Jump to content

Talk:Mahabharata

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 115.240.99.41 (talk) at 23:30, 2 February 2010 (→continue with dating of mahabharata: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former good articleMahabharata was one of the Philosophy and religion good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 9, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
February 15, 2008Good article nomineeListed
September 19, 2009Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • Comment Why Mahabharata and not Mahabharat? Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 15:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Move per nom -- this and other articles. IAST only confuses the general readers. utcursch | talk 16:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Move per nom and the most easily recognised name rule. SBC-YPR (talk) 09:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move The most simple and least controversial name. GizzaDiscuss © 05:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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. GizzaDiscuss © 00:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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. GizzaDiscuss © 00:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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 [citation needed]. Thank you for warning about the GAR in advance. Will try to improve article. --Redtigerxyz Talk 13:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

DATING OF MAHABHARATA

There are four criterion to date a epic like mahabharata a well known itihas in vedic culture 1.archaeological evidences 2.geoghraphical analysis 3.language & inscriptions analysis 4.Foreign history 1.Archaeological evidences:Most scholars agree that at least some of the references to the Sarasvati in the Rigveda refer to the Ghaggar-Hakra River.The Sarasvati River is one of the chief Rigvedic rivers mentioned many times in mahabharata.•Recent archaeological discoveries indicate that the Sarasvati river ceased to be a sea flowing river by 3500 BCE, and had dried up around 1900 BCE.The Rg Veda and hence mahabharata too, cannot be dated later than 1900 BCE.because in mahabharata it is refered many times and there is no description of its drying up completely.so it may be asummed that a very deep core portion was written during period of 1900bc-1500bc.The Mahabharata says that the Sarasvati dried up in a desert (at a place named Vinasana or Adarsana).[12] According to the Mahabharata, the river dried up in order that the Nishadas and Abhiras might not see her.[13] The Mahabharata also states that Vasishtha committed suicide by throwing himself into the Sutlej and that the Sutlej then broke up in a 100 channels (Yash Pal in S.P. Gupta 1995: 175). This myth seems to be related with the changing of the course of the Sutlej river. Recent research indicates that the Sutlej flowed into the Ghaggar-Hakra river in ancient times. According to Hindu tradition, the Sarasvati flows in a subterranean channel and joins the Yamuna and the Ganga in the "Triveni Sangam" at Prayag (Allahabad). The Mahabharata also records that the Sarasvati joins the sea impetuously (Mbh. 3.88.2).Balaram, elder brother of Krishna took a journey, starting from Dwaraka, along the banks of Sarasvati and visited a number of holy places during the wartime. During his pilgrimage, Balaram visited Vinasana, the place where the Sarasvati disappears in the desert (Mbh. 3.80.118; 9.36.1; 3.130.4). In Mahabharata 9.53.11, Balaram visited karapacava (where the Yamuna originates) shortly after visiting Plaska Prasravana (where the Sarasvati originates).The Mahabharata also records that the Sarasvati, after having disappeared in the desert, reappears in some places (e.g. Mbh. 3.80.118). According to the Mahabharata (3.81.115), Kurukshetra is south of the Sarasvati and north of the Drishadvati. The Mahabharata also states that the Sarasvati is the first creation among rivers and that it flows to the ocean (Mbh. Anus’a_sana 134.15).According to the Mahabharata, Puskara in the Sarasvati river region was during the Tretayuga period the most sacred site on earth.[14]Oghavati was another name of river Sarasvati according to Mahabharata 9.38

2.Geoghraphical analysis:Geoghraphy of dried up channel of saraswati ghaggar river completely matches with description given above.In the epic all states,river and mountains are matched with current geography,so it proves that it is not a imagination of the writter.In Mahaprasthanika Parva of mahabharata (17.1.31)it is mentioned "Proceeding on, those heroes reached the sea of red waters. Dhananjaya had not cast off his celestial bow Gandiva",presently it i known as red sea and The Red Sea is a seawater inlet of the Indian Ocean, lying between Africa and Asia.In Mahaprasthanika Parva of mahabharata (17.2.2)it is mentioned"Those princes of restrained souls and devoted to Yoga, proceeding to the north, beheld Himavat, that very large mountain.Crossing the Himavat, they beheld a vast desert of sand"it is probably the vast gobi desert in china.The kingdoms and rivers has shown in epic india in wikipedia.so the epic deals with a very vast asian geography.In adi parva of mahabharata(1.90.26) it is mentioned that king matinar performed yagya in Fire altars at the bank of saraswati river,At Kalibangan fire Vedi (altar)s have been discovered, similar to those found at Lothal which S.R. Rao thinks could have served no other purpose than a ritualistic one.none of any river in the world having ancient city of fire altars along its bank including ganga,yamuna,indus.this shows that saraswati river was main vedic river in vedic time.in whole mahabharat shiva ling worship was also famous,phallic symbols resembling the Hindu Siva lingam have been found in the Harappan remains.so mahabharat can be dated in a period of 1500bc-600bc.

3.Languages&inscriptions analysis:one of the communication or spoken language during mahabharat time was brahmi<ref>(mahabharat(1.76.12).in india brahmi as a writting languages was develeoped by 900bc-800bc.The recent archeological findings at Adichanallur, Tamil Nadu by ASI have indicated that the Tamil-Brahmi inscription may have dated from as far back as 7th-8th century BC.there is no where mention of any writting language in mahabharata.sanskrit is no where mentioned as spoken or writting language in mahabharata.but as a writting languages ,one special undeciphered(not easly deciphered)writting was used by vidur and it was sent to yudhister<ref>mahabharata(gita press) (1.144.20)&(1.146.6).now oldest manuscript in brahmi belong to period about 300bc and inscription belong to 800bc.in case of sanskrit oldest surviving manuscript is MS Spitzer, the oldest surviving Sanskrit philosophical manuscript dated to the first century, that contains among other things a list of the books in the Mahabharata. From this evidence, it is likely that the redaction into 18 books took place in the first century. An alternative division into 20 parvas appears to have co-existed for some time. The division into 100 sub-parvas (mentioned in Mbh. 1.2.70) is older, and most parvas are named after one of their constituent sub-parvas.the copper-plate inscription of the Maharaja Sharvanatha (533-534) from Khoh (Satna District, Madhya Pradesh) describes the Mahabharata as a "collection of 100,000 verses" (shatasahasri samhita).•Dion Chrysostom, Greek Sophist writes in 100 CE, that the Indians possess an Iliad of 100,000 verses. Together with its appendix, the Harivamsha, MB does add up to this total. Thus the MB, of the current volume was surely completed by 100 CE.•Panini's grammar (500 BCE, a most conservative date) knows the Mahabharata. The language of the Epic does not always follow Paninian constructions, which also suggests that it is prior to Panini.Panini's grammar (c. 400 BC) knows the Mahabharata. Also, the Epic, in its long descriptions of the religions of the day, does not mention Buddhism, so we can be certain that it was substantially complete prior to 400 or 500 BC. The language of the Epic does not always follow Paninian constructions which also suggests that it is prior to 500 BC. Many of the characters of the Mahabharata are mentioned in the Vedic texts that, on account of being considered sacred, have not suffered interpolations and should thus represent historical persons. Krishna, for example, is mentioned in the Chhandogya Upanishad. Other names occurring elsewhere include Vichitravirya, Shantanu, Dhritarashtra, Janamejaya, and Parikshit.The famous Aihole inscription of Chalukya King Pulkeshi II says: the temple was constructed 3735 years, after the Bharat War. Aihole inscription was written in 634 CE. Thus the date of the MB war by this inscription is 3102 BCE. This inscription was written too long after the MB war, and hence this is not given much credence.mahabharata does not mention about morya,budhda,magadha dynasty.so it is clear that the most of the part of mahabharata might be written before 600bc-300bc in sanskrit and 1200bc-800bc in brahmi.it may be asummed that manuscripts belonging to this period may be lost or destryoed,because manuscript in sanskrit belonging to period 100ad still survived today.now core portion may be dated period belong to 1500bc-1100bc to satisfy geographical and archaeological factors.In ancient india knowledge was transfered from one to another by oral tradition.so during 1500bc-1000bc it would be transfered oraly in brahmi and from 800bc-300bc,it may be written into brami script. 4.Foreign history: •Dion Chrysostom, Greek Sophist writes in 100 CE, that the Indians possess an Iliad of 100,000 verses. Together with its appendix, the Harivamsha, MB does add up to this total. Thus the MB, of the current volume was complete by 100 CE. SO The Mahabharata is presumed to predate the Greek epic Iliad, and some episodes of the Mahabharata are syncretistically said to identify with the story of the Iliad. Christian Lassen, in his Indische Alterthumskunde, supposed that the reference is ultimately to Dhritarashtra's sorrows, the laments of Gandhari and Draupadi, and the valor of Arjuna and Duryodhana or Karna. This interpretation, endorsed in such standard references as Albrecht Weber's History of Indian Literature, has often been repeated.


so at last i am concluding my topic by considering all these factors into consideration:

Date of bharta compostion is 1500 bc-800bc in brahmi by oral traditon.800bc-500bc is written form in brahmi script.and 500 bc-100ad is written form in sanskrit.100ad-300ad final form as we see in present. {{subst:Unsigned|1=Mkbdce|2=23:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)}}

continue with dating of mahabharata

3.Languages&inscriptions analysis:one of the communication or spoken language during mahabharat time was brahmi<ref>(mahabharat(1.76.12) in india brahmi as a writting languages was develeoped by 900bc-800bc.The recent archeological findings at Adichanallur, Tamil Nadu by ASI have indicated that the Tamil-Brahmi inscription may have dated from as far back as 7th-8th century BC.there is no where mention of any writting language in mahabharata.sanskrit is no where mentioned as spoken or writting language in mahabharata.but as a writting languages ,one special undeciphered(not easly deciphered)writting was used by vidur and it was sent to yudhister<ref>mahabharata(gita press) (1.144.20)&(1.146.6). now oldest manuscript in brahmi belong to period about 300bc and inscription belong to 800bc.in case of sanskrit oldest surviving manuscript is MS Spitzer, the oldest surviving Sanskrit philosophical manuscript dated to the first century, that contains among other things a list of the books in the Mahabharata. From this evidence, it is likely that the redaction into 18 books took place in the first century. An alternative division into 20 parvas appears to have co-existed for some time. The division into 100 sub-parvas (mentioned in Mbh. 1.2.70) is older, and most parvas are named after one of their constituent sub-parvas. the copper-plate inscription of the Maharaja Sharvanatha (533-534) from Khoh (Satna District, Madhya Pradesh) describes the Mahabharata as a "collection of 100,000 verses" (shatasahasri samhita).•Dion Chrysostom, Greek Sophist writes in 100 CE, that the Indians possess an Iliad of 100,000 verses. Together with its appendix, the Harivamsha, MB does add up to this total. Thus the MB, of the current volume was surely completed by 100 CE.•Panini's grammar (500 BCE, a most conservative date) knows the Mahabharata. The language of the Epic does not always follow Paninian constructions, which also suggests that it is prior to Panini.Panini's grammar (c. 400 BC) knows the Mahabharata. Also, the Epic, in its long descriptions of the religions of the day, does not mention Buddhism, so we can be certain that it was substantially complete prior to 400 or 500 BC. The language of the Epic does not always follow Paninian constructions which also suggests that it is prior to 500 BC. Many of the characters of the Mahabharata are mentioned in the Vedic texts that, on account of being considered sacred, have not suffered interpolations and should thus represent historical persons. Krishna, for example, is mentioned in the Chhandogya Upanishad. Other names occurring elsewhere include Vichitravirya, Shantanu, Dhritarashtra, Janamejaya, and Parikshit.The famous Aihole inscription of Chalukya King Pulkeshi II says: the temple was constructed 3735 years, after the Bharat War. Aihole inscription was written in 634 CE. Thus the date of the MB war by this inscription is 3102 BCE. This inscription was written too long after the MB war, and hence this is not given much credence.mahabharata does not mention about morya,budhda,magadha dynasty.so it is clear that the most of the part of mahabharata might be written before 600bc-300bc in sanskrit and 1200bc-800bc in brahmi.it may be asummed that manuscripts belonging to this period may be lost or destryoed,because manuscript in sanskrit belonging to period 100ad still survived today. now core portion may be dated period belong to 1500bc-1100bc to satisfy geographical and archaeological factors.In ancient india knowledge was transfered from one to another by oral tradition.so during 1500bc-1000bc it would be transfered oraly in brahmi and from 800bc-300bc,it may be written into brami script.


4.Foreign history: •Dion Chrysostom, Greek Sophist writes in 100 CE, that the Indians possess an Iliad of 100,000 verses. Together with its appendix, the Harivamsha, MB does add up to this total. Thus the MB, of the current volume was complete by 100 CE. SO The Mahabharata is presumed to predate the Greek epic Iliad, and some episodes of the Mahabharata are syncretistically said to identify with the story of the Iliad. Christian Lassen, in his Indische Alterthumskunde, supposed that the reference is ultimately to Dhritarashtra's sorrows, the laments of Gandhari and Draupadi, and the valor of Arjuna and Duryodhana or Karna. This interpretation, endorsed in such standard references as Albrecht Weber's History of Indian Literature, has often been repeated.


so at last i am concluding my topic by considering all these factors into consideration:

Date of bharta compostion is 1500 bc-800bc in brahmi by oral traditon.800bc-500bc is written form in brahmi script.and 500 bc-100ad is written form in sanskrit.100ad-300ad final form as we see in present.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mahabharata&oldid=341575920"