold by Vaisampayana,which include verses called by Vaisampayana + original 100,000 verses of vyasa that was recited by Vaisampayana)
3)This "Vaisampayana mahabharata" was retold by sauti to all sages(it is given in the begining of the mahabharata),Lets say this "sauti mahabharata"(A Vaisampayana mahabharata version retold by sauti,which includes verses called by Sauti himself + verses called by Vaisampayana + original 100,000 verses of vyasa).Sauti also converted 100 parva composed by vyas into 18 parva of mahabharata see p.19 2nd last paragraph
4)last final form is as we see now,it was recorded or retold by someone(we donot know) during or after sauti conversation of mahabharata with sages,it includes verses called by Sauti himself + verses called by Vaisampayana + original 100,000 verses of vyasa + some extra verses added by unknown writer who wrote this mahabharata final version in manuscript.
This is the passage from The Mahabharata - A Criticism By C. V. Vaidya-2006,(It was C. V. Vaidya's book in 1967 of which Gupta and Ramachandran gave citation for 8800 verse claim in their book as rudra cited above),This is the same author improving his mistakes in his new book edition.the passage is on page.2:
THE ORIGINAL WORK-The original epic was probably in its nature a history and not a didaetic work.it is specially called itihasa or history and the name which vyasa gave to history was "jaya" or "Triumph".The very first invocation verse contain a mention of this name "Tatojayamudirayet".We have the same name again given to the work in the last parva also.The lenght of the historical poem of vyasa cannot be ascertained with any exactness,though it is probable that it must have been a long one even then,considering the ambitious scheme of the author,the importance and grandeur of the events described and the facility with which the anushtub shlokas can be composed by a gifted author.Mcdonell's remarks the lenth of the original poem of vyasa is mentioed as 8800 shlokas.This is in our opinion is not true,and for this remarks,perhaps,a foot-note in weber.1 is resposible.This figure is given in Mahabharata ,as number of kuta shlokas or riddles,of which we shall have to speak hereafter,and not as the number of shlokas in the original Mahabharata itself.It is mentioned in the mahabharata that vyasa composed his poem in three years,working day and night.it would be natural to expect that vyasa would begin his work with an account of himself 1 Footnote no-206,weber,page-187*"ashtau shloka sahasrani ashtau shloka shatanicha,aham vedmi shuko vetti sanjay vetti va na va-Adi(1.1.81)"*which meaning is "there are 8800 kuta verses in mahabharata which meaning i know,shuka know,whether sanjay know or donot know i can't say".
-- mayurasia-- 115.240.47.57 ( talk) 14:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
there is a sloka "nArAyanam namaskrutya naram chaiva narOttamam, deveem saraswatim vyAsam tatO jayamudeerayet"
Here the jaya , as per katapayAdhi sankhya denotes eighteen. In fact this sloka is recired before chanting Mahabharata ( 18 parvas), Gita (18 adhyAyAs), Srimad Bhagavatam ( 18000 verses). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apexpreci123 ( talk • contribs) 07:28, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Forgive me if this has been cited before, as I am not sure what sources have already been picked clean. I found the following passage in Mani that does a good job of summarizing the "three stages" view from a traditional perspective. In this version, Mani is depending on traditional understandings of the sources we have been reviewing. It should be compared with the more nuanced version I already cited in CHI.
Source: Vettam Mani, Purāṇic Encyclopaedia, 1975 English edition (reprint Delhi 1979 et seq.), Motilal Banarsidass, p. 122, ISBN 81-208-0597-6.
Begin quotation from article "BHARATA (MAHĀBHĀRATA);" capitalization throughout is as in source:
The original name of the Bhārata which Vyāsa composed was 'Jaya'. In the first Chapter of Ādi Parva is this śloka to support this statement:
Nārāyaṇaṁ namaskṛtya Naraṁ caiva narottamaṁ / Devīṁ Sarasvatīṁ caiva Tato Jayamudīrayet //
After the death of the Pāṇḍavas and the Kauravas the disciples of Vyāsa, Sumantu, Jaimini, Paila, Śuka and Vaiśampāyana gave this book great publicity. They wrote books based on this story of Bhārata of which only the 'Bhārata' of Vaiśampāyana and the Aśvamedha Parva of Jaimini are now available.
Vyāsa's Bhārata was first expounded by Vaiśampāyana at the Sarpa-satra of Janamejaya. At the request of Janamejaya, Vaiśampāyana added some more facts to the original work known then as 'Jaya'. Jaya with the accretions came to be known as Bhāratasaṁhitā. Sūta who narrated this story to Śaunaka and others at the forest of Naimiśa added some more matter to the Bhāratasaṁhitā and made it larger. The present Mahābhārata is this expanded edition.
The following facts prove that the Mahābhārata has thus passed through three stages of evolution:
1) This book is known by three names: Jaya, Bhāratasaṁhitā and Mahābhārata.Note 1
2) There is a reference to the three parts of the book in Śloka 66, Chapter I of Ādi Parva.Note 2
3) There are three different opinions regarding the total number of ślokas in the Mahābhārata. According to Ugraśravas there are 8800 verses, according to Vyāsa 24000 verses and according to another statement a lakh of verses.Note 3
4) The narration appears to be of three different kinds, descriptive, philosophical and oratorical, indicative of three different authorships.
5) Sāta and Vaiśampāyana have made accretions to the original work 'Jaya' of Vyāsa.
Viewed with these facts we are led to believe that Vyāsa has composed only the very essence of Mahābhārata comprising 8800 ślokas and that work was known as 'Jaya' as referred to in the first invocatory verse of the epic. Vaiśampāyana added a few verses of his own and brought the number to 24,000 and gave the book the name of 'Bhāratasaṁhitā'. It was Sūta who made many more additions and made the book so big as to fetch it the name of `Mahābhārata'. The epic which is now current among us contains a lakh of verses and it took perhaps centuries to get this transformation of the book from 'Jaya' to 'Mahābhārata'.
Note 1: (a) Jayo nāmetihāso'yaṁ / Śrotavyo vijigitṣuṇā (Śloka 22, Chapter 62, Ādi Parva). (b) Caturviṁśati sāhasrīṁ / Cakre bhāratasaṁhitām / Upākhyānairvinā tāvad / Bhāratam procyate budhaiḥ (Śloka 78, Chapter I, Ādi Parva). ([c, mislabeled bullet "3" in source]) Refer to the śloka given in para I.
Note 2: Manvādi Bhārataṁ kecid / Āstikādi tathāpare / Tathopari carādanye / Viprāḥ samyagadhīyire.
Note 3: Idaṁ śatasahasraṁ tu Iokānām punyakarmaṇām / Upākhyānaiḥ saha jñeyamādyaṁ bhāratamuttamam / Caturvimśati sāhasrīṁ cakre bhāratasaṁhitām / Upākhyānairvinā tāvad bhārataṁ procyate budhaiḥ / Aṣṭau ślokasahasrāni Aṣṭau ślokaśatāni ca / Ahaṁ vedmi śuko vetti Sañjayo vetti vā na vā. (Ādi Parva, Chapter I)
End quotation from article "BHARATA (MAHĀBHĀRATA)" Buddhipriya ( talk) 22:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
You sometimes read it's the "world's longest epic", and sometimes you read it's the second longest after the Epic of King Gesar. Sometimes you read that the Epic of Manas is the world's longest. It is easy to produce sources that state anything at all, the problem is to assess the reliability, and the quotability of such sources, and to mention them as attributing an opinion, not a fact. Otherwise it won't do to keep three articles on different epics on Wikipedia, all of them containing a referenced "world's longest" claim.
Also, we are an encyclopedia, not the Guinness Book of Records.
Fwiiw, it is probably fair to say that the Mbh is the longest epic that has received a fixed standard redaction. -- dab (𒁳) 11:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
sure, this can be mentioned somewhere under "textual history and structure". It should just be referenced properly, phrased carefully, and if at all possible kept out of the lead section. -- dab (𒁳) 13:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
I think adding 100 sub-parva Name-list in the table provided in the article will stretch it badly,should it be added seperately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Myth&Truth ( talk • contribs) 14:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Longest poem claim should be readded,because it is famous that mahabharata is the longest epic poem in the world-- Duckbuunny ( talk) 21:14, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
(Not sure of the spelling of the middle name.) Her doctoral thesis some decades ago extracted the verses (about 3000) in a particular archaic form (old trishtubh) & showed that they tell the story clearly & coherently. In other words she argued this was the original. Have no scholars more recently taken any notice of this? Peter jackson ( talk) 15:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
{{editsemiprotected}}
I would like to add a link to my podcast, which is about the Mahabharata. Please add the following to the bottom of the "External Links" section. Perhaps it would also be helpful to add a link to the TV series, which I've found on YouTube. See my suggested edit below. Thanks!!!
Lorenzomanzo (
talk)
17:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
"somewhere in the eighth or ninth century" doesn't have "BC" at the end of statement, giving wrong impression of AD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.208.69 ( talk) 02:13, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
{{editsemiprotected}} Mahabharat is not the epic of India. It is a Hindu epic.
Prabeshlohani ( talk) 21:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Not done
The poetic rendition of the story of Risyasringa is not one of the best poetry I've read. But then, having no benchmark with other English poetic renditions of tales of the Mahabharata, it is not clear to me why this line alone warrants deletion. -- Fgpilot ( talk) 07:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Why is his opinion about Iliad (not even Mahabharata) featuring high up in the article in the historical references section? Every time I push it down to cultural references section, it is undone and brought back at the top of the article. This article is about the MAHABHARATA, not about Homer's works or its translation to Sanskrit, etc. If Mahabharata predates Iliad and Odyssey, it is fine; but is Dio's opinions about how Homer's works were known in India that important that it has to feature right in the first few paragraphs on an article on the Mahabharata? Would it be acceptable if we placed Kalidasa's opinion about Homer, in the main body of the article on Iliad? -- Fgpilot ( talk) 10:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, the article as you've redacted it presents a section on historical references that implies that scholars have found no early evidence from outside India of the existence of the Indian epics, and of the Mahabharata in particular.
Yet countless reliable sources assert (or at the minimum have to acknowledge the arguments of those other reliable sources who assert), against your opinion about the importance of this, that the passage in Dio is (to quote Moriz Winternitz, "our earliest external evidence of the existence of the Mahabharata in the 1st century A.D." [7] Your opinion just can't carry weight against the importance scholars have attached to this evidence on precisely the subject of Mahabharata#Historical references. Now, the scholars may be wrong, but when such a variety of scholars has considered a piece of evidence so important to a topic, it's notable enough to be discussed there even if only to present stronger evidence on the other side! But the four sentences you're removing are hardly disproportionate to the WP:N established by the WP:RS such as Moritz and Christian Lassen and Arthur Anthony Macdonell [8]. More recent scholars who have addressed the subject still agree with the interpretation presented in the text you're removing [9], and many Indian writers have presented the same interpretation (which is both likely to be true and supports the antiquity and fame of the Indian epic): Google Books points to discussions of the Dio passage in works by Suniti Kumar Chatterji, M.R. Yardi, Har Bilas Sarda, etc. etc. The text in question refers to such uniquely important evidence that any competent discussion of "early historical references to the Mahabharata" (including this Wikipedia article) has no choice but to address it.
I invite you to set aside the dispute and acknowledge, simply, that this preeminently meets the Wikipedia standards for inclusion under the topic Mahabharata#Historical references. It's okay not to have realized that before, but if this accumulation of evidence for the fact doesn't persuade, I think we need the help of outside comment on the strength of the argument for inclusion. Wareh ( talk) 14:46, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
This following concern of mine is still not addressed by the reverts: The first and third paragraphs are stylistically very different from the second paragraph in the "Historical reference" section. They directly talk about Mahabharata and my edits on the second paragraph was primarily to bring stylistic coherence. I still don't see why it is getting reverted. I have no choice but to attempt an edit on this paragraph -- sometime in the future, as right now I've got stuff to attend to. Fgpilot ( talk) 17:25, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Regarding this revision, which attempts to address style and succinctness concerns without removing relevant material:
I have been following this debate with considerable interest and tend to agree with Fgpilot here. Especially the quotes about Homer's poetry being sung in India and "such is the greatness of one man's poetry" are clearly irrelevant in an article on the Mahabharata. Removing these lines does not of course diminish the greatness of Homer or his poetry, it just makes the article on Mahabharata a bit more readable. Sunayana ( talk) 07:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I would not mind a competently and correctly written replacement for the Dio paragraph. But Fgpilot's versions continues to contain several errors. So I'm replacing it with the superior version. The difference is 1500 bytes (previous version) vs. 1100 bytes (Fgpilot's version), so I think all the talk of disproportionate attention and long-windedness is a red herring. Let's just try to get it correct. Here is what was deficient in Fgpilot's version:
As I've indicated above, Fgpilot's ideas that this historical evidence has to do with seeing Indian epic in non-Indian terms or demoting the full citizenship of the Mahabharata in world literature are absurd and demonstrably untrue. The only reason to care that evidence of the great Sanskrit epic Mahabharata may have reached a Greek writer 2000 years ago is because we are scientifically and encyclopedically interested in the great Sanskrit epic Mahabharata for its own sake! I feel this has been a misunderstanding, based on the false belief that this passage tends in the tiniest to do anything other than lay out evidence of antiquity and importance about what was going on in Indian literature.
If a French visitor to London provides a unique early piece of evidence for the performance of Shakespeare's plays, is it an imperialist Francomaniac who discusses that evidence in an article on Shakespeare's play? No, it's someone who cares about the historical evidence for Shakespeare's career and his works as they existed closer to his time than to ours. Period. Wareh ( talk) 16:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
The section summarizing the events when Duryodhana humiliated himself in Indraprastha needs to be corrected. While the popular notion is that Draupadi had laughed at him and insulted him in the Ganguli version and other texts it is apparent that she wasn't even present when the incident occurred. Rather it was the Pandav brothers that were present and had laughed at Duryodhana.
SECTION XLVI
Vaisampayana said,--"That bull among men, Duryodhana, continued to dwell in that, assembly house (of the Pandavas). And with Sakuni, the Kuru prince slowly examined the whole of that mansion, and the Kuru prince beheld in it many celestial designs, which he had never seen before in the city called after the elephant (Hastinapore). And one day king Duryodhana in going round that mansion came upon a crystal surface. And the king, from ignorance, mistaking it for a pool of water, drew up his clothes. And afterwards finding out his mistake the king wandered about the mansion in great sorrow. And sometime after, the king, mistaking a lake of crystal water adorned with lotuses of crystal petals for land, fell into it with all his clothes on. Beholding Duryodhana fallen into the lake, the mighty Bhima laughed aloud as also the menials of the palace. And the servants, at the command of the king, soon brought him dry and handsome clothes. Beholding the plight of Duryodhana, the mighty Bhima and Arjuna and both the twins--all laughed aloud. Being unused to putting up with insults, Duryodhana could not bear that laugh of theirs. Concealing his emotions he even did not cast his looks on them. And beholding the monarch once more draw up his clothes to cross a piece of dry land which he had mistaken for water, they all laughed again. And the king sometime after mistook a closed door made of crystal as open. And as he was about to pass through it his head struck against it, and he stood with his brain reeling. And mistaking as closed another door made of crystal that was really open, the king in attempting to open it with stretched hands, tumbled down. And coming upon another door that was really open, the king thinking it as closed, went away from it. And, O monarch, king Duryodhana beholding that vast wealth in the Rajasuya sacrifice and having become the victim of those numerous errors within the assembly house at last returned, with the leave of the Pandavas, to Hastinapore.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m02/m02046.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sejalpat ( talk • contribs) 00:36, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
{{editsemiprotected}} There is a line in Valmiki's Ramayana "Yatha H'e Chor: s (sa) tatha h'e budhasthagtm' nastik mat viddhi" (ayodhya kaand), meaning "Like a thief is punishable similarly protestants of vedas i.e. Budha (those who adhere to the teachings of Lord Budha too are punishable)" This clearly shows that Budhism was in existence when Ramayana was written. Mahabharta happened after Ramayana, hence we can assume the date of Mahabharta to be not earlier than 563 BC
Indresh.saluja ( talk) 12:35, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
{{ editsemiprotected}} Translation of Mahabharata into Telugu as Srimad Andhra Mahabharatamu happened over a period of centuries. Nannaya Bhattaraka (11 century A.D) was the first, though he translated only two and a half chapters. Tikkana (A.D 1205 - 1288) translated the next 15 parvas, but did not undertake translating the half-finished Aranya Parvamu left by Nannaya. The Telugu people remained without this last translation for more than a century, until it was translated by Yerrapragada (14 century A.D). The Telugu style adds colourful description to the original sanskrit work while keeping the majority of the story intact.
Please add this paragraph under Versions, translations, and derivative works. Syanaman ( talk) 02:22, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
The family tree can be augmented to include Janamejaya's mother Madravati and son Shatanika. Nshuks7 ( talk) 16:27, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
As I put my referenced data from reliable sources, two most popular books on mahabharata by
From J. L. Brockington book it is discussed that however the compilation of the epic was done over a long period of time(400BC-400Ad) but its origin may be traced up to 8th or 9th century BC. you can read it here
In 2nd book same thing is discuused by Maurice Winternitz, Moriz Winternitz on page 446 that" Mahabharata attained its present form between 400BC to 400Ad and it is also discussed ( on page 452 in 3rd paragraph) that Some elements of our present mahabharta can be traced back up to vedic time.
Let me know you that these two books are reliable and popular reference book for the study of the epic, so I am reinserting this referenced data.-- Luky ( talk) 20:32, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Lostinindia/Luky, this is just the usual lame attempt to artificially inflate the probable age of Sanskrit texts by cherry-picking soundbites from scholarly literature. This is such a common occurrence on Wikipedia that I reverted without even raising an eyebrow. I don't know why it is so important that these texts must be as old as at all possible, I just know it isn't intellectually honest to always and exclusively parade around the absolutely earliest dates that have ever been proposed as "the" most probably age.
Most of the Mbh was compiled during the period 400 BCE to 400 CE. There may be a remote historcal nucleus around 800 BCE. The article has been well aware of these facts long before you came along. -- dab (𒁳) 15:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
I feel that the story written in the article is incomplete and wish to write the complete story as many small stories have been missed. Would I get the permission to do so? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sudarsananush89 ( talk • contribs) 14:49, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
About la mention of Yavanas (Ionics or greeks) into Mahabharata The text probably reached its final form by the early Gupta period (ca. 4th c. CE).[2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.222.73.152 ( talk) 09:33, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Is it possbile that there are some historical bases about weapons ?
I rembember some historical hellenistic tecnologies as the”greek fire” with siphons . That can to be carried on barrows or on ships or even by hand. Other weapons are burning mirrors similar to those used by Archimedes in siege of Syracuse and in Alexandria pharos. Or others machines that launch fire balls.
Antonino http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_fire http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lighthouse_of_Alexandria http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Syracuse_%28212_BC%29
—Preceding
unsigned comment added by
84.222.73.152 (
talk)
09:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
I think there are elements in Mahabaratha much older of 400 bce, there are a possible links with a common proto-Indo-European myth: 1-A figure of Krishna (rationalist and cynical almost machiavellian) is similar to the role of Athena in Iliad. 2-Arjuna and the relationship with the son does not like the story of Achilles and Patroclus? 3-The fighting in duels between heroes 4-the honour to be an “auriga” in the chariots and strong relation with heroe. (Very asian steppe) 5-the fear of heroes and no-sense of war to see Arjuna and Hector, 6-the stoicism of the duty beyond of the good and the evil (knowing to be in wrong side) 7- the path of heroe to transcend the individuality to accept the death.
There are many other elements that I do not cite for not be tedious How can you explain these similarities without a common ancestral myth ?
Antonino —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.222.77.198 ( talk) 08:21, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
I want to ask .What is historical status of this story .Is it a fiction or realy happend this war — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rasoolpuri ( talk • contribs) 16:26, 13 December 2010 (UTC)