Talk:Mahabharata

No UFO discussion?

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)

Read all about it here. rudra (talk) 05:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Improving article

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.

• Usage of IAST names. Given that the article title is now the formal and 'academic' version with diacritics, do others feel that all other Sanskrit usage in it should also be the same for consistency and style? If it is not to be used throughout, I'd suggest that any first use of any original name should be in IAST.

• The synopsis contains some material that is not in original works (some of was it changed yesterday, from a sanitised version of the conception of Dhritarashtra and Pandu). I felt then that it should be based on a named reference so that this can be avoided. Narasimhan's abridged English translation seems a good enough source, so I intend to work on this during following days, without extending the current length of the synopsis unduly.

Imc (talk) 18:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

(In response to a query by Redtigerxyz); I don't, at present, intend to expand the article significantly or to add new sections. However, I feel there is a fair bit of improvement possible. Other items beyond that in my first post, include

• • is the discussion of whether the Greeks were referring to the Iliad or the MB, really appropriately placed in the 'Textual history and organisation' section;
  • other spelling issues; (parvan or parva)
  • overlong detail on forthcoming translations, with insufficient material on the current translations in widespread use.
  • expansion, and a possible new section on the use of the MB as a historic repository for Indian literature.

Imc (talk) 16:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   One of the images ([:Image:Razmnama Dronacharya.jpg]) has been listed for speedy deletion. However, this is because the image is thought to be a duplicate image. The editors may want to check out what is going on here so that they are not caught by surprise if the image disappears.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Overall, quite a good article. jackturner3 (talk) 14:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Ganguli Translation

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)

Please lock the entry

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)

Translations

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

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

BC or BCE?

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

The Greek writer Dio Chrysostom

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)

I've reinstated this. The matter is still noteworthy and referenced. It might be legitimate to include this in a separate page on western views, but that is another issue. Imc (talk) 14:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Category:Hindu texts vs. Category:Mahābhārata

Category:Mahābhārata is itself a category within Category:Hindu texts. — Robert Greer (talk) 22:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Start new articles

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)

English translations section

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)

I agree with you that the section is bloated and reads like a a advert. But I think this is worthy content for an encyclopedic article. Note that there have been very few actual translations (as opposed to retellings and generic paraphrasing) of the Mahabharata, and we should list these historical works (with references, of course). I'll try to do my bit, but it may take a few days. Abecedare (talk) 17:19, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

John Brockington's, The Sanskrit Epics (chapter 2) is a standard work that can be used to provide a quick survey of the scholarship related to Mahabharata (will also be relevant at Ramayana. Abecedare (talk) 17:23, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the cleanup, looks much better now. --Nvineeth (talk) 17:37, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Move back

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

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)

• Move as per above. --User:Nvineeth 06:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
• Move - per reasons given. Hekerui (talk) 07:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
• Move - The reason of using IAST version as the proper title of the wiki articles, holds true only when it is followed in wiki articles in all other world languages that have spellings that do not match their actual pronunciation. Say in French, Nordic or even everyday English, otherwise its appropriate to 'respect' local usage of the English language. For phonetic help, IAST is always mentioned later in any case, but a transliteration should never be allowed to supercede the actual word in Indian English. --Ekabhishek (talk) 07:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support Mahabharatha is the most common English form of the name. --Deepak D'Souza 08:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
• Move - as per nom.--GDibyendu (talk) 10:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support move as common name in English. Jafeluv (talk) 12:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
• Move - as per the nomination. Similar moves have also been effected to other articles, like those on Indian music, Ragas, amongst others. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 13:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
• Why? What's the point? Mahabharata already redirects here. So how does it matter? Shreevatsa (talk) 14:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

So that "Mahabharata" can be used throughout the article for consistency instead of Mahābhārata. Note most of the article already uses Mahabharata. Also, for a greater cause: to form a general consensus for/against IAST titles and maybe form wiki-policy/guidelines. And thus resolve the IAST/Common English debate once and for all.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 14:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

So it is a proposal about what should be used in the text of the article, rather than what the article should be called? This is not obvious from the move proposal above, and it is also not clear that the other editors voting above are conscious of this. While I have no opinion on what the article should be called (this move proposal), I do think the discussion about the article text should happen separately. Shreevatsa (talk) 14:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Buddhipriya and I had discussed the issue of IAST use at some length some two years back, and he had compiled a recommended guideline, which will be a good starting point for any wider discussion on when to use IAST within articles. Abecedare (talk) 15:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Why Mahabharata and not Mahabharat? Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 15:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  • The difference depends upon whether we rely on the classical Sanskrit or modern pronunciation in our transliteration (see this explanation). I vote for the classical Mahabharata since that avoids battles along Hindi vs Tamil vs ... lines. Abecedare (talk) 15:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I agree. FWIW, this issue has also come up on other articles, for example Talk:Rama/Archive 1#Spelling. Basing an article's title on the modern Hindi pronunciation is a step down a very slippery slope which we really should avoid. -- Arvind (talk) 00:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
• Move An IAST (or ISO 15919) article title is justified in those relatively uncommon instances when the article subject is covered only in technical or non-English literature, and the deciding on the "common transliteration" is either difficult or involves OR. In more typical cases, like this one, an IAST title only reduces accessibility (for both lay and blind readers), and has no clear advantage as long as the transliteration is mentioned in the article lead. Abecedare (talk) 15:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
• Move per nom -- this and other articles. IAST only confuses the general readers. utcursch | talk 16:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
• Move - unless it's absolutely unavoidable, article names should be in standard Latin characters without IAST or ISO 15919 diacritics. -- Arvind (talk) 00:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
• Move per nom and the most easily recognised name rule. SBC-YPR (talk) 09:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
• Move The most simple and least controversial name. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 05:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

  What do you mean by controversial? The fact that it is accurate and unambiguous, or that people see diacritics? Imc (talk) 20:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

  My reference to "controversial" were in light of the Hindi vs Sanskrit debate while I believe it is simple because of the lack of diacritics. Personally, I don't see why Ancient Indian topics on Wikipedia must satisfy the linguist's needs for than other parts of the world. They generally contain more information on etymology and phonetics than the equivalent articles in non-English Western culture. Both the Odyssey and Aeneid are anglicised names. A direct Roman transliteration of Homer's epic would be Odýsseia while Vergil's poem was written as Aeneis in Latin. Similarly, the Indus River and Ganges are not written as Sindhu or Gaṅgā. In this case, the general anglicised name is Mahabharata, that is without the diacritics.

  We will still have the IAST and IPA in brackets along with the Devanagari in the first line anyway. I suppose IAST naming can be reserved for specialist topics, like the Aṣṭādhyāyī, which are focused on Sanskrit and linguistics. The majority of readers won't know IAST, so in most cases it will just cause readability problems without providing them with the correct pronunciation. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 00:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: a lot of articles encounter similar issues - see for example raga. Is there a reason we haven't set up a guideline to address this consistently across the encyclopedia? Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• There are two related naming guidelines (Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Indic) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Dharmic)) that are considered defunct and one proposed guideline User:Buddhipriya/IASTUsage that was never widely discussed or adopted. These can be reconciled and resurrected, if someone starts a centralized discussion. Abecedare (talk) 19:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• I'm one of the original authors of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Indic) and I watched it being abandoned. I suspect it is because too many contributors to Wikipedia have the English (language) preference for the spelling that they know best. With the orthography of English being as confused as it is, it means that much of the phonetic information that was so carefully formalised in Sanskrit is lost. I don't believe myself that there is any need to talk down to users. Imc (talk) 20:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose - I don't think we have the right to ignore the original spellings. For those who don't know the correct spelling, or when it's hard to enter the accented characters, redirect does its work. The advantage of redirection is that reader actually sees the original spelling although he/she entered the anglicized version, and learns it was not original. It's also worth remembering that accents DO have a meaning, and most of the time, the accented letters are not pronounced as the non-accented ones, although they look alike! arny (talk) 19:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• Not sure what you mean by "original spellings" here, since the issue is basically choosing between alternate romanizations, each with their own advantages. Can you clarify ? Abecedare (talk) 19:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• The original spelling would have been a early descendent of Brahmi such as the Gupta script or possibly Kharoshti. IAST was probably not even the original Latin script to write Sanskrit but it later on became the standard way to transliterate Indic scripts. Keep in mind that the Mahabharata was trasmitted orally for centuries before being written down so the original pronunciations have potentially been lost forever. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 00:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• I don't see why original pronunciation would get lost with oral transmission! Probably you meant "original spelling"? Anyway, there seems to be a fair consensus on moving it, and I agree with it as well. (I also think that for a well-known word like 'Mahabharata', there is no reason to use IAST throughout the article — surely anyone who can read IAST knows 'Mahabharata' and needs no help pronouncing it.) Shreevatsa (talk) 01:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support: The nominator, Redtigerxyz, writes a good reason to move, and I agree. [sd] 02:14, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support Move per above. --Shruti14 ^{talk • sign} 14:50, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I've also started a discussion about moving other articles to non-romanized titles for similar reasons. Please share your input. --Shruti14 ^{talk • sign} 20:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Future GAR

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.YobMod 11:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

About Synopsis, the plot can be verified by reading any English translation of the epic or it may not be challenged. Only things that could be challenged need references. Still wherever you think, citation is needed, please add . Thank you for warning about the GAR in advance. Will try to improve article. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Excellent. I made a first pass with tags. Some may already have cited somewhere else in the text, so need checking and "ref name xxxx =" used. Also, there are some stray Harvard style references in there, which give no page numbers.

As to expansion, sections on religious importance (do all/some/few Hindu's believe it to be a fable or literally true? What is it's status with related religions or sects? Religious doctrine has been extracted from the poem too, so needs discussion), critical analysis (there must be sources discussing its style of writing, use of metaphor, its antecendents and influences etc) and themes (again, many books on this, so something must be included here) would seem the most urgently missing. Maybe a section on alternate versions (outside of truncated versions), if they exist? these are just of the top of my head after checking the Ramayana and Iliad articles. Good luck, and let me know if copyediting new material is needed. There is no rush to start the GAR on my part, as long as the article is being improved.YobMod 13:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The characters of the Mahabharata are treated as proto-historic beings like Arthur. Broadness has always been a subjective matter, will try to create new sections, but will need more time as currently committed to real life jobs and creation of article with user:Nvvchar. "Versions, translations, and derivative works" covers versions.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Oki doke. As i said, as long as work continues, i will hold of from the GAR (for a reasonable time). I'll be busy researching all the pointers you gave at LGBT mythology anyway :-).YobMod 10:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

On second thoughts, I think you should initiate a community GAR now, so I get more ideas (more input) of all the things that article Mahabharata needs to improve. IMO, after the GAR (not when the GAR is in progress) ends, I will initiate a revamp taking all the points on GAR into consideration. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. I was thinking that might be best anyway, for such an important article. I will start it tomorrow (friday 14th), busy article writing just now :-).YobMod 10:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Mahabharata

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review

Result: Delist. Review comments can be found below. Articles can be renominated at GAN at any time. Geometry guy 19:59, 19 September 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.YobMod 09:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delist, for several reasons. For starters, there are several statements which need in-line citations. Two examples:

• It is usually thought that the full length of the Mahabharata has accreted over a long period.
• Beside being rich with philosophical and religious jewels , the epic also reveals complexity of human relationship in various dimensions which can be related even with the modern complexity of the human relationships.

Many of the article's sections rely too much on lists or charts; others are a collection of stubby sub-sections. A better approach is to merge stubby sections and augment lists, charts and tables with additional prose.

I also noticed that some of the citations are incomplete, such as note 31, " What makes Shyam special... "

A final concern is that the article says little about the poem's lasting importance and influence. The short sub-section on "Modern interpretations" hints at it but doesn't really discuss critical reception, influence on Indian art, literature and culture, and global reception and influence. I was disappointed that the lead mentions that the poem is of immense importance to culture in the Indian subcontinent, and is a major text of Hinduism but the body of the article fails to elaborate. Majoreditor (talk) 01:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delist I've given the article a partial analysis and I see two problems, mostly pointed out already:

The article lacks a "wider view". Associated missing or underdeveloped main aspects: (1) influences on India, Hinduism and the World (2) critical reception and analyses of factual accuracy and philosophical significance, (3) the story of its publication including popularity, and (4) the epic's use or lack thereof in current day Hindu practice.

I agree that the two examples pointed out by Majoreditor need citations for being controversial or likely to be challenged and are also reasons to delist. Diderot's dreams (talk) 19:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Mahabharata successor to Ramayana?

Just saw this edit; Probably this is not true. Appreciate if more knowledgeable editors looks into it. --Nvineeth (talk) 15:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

While Ramayana is the generally regarded as the older of the two epics, I have yet to see any source that Mahabharata is considered a "successor". I have reverted the edit for now, which also made some other unexplained and not-necessarily-for-the-better changes. Abecedare (talk) 15:26, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Typo in first sloka of the text

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)

Thanks. I have corrected that and spelled the word consistently as sarpasattra in the article (as per MW). Note that whenever you spot such errors, you are welcome to make the corrections yourself! Abecedare (talk) 03:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Longest epic poem claim

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 would have limited the statement to saying that it is one of the longest epics, but then of course that needs a reference. Someone has found a reference backing the present text. I think that arguing about these matters is pointless; does the length include addendums, explanatory content, et.c. And is the measure one of the number verses, chapters, or words? If it counts words, then a translation into an analytic language will have more words than one in Sanskrit. So unless all the contenders are in the same language, we need comparable translations into English or another reference language. Imc (talk) 13:14, 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)

8,800 verses claim in "jaya"

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".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)

I see that Rudra has already fixed the citation for the claim. If someone has access, another good reference to look up is: The Mahabharata: Origin and Growth, RN Dandekar, University of Ceylon Review, 1954. Abecedare (talk) 22:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Our IP informant may have uncovered a scholarly issue for us. While the 8800 number is well known in the literature, there may be some disagreement about its authenticity. Now, if there is indeed an issue here, we will probably need to research it and document it. This is irrespective of whether the MB itself "says" anything on the issue, and further discussion of that aspect is pointless either way. In the interim, I got rid of the "81, 101-102" bit (junk left over from the days when this article was "sourced" to the likes of Kak and Frawley) and tried to reformulate the text disengaging the numbers from any direct implication that there were specific slokas or whatnot to back them up, as opposed to secondary sources. rudra (talk) 00:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I share your impression. Brokington (see page 21) says that the idea of Jaya, Bharata and MB as the 3 stages of development of the text is held by "some", which would imply that others disagree. Don't know if we need to go into great detail in this article, but at least we shouldn't state the claime as a fact. Abecedare (talk) 00:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

We're at the quote-gathering stage then: references, page numbers, sound-bites. The impression I'm getting so far is that there are three separate issues: how many major redaction stages, each named what (if known), and how many stanzas (if known) for each. For now, I'd leave the article text as is, except for tweaks, because it is sourced pretty closely (I posted the source text to Mitsube's talk page, maybe I should copy here?) rudra (talk) 01:05, 26 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).²

1 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)

Wikipedia is written using reliable secondary sources. Please read WP:V. Mitsube (talk) 09:13, 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)

IP, as rudra said above, there are several separate issues here. At present there are some indications that the 8,800 number, and possibly the idea of 3 redactions are not universally accepted and/or, is outdated - but the evidence is pretty circumstantial based on reading-between-the-lines and looking at what certain references don't say. So our time would be most usefully spent researching if some reliable sources that explicitly dispute these claims. Lets do so and list any useful reference here on the talk page (note that newworld encyclopedia is a wikipedia fork and of no use as a source). The effort may take a few days or even a couple if weeks, but lets not be too impatient in the meantime - the claim is minor, cited, and has been in the article for years - so even if it is outdated, keeping it in for a short period, is not a grave concern. PS: It would help communications if you got a wikipedia account; also it is preferable to keep the conversation centralized here, instead of having it split across multiple user talk pages. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 14:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

It's best, I think, to leave the New World Encyclopedia (a Moonie project) out of this. Their redaction of Wikipedia material hardly inspires confidence. Look at their "Historicity" section, for example. They took out practically everything of value and "sourced" what was left in the section to kooks (some fellow named Vartak whose "work" has been spammed here on occasion, and a WP:FRINGE classic, K.D. Sethna's Problems of Ancient India). FAIL. rudra (talk) 14:22, 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]

• 8800 verse should be claimed like fitzgerald explained in his article
• The earliest known references to the Mahabharata and its core Bharata date back to the Ashtadhyayi (sutra 6.2.38) of Pāṇini (fl. 4th century BCE), and in the Ashvalayana Grhyasutra (3.4.4).

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)

(Normally, one shouldn't edit someone else's posts, but <ref>s are very awkward on Talk pages, so I took the liberty to change them. See this diff for what I did, and revert if you feel strongly about it.) rudra (talk) 00:12, 27 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

• 1.Jhon Brockington in his article
• 2.Muneo Tokunaga in his book EPIC UNDERTAKINGS
• 3.fitzgerald in his article
• 4.The Mahabharata - A Criticism By C. V. Vaidya also support 24000 verse as a first redaction.
• 5.South Asian folklore: an encyclopedia by

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)

Aryan Invasion theory.

The Aryan Invasion theory has been gretaly disputed and the opponents have proposed "Indegenous Aryans" and "Out of India Theory". There is a great deal of research being done on this. In this context, I feel it is not correct to mention that the early texts of Mahabarata suggest the struggles by the early Aryans while crossing the Gangetic plane. I request you to remove such parts from the main article of "Mahabharata". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vamsi Illindala (talk • contribs) 02:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

It is settled outside of right-wing Hindu circles, for good reason. Mitsube (talk) 05:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I thing Aryan Invasion topic is very disputed,so in this article it is not correct to mention that the early texts of Mahabarata suggest the struggles by the early Aryans while crossing the Gangetic plane and also such type of theories have not given by any scholar,soit is better to remove "early Aryans while crossing the Gangetic plane". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rudasharman (talk • contribs) 11:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

@Mitsube - I do not know what you mean by that. But I would like to mention here that these theories are not just postulations of some "right-wing" Hindu groups. There is a significant effort being put in by archaeogenetics and linguistic experts. And there is also considerable evidence that the British "theorized" the Indo-Aryan migration when there was no technology developed to study genetics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vamsi Illindala (talk • contribs) 21:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

All I can suggest to you is that you read the very well-sourced Indo-Aryan migration article. Mitsube (talk) 21:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. But I request you to read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Aryan_migration#Genetics. The first sentence clearly states: "The studies published in this active field of ongoing research have yet to present a clear picture." Also, please read, Genetics and archaeogenetics of South Asia, Out of India theory and The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture. Of course, there is much more literature on this debate. All I am saying is, in the light of such arguments, statements such as "eastern migration of Aryans" seem biased. Request you to either reword it or remove it completely as it is apparently unnecessary in the context of a mythological epic.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.81.210.38 (talk) 23:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

If you had read the article, you would know that the arguments are not based on genetics. It is common for a group to have a far greater cultural impact than genetic impact. The arguments are literary, archaeological, and linguistic primarily. Mitsube (talk) 02:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The claims and conclusions in these so-called "genetics studies" are all mostly nonsense. Not a single one of them has anything to say about the most recent 3000-4000 years of history. Their time depths are like 5000 BCE or 10,000 BCE or even earlier. What do such prehistoric dates have to do with any migrations of interest? That's right, one big fat f*cking ZERO. But not one of the bozos and blog-heroes and edit-warriors and sundry chazerai infesting WP are ever going to get their ears around that. See this (and note what it says about the other "invasions" which would be equally "disproved" by the same "evidence". Oops!) rudra (talk) 03:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I feel Aryan invasion is highly maked and fake theory,there are lots of lots article.

see this 3 part video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MO8-JCK45tc&feature=PlayList&p=0FCCA438B143323E&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=22 .This is just one of them Alokprasad (talk) 03:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

This is all off-topic here anyway. Let's stop the thread, please. Thank you. rudra (talk) 03:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

That's right, it's off topic - Aryans or non-Aryans has nothing to do with mythology. Anyways, I give up. Hail Hitler! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vamsi Illindala (talk • contribs) 05:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)