Talk:Mahabharata/Archive 2

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):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * jackturner3 (talk) 14:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * jackturner3 (talk) 14:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 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 03:07, 2 October 2008‎ (UTC)

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)


 * I've removed this, as it is not clear why exactly talk about Dio Chrysostom is "noteworthy" -- Fgpilot (talk) 07:38, 10 May 2010 (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. &mdash;harej (talk) (cool!) 22:24, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Mahābhārata → Mahabharata &mdash; The earlier request move was closed too fast, and oppositions poured in later. I noticed Talk:Kali, 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. 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. GizzaDiscuss  &#169; 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. GizzaDiscuss  &#169; 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 (Naming conventions (Indic) and 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 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. GizzaDiscuss  &#169; 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. Yob  Mod  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. Yob  Mod  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 :-). Yob  Mod  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 :-). Yob  Mod  10:35, 13 August 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: 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 .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. 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)
 * 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).
 * (Normally, one shouldn't edit someone else's posts, but &lt;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 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)
 * 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

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)


 * Since Epic Unedertaking is a compilation of conference articles and is not accessible on Google books, can you provide the title and authors of the particular paper you are referring to, and quote the relavant extract ?
 * Aside: we should be wary of talking about "true" meanings of historical texts, especially when scholars interpret them differently. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 20:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Interim report
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)
 * Great summary, Rudra! Looking at sources I got the same impressions you did.
 * The only part I am not sure of is how strong the evidence is for Jaya being a name, as opposed to a benediction (for want of a better word). For example, see the sharp exchange between Goldman and Buitenen on the interpretation of the term in the "first" verse of the epic. Abecedare (talk) 19:09, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That will have to wait for the next trip to the library. I'm gong through some other refs at the moment.  Brockington is very heavy sledding, unfortunately: since he doesn't address the specific point, the relevant information is diffused over some 60 pages. rudra (talk) 20:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I have not yet looked up all the citations already given, so perhaps someone has said this before, but my recollection is that the 8,800 verses figure does not apply to a version of the Mbh. but rather to the number of "difficult" verses that Vyasa composed in order to get rest breaks during his dictation sessions with his scribe Ganesha. The whole Ganesha episode is of course a late interpolation and is relegated to an Appendix in the critical edition (MBh. I app. I, lines 7-15, 39ff).  Vyasa's arrangement with Ganesha was that he needed to keep dictating continuously unless Ganesha did not understand a passage, which would allow them to stop for discussion.  The role of the 8,800 complex verses as pauses for rest is covered in Shanti Lal Nagar, Cult of Vinayaka, 1992, p. 47.  This corresponds to what is said by Brockington in the article previously linked  as well as the opening page of the Fitzgerald article . Brockington refers to them as kūṭaśloka, trick ślokas, on his p. 21, n. 51.  I will see if I can find any other citations that may not yet have been mentioned. Buddhipriya (talk) 23:30, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * There is an article called "The Mahābhārata: Its History and Character" by P. L. Vaidya and A. D. Pusalker in volume II of 'The Cultural Heritage of India', (First Edition 1937; Revised and Enlarged, Volume II, The Ramakrishna Mission of Culture, Calcutta, 1962), pp. 51-70 (1962 edition). Because of the dating (1937) and the influential role of the series the article is useful to give a point in time perspective on the Jaya concept as those authors understood it.  They refer to the Jaya and Bhārata "stages" of development (p. 51) and say:  "It's main story relates to the victory of the Pāṇḍavas over the Kauravas, and as such it was called 'Jaya', Victory or Triumph, and was also styled as history or itihāsa.  This history of the triumph of the Pāṇḍavas forms the basis of a popular narrative which was turned into a ballad recited by wandring minstrels.  It must have been the earliest recension of the epic, and naturally, must have been in the form of a small text, say of about 8,000 to 10,000 stanzas.  It is just likely that this recension grew further into a 'Bhārata' with some 24,000 stanzas, when the theme of the work was enlarged upon a fratricidal war between the two vast armies, and may have included at least a brief account of the origin of the race of the Bharatas, the Bhārata-jana of Vedic antiquity."  The article goes on to discuss expansion of the text.  Note that the 8,000 to 10,000 line estimate for the Jaya mainline story is not the same as the 8,800 figure of "trick verses".  Buddhipriya (talk) 00:39, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Great catch, Buddhipriya, thank you! I have all 5 volumes of (the revised 1962) CHI, but for some bizarre reason I never thought to look in them. D'oh!  The P.L. Vaidya article is quite informative, but while it references the Crit Ed (as of 1962), it does not seem to dismiss the 8800 story.  Very strange. rudra (talk) 08:13, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * From what I have seen so far (and as Rudra summarized above), the idea of an original nucleus with 8,800 verses goes back to Weber's History of Indian literature and/or Macdonell's 'A history of Sanskrit literature'. As Fitzerald, Brokington etc say, this seems to be based on a misreading of the ādiparvan verse, but perhaps due to Weber & Macdonell's eminence/influence in the field, the conception has been repeated numerous times in popular and even scholarly literature. This is unfortunate, but I think we at least have a clear understanding of where things stand on this point (correct me if any of you think otherwise).
 * The questions that still have only been partially surveyed are:
 * How strong is the evidence for 3 stages of development of MbH ? Does anyone of note dispute this ?
 * Does Jaya represent the first redaction in this 3-stage model, or is it (as Brokington says) a synonym for Bharata, or ... ?
 * Till date we have gathered several views on these questions (sometimes obliquely), but I am still not sure where contemporary scholarly consensus - if there is one - lies. Thoughts ?Abecedare (talk) 01:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for helping to focus the questions. I am still trying to get up to speed by tracking backward in time and looking for basic citations.  Jaya as a self-referential term for the Mahābhārata is noted in S. Sörensen (An Index to the Names in the Mahābhārata, 1902, p. 357) who has an entry for "Jaya ('victory', said of the Mhbhr.: I, 2302 (jayo nāmethihāso ‘yaṃ); XVIII, 194". Sörensen's citations are to the Calcutta edition. The equivalent line in the critical edition is 1.56.19a (jayo nāmetihāso 'yaṃ śrotavyo vijigīṣuṇā).


 * J. A. B. van Buitenen (The Mahābhārata: I. The Book of the Beginning, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1973, p. 130) translates this line as "This history, which is entitled the Triumph, should be heard recited by one who desires to triumph:". Other passages in that book:


 * p. 435, "Triumph (jaya): appears to be the old description, if not title, of that part of the MBh. cycle that deals with the battle and final victory. In 1.54.15 and 20 it is contrasted with the Breach (bheda) between the two parties.  Here the word stands for the MBh. generally."


 * p. xvi, van Buitenen discusses the problem of figuring out how the work developed over time and says "… it is hard to delineate the perimeter of the 'original' narrative."


 * p. xxiv, "The original story is is now irrecoverable, but it is likely to have been substantially shorter than the shortest recorded summary.(Note 16: Viz. in 24,000 ślokas, roughly a quarter of the present size.")"


 * The last two quotes from van Buitenen do not support a theory of neat stages that are well-understood. It does support a general division into four phases of development. 1. A nuclear story about the battle and final victory itself, of uncertain length, perhaps 8,000-10,000 verses if the P. L. Vaidya and A. D. Pusalker estimate is used (better than the dubious 8,800); 2. the "shortest recorded summmary of 24,000 verses; 3. the fully-augmented versions showing much regional variation; 4. the modern Critical Edition which divides the material into an academically-accepted mainline and secondary Appendices. Buddhipriya (talk) 02:13, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I am interested in how the "three stages" idea may have entered the literature. It does not seem to be present in Maurice Winternitz, History of Indian Literature (Volume 1, English edition 1926; translation of the German edition of 1907).  I know this is old, but that's why I find it interesting as a historical record of academic opinion.  The overall impression that I get from Winternitz is that he sees the work as a very complex compilation and there is no indication that I can find of a neat "three stages" theory.  Some quotes that pertain to what we have been discussing and documentation of verse counts follow.


 * Regarding the 8,800 verse issue Winternitz says (pp. 324-325): "Ugraśravas says that he knows the poem as consisting of 8,800 verses, while Vyāsa declares that he composed the Saṃhitā of the Bhārata poem in 24,000 verses, 'and without the secondary stories the Bhārata is recited in this length by the experts.' Immediately afterwards it is said, rather fantastically, that Vyāsa also composed an epic of 60 hundred thousand verses, viz. 30 hundred thousand for the gods, 15 for the fathers, 14 for the Gandharvas and one hundred thousand for man.(footnote 1: Mahābh. I,1,51ff.; 81; 101ff.) Of course this only hints at the present extent of the Mahābhārata, which has acquired for it the designation śatasāhasrī saṃhitā, "collection of one hundred thousand verses.'"


 * On p. 464 he makes a good point that just looking at verse counts can be misleading, because it is the content of those verses that determines a variant recension. He says "The number of a hundred thousand verses, however, is not even approached unless Books XII and XIII and even part of the Harivaṃśa are included.(Note 1: In the Mahābhārata itself there is already mention made of its 'hundred thousand' verses [citations omitted].  The 18 books of the Mahābhārata have, in the Calcutta edition, 90,092 verses, of which 13,935 fall to the share of Book XII and 7,759 to Book XIII. With the whole Harivaṃśa the number of verses is 106,466.  If the Bhaviṣvaparvan [citation omitted] is omitted, there remain 101,154 verses, which number best agrees with the round number of 'a hundred thousand.'  But the different recensions of the Mahābhārata, which often differ from each other in that the one recension omits a number of verses which are included in another, but, on the other hand, in another place inserts just as many verses which are missing in the latter, prove that the contents of the Mahābhārata could vary without the extent being changed.)"


 * Buddhipriya (talk) 03:59, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * As we concern in mahabharata,nowhere a word "mahabharata" is mentioned,inspite of this a word "Adibharata" is given in sanskrit verse,it is said to having 100000 verses composed by vyas and recited by Vaisampayanapage 6,now the word Sauti conveying to Saunaka and the sages might called "Mahabharata" by their contemporary scholars,because sauti was also discussing about "Adibharata" as collection of 100,000 verses,he was telling this story to sages.this convesation between Sauti and Saunaka would also be recorded in manuscripts or oraly,that we see in our present mahabharata version.so this covesation should exceed 100,000 verses to atleast 110,000 verses.


 * Now the oldest manuscript in sanskrit (ms spitzer) dated to 2nd century ad have the list of all 18 parva of mahabharata,but in this list anushashan and virat parva is missing,they are not present in the 18 parva list,so scholars also interpeted that they were added to mahabharat in later stage[ http://www.jstor.org/pss/596517],If u all want to see exact list in ms spitzer manuscript then it is also given in mahabharat itself  in another form see page 5 4th paragraphso after reducting from 101,154 verse ,we have left 90,000 verses of mahabharata"A conversation between sauti and sages,who were say Adibharata having 100,000 verses"


 * In south indian version of mahabharata("A conversation between sauti and sages,who were say Adibharata having 100,000 verses" )there are about 1,24,000 verses,probably it may contain the original 100,000 verses of "Adibharata".


 * this word "adibharata" is present in a verse of mahabharat gita press gorakhpur,and old versions of mahabharat by bhandarkar institute,however translators have many time translated bharta as mahabharata during 100,000 verse claim in mahabharata itself,see sanskrit verse along translation every thing clear to you mayurasia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.240.86.215 (talk) 07:19, 14 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.


 * Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Poona, Volume XIII (1931-32), 92-93. The Bharata-Adibharata Problem and the Ms of Adibharata in the Government Oriental Library Mysore, by P. K. Gode, M. A.


 * Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Poona, Volume XV (1933-34), 89-96. The Adibharata and the Natyasarvasva-Dipika by Manomohon Ghosh, M. A.

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)


 * This word Adibharata is present in a verse of mahabharata in gitapress gorakhpur version,it is nott present in bhandarkar or ganguly version


 * As you said above that it was renamed mahabharata by devaspage15 2nd last paragraph,so it means Mahabharata and bharata are same thing.At many place in mahabharata bharata is translated as Mahabharata.Read only first two chapters of mahabharata with sanskrit verses.


 * At least 4 redactions can be recognised in mahabharata

1)first one was composed by vyasa in 100,000 versesp6 2nd paragraph,lets say it "vyas mahabharat"(A mahabharata version composed by vyas).Vyas composed 100 parva in itsee p.19 2nd last paragraph

2)these 100,000 verses was recited by Vaisampayana to sagessee 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.

Latest citation for the traditional view on Jaya
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: --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)

Additional citation for the traditional view on Jaya
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:

End quotation from article "BHARATA (MAHĀBHĀRATA)" Buddhipriya (talk) 22:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

"longest epic"
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)
 * Good points Dieter. Although it's hardly the most significant thing to say about the Mahabharata, it seems a notable datum to include, along with the fact that this is contested, and perhaps not such a well-defined idea as might be imagined. It does answer the question "how long is this long epic?" Well, it's up there with the longest, depending only a bit on how you count things. Alastair Haines (talk) 04:43, 31 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)

Mary Carroll Smith
(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)


 * Dear Peter,
 * Wikipedia does have an article on tristubh meter. Smith's dissertation was published in 1992, and reviewed within a couple of years.
 * Mary Carroll Smith, The Warrior Code of India's Sacred Song, Harvard Dissertations in Folklore and Oral Tradition, (New York: Garland Publishing, 1992).
 * Heda Jason, Review, Asian Folklore Studies 54 (1995): 349–350.
 * Google scholar knows of five additional citations, beyond the review. I'd need to work a better index to answer your question properly.
 * 1 monograph
 * WJ Johnson, The Sauptikaparvan of the Mahābhārata: the massacre at night, (Oxford University Press, 1998).
 * 3 essays by Stephanie W. Jamison
 * Stephanie W. Jamison and Michael Witzel, "Vedic Hinduism", chapter 4 (65–113) in Arvind Sharma, The study of Hinduism: Studies in comparative religion, (University of South Carolina Press, 2003).
 * Stephanie W. Jamison, "Penelope and the Pigs: Indic Perspectives on the 'Odyssey'", Classical Antiquity 18 (1999): 227–272.
 * Stephanie W. Jamison, "Draupadí on the Walls of Troy: 'Iliad' 3 from an Indic Perspective", Classical Antiquity 13 (1994): 5–16.
 * 1 [rather long] review [of another book]
 * James L. Fitzgerald, "The Many Voices of the Mahābhārata", review of Alf Hiltebeitel, Rethinking the Mahabharata: A Reader's Guide to the Education of the Dharma King, for Journal of the American Oriental Society 123 (2003): 803–818.
 * Alastair Haines (talk) 00:26, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'll have a look when I have time, but the implicit question behind my explicit one was, why isn't it mentioned in the article? Peter jackson (talk) 10:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I suspect the above isn't the work I was referring to:


 * "The core of India's great epic", 1973


 * Doesn't really sound like a different edition of the same thing. Peter jackson (talk) 09:45, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The same question—Why isn't scholar X represented in the article?—is frequently asked at Wikipedia.
 * The answer is generally because Wikipedia needs people to write up sources they know.
 * Naturally, not everyone knows all scholars who have worked on big topics, and those who do often don't have time or inclination to do it.
 * The [edit] link in articles is there to encourage people to contribute the sources they know about, as they have time and inclination.
 * Please Peter, especially if you have a copy of Smith's book, add her opinion into a suitable section of the article, or create a new one.
 * Personally, I frequently only add to bibliographies, rather than to text. In other cases though, I use the bibliographic data others have provided on topics that interest me, read the sources and document what they say.
 * On big topics this process can be very slow.
 * Smith's thesis is fascinating. I'm not sufficiently familiar with Mbh commentary in general to know just how major a strand in the discussion her work has become. If this article becomes crowded, and Smith's place in the big picture gets squeezed out, I'd support an attempt to document her work in its own appropriately sized article. There are enough citations and reviews to accurately present a synopsis of her work, along with critical approbation. Alastair Haines (talk) 11:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Lorenzomanzo, 9 April 2010 - Please add an external link to the Mahabharata Podcast
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!!!


 * Other Media
 * Mahabharata Podcast: A free English-language podcast that retells the story of the Mahabarata and Krishna based on the original sources.

Lorenzomanzo (talk) 17:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Sorry, but no. Read WP:ELNO for eligible external links. --JokerXtreme (talk) 17:58, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Dear Lawrence, thanks so much for placing this link on the talk page. I listened to one of your casts and reflected that you are quite right: these works are designed for a narrator to narrate, and to provide a little commentary upon. I think you do a sterling job in a great and very ancient tradition.
 * I think Joker is correct, however, as superb as your work is, Lawrence, it's not quite what Wiki normally includes in articles, especially a top-level, high-traffic article like the current one. Alastair Haines (talk) 08:45, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You could try Wikinfo instead. Peter jackson (talk) 09:43, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

correction in "Accretion and redaction" section
"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)


 * The BC should have been clear from the earlier statement about MBH being dated "before ... the third century B.C." But I can see how that can be easily missed, so I have substituted in a different quote from the same source specifying that the dates are BC. Thanks for bringing this to our attention. Abecedare (talk) 02:29, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Prabeshlohani, 28 April 2010
Mahabharat is not the epic of India. It is a Hindu epic.

Prabeshlohani (talk) 21:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Requests to edit semi-protected articles must be accompanied by reference(s) to reliable sources.

Poetic rendition
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)


 * Conservatively speaking, there are several tens of thousands of works based upon or inspired by Mahabharata (my library alone has around ~1200 books in its collection; worldcat lists ~8800 books). The poetic translation that you re-added is just a rough translation of a very minor episode in the epic, written by an unknown poetess, published by a non-notable press, and as far as I can see neither reviewed by any publication, nor carried by any library. Essentially, it is just a short pamphlet published as a pdf file online, and certainly not even in the same ballpark as noteworthy translations by Clay Sanskrit Press, Buitenen, Ganguli etc. If you do think that some other references in the article are non-noteworthy too, we can certainly discuss that, but I don't see any justification for keeping this in the article. Can you make a positive argument for keeping it, or do you agree that it does not belong ? Abecedare (talk) 07:52, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Didn't see this discussion, I just removed the addition of one poetic translation bit with the pdf link as I found it undue given the vast number of such works. The Ganguly effort merits inclusion as it is oft considered (by reliable sources) as a significant work, but I don't see how this addition qualifies. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  08:07, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * If the argument is based on the fame or obscurity of the publisher or the poetess, I don't it is grounds enough for the removal. Especially since there is nothing stated about the quality or otherwise of the said rendition. However, since the said poetic rendition is only about a part of the Mahabharata, I don't mind it being removed. -- Fgpilot (talk) 08:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Great. The immediate issue is resolved now.
 * For future reference: Content on wikipedia is always based on its fame or obscurity (in the best available sources; not necessarily among laymen). An encyclopedia is a tertiary source, which is supposed to reflect what reputable secondary publications say about a subject, and our personal judgment of the quality of rendition is immaterial. Please see WP:DUE for the relevant policy, since this is really a central consideration in editing on wikipedia. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 08:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia policy is about reliability of sources -- not fame or obscurity. What is "famous" in one part of the world may be totally obscure in some other part of the world -- the "relevance" of Dio's quotes about Homer's works to Mahabharata is one example. ALWAYS, favour reliability than fame. It is dangerous to lean on subjective metrics like fame. -- Fgpilot (talk) 08:36, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I am not sure what is confusing here: the "fame" that I refer to above and used in evaluating the poem, is the prominence in reliable sources on the subject, and this is a higher standard than mere reliability, which just sets the low-bar for inclusion. However, I sense this discussion is not really relevant to the MbH article; if you wish, we can continue it on our user talk pages. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 08:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Who is this Dio Chrysto-whatsisname and why is his opinion so important?
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)


 * Two answers
 * The article had, "The Greek writer Dio Chrysostom stated that the Mahabharata was well-known in South India in 50 CE ." This is a commonly repeated statement and (as mentioned with citation in the section you are removing) has been repeated in more or less subtle ways in multiple standard scholarly books on Indian epic.  Unfortunately, in the form I've quoted it, it is entirely false and misleading.  So, one reason to have this section is that truth is usually better than falsehood in Wikipedia.
 * In fact, it is not a plausible interpretation of the passage from Dio that the Iliad had been translated into Sanskrit (there is no other evidence for this), yet Dio clearly has some information about Indian epic, however problematic a source he may be. (So please do not misunderstand that the article text approves Dio uncritically: it is rather because what he says has been the subject of critical scholarly discussion by those interested in the early history of the Indian epic tradition that we need to mention him.)  That implausibility is why scholarly consensus has gravitated towards the theory that this is Dio's way of talking about a very roughly "Iliadic" epic about which he had some information, probably the Mahabharata.  So this is not being presented as information about Homer's works!  It is also not being presented as an author's "opinion" about the Mahabharata.  Rather, it is correctly being placed in the "historical references" section because it has been interpreted by scholars as a very important and relatively early reference to the existence of the Mahabharata.  It's because this particular Greek source can be dated with absolute certainty to 1st-2nd century CE that scholars consider it important external evidence about the existence of the Mahabharata.
 * I hope this is enough to make clear (A) notability: the importance of the passage in Dio as one of the few and most important early attestations of the existence of the Mahabharata tradition (according to scholars); (B) appropriateness: why it fits precisely under the section from which you have removed it. Now, if you feel the section is too long, the normal solution to that is to create a new article on the subject that treats it at greater length than may be appropriate here, with a pointer.  Deleting important encycloepdic content can't be the answer.  In other words, if you like, create Early evidence for Indian epic poetry, and reduce the content on Dio here to a summary of a few sentences, with a pointer to that article for those who want more notable and relevant historical information.
 * P.S. If it's important to know "Who is this Dio Chrysto-whatsisname," consult his Wikipedia article. Wareh (talk) 16:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * P.P.S. I'm worried I've been too long winded.  Let me put it succinctly: the article after your removal of the Dio paragraph gave the impression that the early evidence we have for the existence of a Mahabharata is a reference from Panini, and then nothing until the sixth century CE.  That is false, because it's generally accepted that this passage from Dio is an important additional piece of evidence.  Wareh (talk) 16:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The Dio material is important and should stay where it is. Maybe it should be re-written in order to be more clear about why it is relevant. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 18:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe the Dio material could be reduced to something like:


 * The Greek writer Dio Chrysostom (ca. 40-ca. 120) reported that Homer's epics had been translated into Sanskrit. Dio's passage has been interpreted to be evidence not for an ancient Sankrit translastion of the Homerian epics but rather to the existence of the Mahabharata, thus placing the earliest reference to the Mahabharata in the 2nd century AD. Homer's epics almost certainly were not translated into Sanskrit until much later.


 * &mdash; goethean &#2384; 18:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry I still don't agree that this paragraph is important. Look at the first and third paragraphs in the Historical context section. They talk directly about the Mahabharata and nothing else. The paragraph about Dio is far too contrived and indirect. I had earlier rewritten this in a shortened form that brought the focus back on to Mahabharata; but it has been reverted all the time. So, I've no choice but to remove this paragraph. Dio is a great guy and wouldn't mind it I'm sure.. ;-) -- Fgpilot (talk) 06:51, 18 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." Your opinion just can't carry weight against the importance scholars have attached to this evidence on precisely the subject of Mahabharata.  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. More recent scholars who have addressed the subject still agree with the interpretation presented in the text you're removing, 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. 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)


 * Note my concerns precisely. I have not expressed reservations (nor am in complete agreement with) Dio's opinions or what other scholars have stated about the syncrestic relationship between Mahabharata and Homer's works. My grouse is with the style in which this paragraph is written, which basically relegates Mahabharata itself to the background. I had earlier rewritten the paragraph more precisely, but it has been reverted every time. So, I'm removing this paragraph until it is written in a form where long winding extraneous references are removed and the focus is brought back to the Mahabharata. -- Fgpilot (talk) 20:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * What "standards" are you referring too? It's a well-sourced, reasonably concise paragraph. Suggest specific changes instead of wholesale deletion against consensus. OhNo itsJamie Talk 20:43, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Simple standards of good encyclopaedic writing where the subject matter has to be in focus. Anyway, I have replaced this paragraph with the earlier one that I'd written that brings the focus back on to Mahabharata. -- Fgpilot (talk) 05:18, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The text you've added multiple times is factually wrong. No ancient author and no credible modern author has ever put forward Greek evidence "that the Mahabharata existed at the time of the writing of Homer's Iliad."  I gladly stipulate your good faith, but I also feel justified in requesting that you leave the brief paragraph in the form in which other editors have it, concisely giving the correct and important point that the passage in Dio has been taken as evidence of the existence of a version of the Mahabharata during Dio's lifetime (some 750 years after the Iliad).  Wareh (talk) 16:38, 21 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)


 * Suggested solution: improve the style and substance of the first and third paragraphs to the level of the second paragraph. Wareh (talk) 18:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah. Make the entire world contrived in order to fit with one contrived paragraph. No points there.. ;-) Fgpilot (talk) 05:00, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Opinions sought on Wareh's revision
Regarding this revision, which attempts to address style and succinctness concerns without removing relevant material:
 * Support OhNo itsJamie Talk 18:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

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)


 * Gosh! Finally someone talking some sense! Thank you. I wonder why is it not painfully obvious that verbatim quotations about Homer's works being popular in India are so irrelevant for an article on Mahabharata that it keeps getting reverted no matter how many times it is removed. In addition, there are these threats about getting me banned. What's the source of such rigidity regarding an irrelevant quotation? Insecurity? A sense of supremacy? Anyway, thanks also for the extra contributions on historical references. I do have some stylistic nitpicks with your paragraph too, I'm afraid. I'll try to polish it in due course; but I hope we can debate in a much more civil fashion. Fgpilot (talk) 17:19, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I shall welcome your edits and will of course be civil in my disagreement if any. However, I wish you'd tone down your histrionics as well (Dio Chrysto-whatsisname, etc.) which I think is the primary reason for the "rigidity" that you mention from the other editors. Sunayana (talk) 06:26, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry I don't agree with you there. Please see the earlier history of this debate. This is a long standing one and no matter how many times I've tried to edit it, it has been reverted. Also there were other statements like, "As with Homeric studies..." to describe something about the Mahabharata. I can't understand this secondary citizenship accorded to Mahabharata (or to anything for that matter). We don't need to learn about one epic through the lens of another. I'm sure there are many more people in this world who know of Mahabharata and don't know of Iliad or Odyssey. Sometimes these kinds of subtle distortions, does make it irritating. Incidentally, I also edited a sentence in the page for Kalidasa, where Kalidasa was mentioned to be akin to Shakespeare. Well, Kalidasa came first, that makes Shakespeare akin to Kalidasa. And I am sure there are many more people in this world who know Kalidasa and who have never heard of Shakespeare. We need to understand that an encyclopedic article is not written for just one segment of the world's population. It has to be neutral, both in terms of POV as well as in the way the subject is introduced. Fgpilot (talk) 13:50, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The passage of the article we're discussing has nothing to do with "statements like 'As with Homeric studies...'." It has no tendency to assign "secondary citizenship" to Mahabharata.  This diatribe is irrelevant.  The passage in question is about ancient historical evidence for the existence of the Mahabharata tradition, period.  Wareh (talk) 15:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm honestly still quite confused that you are still referring to the literal meaning of Dio ("Homer's works being popular in India"), when the whole point is that a consensus of major reliable sources have discussed this as evidence for something entirely different (news of a Mahabharata reaching Dio in some form). In Wikipedia, we don't go with what an ancient primary source says, we present an understanding of ancient literature (e.g. Mahabharata) in accordance with what the consensus of major reliable sources says: in this case, they say the Dio passage is important evidence for the existence of some form of the Mahabharata in the 1st-2nd c. CE, but you keep treating its significance as anything but this.  (So this seems to have something to do with your failure to acknowledge the factual error/misinterpretation of the text you added repeatedly.)  I am starting to think the paragraph really is obscure, because otherwise intelligent editors keep thinking it has to do with Homer's poetry sung in India and the greatness of Homer's poetry, when the ENTIRE point is to cite the consensus scholarly view that it's evidence the MAHABHARATA was sung in India (so that we DISCARD Dio's apparent statement about the diffusion and fame of Homeric poetry--it is in fact evidence of the diffusion and fame of Indic poetry!).  I don't mind seeing paragraphs rewritten well, but it has to reflect what the reliable sources cited (the scholars NOT Dio) say, not the opposite of that!  Wareh (talk) 20:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * P.S. But the fact that this evidence, and what's been made of it, is so easily misunderstood, is actually a reason to be sure NOT to over-condense. Readers deserve: "There is a piece of evidence in Greek that scholars agree is important to documenting the history of the Mahabharata.  They agree it does not mean what it seems to mean on the surface--something about the circulation of Homer's Greek poetry--but is in fact important evidence about a Sanskrit poem in the 1st-2nd c. CE." Wareh (talk) 20:41, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * If I may enter this debate, I did understand what the previous version of the paragraph actually meant to say. However, I think this clarification about what Dio said about Homer and what it really signifies, is an unnecessary appendage in an encyclopaedic article on the Mahabharata. So to that extent, I don't mind the quotations being removed as long as the historical references are in place. Sunayana (talk) 06:26, 23 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:
 * 1) "It is believed that the Mahabharata existed at the time of the writing of the Iliad by the Greek poet Homer." (Yes, Sunayana mercifully removed this howler, but it shows that Fgpilot set to work without understanding the most elementary facts as have been repeatedly explained here.)
 * 2) "Reports" plural is wrong.
 * 3) Unclear that consensus WP:RS view is that there was no translation of the Iliad into Sanskrit.
 * 4) "an alternative evidence": Why "alternative"? To what?  It has simply been taken as one important piece of evidence together with others.  If there is any conflict with another piece of evidence or decision to be made between this evidence and other evidence, it was never mentioned in the article.
 * 5) Reference to the passage in Dio Chrysostom not provided.
 * 6) The evidential value of Dio for the Sanskrit Mahabharata (as opposed to a Skt. Iliad) has been repeated "as fact instead of as interpretation." We can argue over whether this is worth stating, but Fgpilot's edit destroys the point of it, which was to caution the reader that, even though books like Oman's The Great Indian Epics trot out the existence of the Dio passage as "direct evidence" of the Sanskrit Mahabharata, this is in fact the result of interpretation, since what Dio says is different.  In other words, even though Fgpilot suggests we want to bow down to Greek evidence in preference to Indian evidence, the entire point was to add a cautionary note about the problematic nature of the Greek source (however important), emphasizing that it has to be considered a matter of (necessarily uncertain) interpretation, however strong the consensus.  I had demoted this to footnote status in my last edit, trying to avoid cluttering the article text with what is only a clarification.  Restoring an incomplete version to the article text does not have any point.

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)


 * Here are the reasons why a revert is necessary from this so-called superior version:


 * 1) What value do the verbatim quotes by Dio Chrysostom serve towards historical reference (which is what the section is about), other than adding interjectory or dramatic value?
 * 2) The reason why despite Dio's raves about Homer were interpreted to mean the existence of Mahabharata is not really provided in the present version. It is hidden inside one of the citations concerning Christian Larssen's works. Making that explicit would actually do justice to what is said in the present paragraph itself. Which is what the previous version did. It is not the number of words that count, but what those words say. -- Fgpilot (talk) 05:11, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Pre-Dice Game - Correction Necessary
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)

Edit request from Indresh.saluja, 17 July 2010
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)
 * Rejected as WP:OR. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 16:38, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Syanaman, 15 August 2010
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)


 * Can you provide some references for this please? See WP:RS. Imc (talk) 11:06, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Salvio  Let's talk 'bout it! 14:07, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request, 31 October, 2010
The family tree can be augmented to include Janamejaya's mother Madravati and son Shatanika. Nshuks7 (talk) 16:27, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The family tree is already rather large and unwieldy. However if you create a second tree for (say) the descendants of Arjuna, it could be included here. Similarly, it might be useful to have one for the Vrishni clan. Imc (talk) 19:09, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Origin and compilation date for the epic
As I put my referenced data from reliable sources, two most popular books on mahabharata by
 * 1) J. L. Brockington
 * 2) A History of Indian Literature, Volume 1 By Maurice Winternitz, Moriz Winternitz, page-446,452

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)


 * Where in Brockington (page no) does it say that the origins of the Mahabharata are in the 8th to 9th century BCE? If you're going to say page 162, then the answer is no. Besides, try to read the full article before inserting things to the lede which is to be a summary of what's covered elsewhere; and there are plenty of sources there to comment on the subtlety of arguments. cheers. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  20:45, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have also given J. L. Brockington book referenced page, it is here on page 26,12th line, thank you--Luky (talk) 20:55, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "seems probable" =/= "origins falls between". Read the next sentence, "therefore it is generally accepted...not likely to be appreciably older than 400BC". &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  21:02, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * You have not read the earlier and later lines, earlier is "On the basis of these hints it seems probable that origin of Mahabharata fall somewhere between 8th and 9th century" and later lines which is "However, we don't have nearly so old a text, since, unlike the Vedas, the epics are popular works, transmitted orally and subject to change Whose reciters would not necessarily inhibited about updating what they are transmitting, There is therefore general agreement that the oldest parts preserved are not likely to be older than 400BC".So we have two questions
 * When first version of Mahabharata was composed or When Mahabharata epic was originated?
 * How much old is our present form of text?, is it the first originated Mahabharata epic or it have some of its elements or it is not the same?
 * Both Answers are given by Brockington, As You can see in first part he is discussing about origin of the epic and in later part he is discussing about oldest part present in the present form of the text, Both are different It is discussed by Brockington that epic composed in 9th BC(probably by vyasa) is not the same as per our present preserved form of the epic, However epic was originated in 9th BC but due to lack of accuracy and less accurate oral tradition we don't have initial oldest and first version of text.
 * Its can also be interpenetrated logically because Mahabharata war was fought around 1000-950BC as Most lowest range of period given by scholars (ignoring Others along with traditional Date 3100BC) and Vyasa or some other author of that epic belong to this period(1000-900BC) wrote and initiated that epic, this theme is also supported by Maurice Winternitz and Moriz Winternitz as they said that Some elements of our present Mahabharata can be traced back up to vedic time. 400BC to 400ad is the period in which Mahabharata attained its extant and present form from 24,00 verses to 100,000 hopefully.--Luky (talk) 21:27, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Leaving aside the detail of these arguments about what the facts are and what the references say, this is not content that should be in the introduction of the article. This intro should be a short summary. There already is a section in the article 'Textual history and structure' with related content, as SpacemanSpiff has said before. Imc (talk) 22:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Length of paragraph had not increased more than a single line, However I do agree that such Referenced statement should also be kept in "Textual history and structure" if anybody has no objection.--Luky (talk) 22:11, 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)
 * The question is, was my addition opposite to wiki policies?, it was from the one of the most reliable sources. I just put the statement in the article giving those references in the article in a clear way, the present form of article doesn't give any hint regarding this.I will recommend to keep those lines in "Textual history and structure" section of the article.I am not pushing any hypothesis like 3000BC as a date of epic, it is completely based on reliable sources regarding origin of the epic not about compilation.A good encyclopedia should contain all reliable sources and specially Wikipedia which have the policy of neutral point of view should have such referenced text.
 * Also, 400 BCE to 400 CE is not "the" most probably age of origin, it is the most probable date for Compilation of the epic.But as you can observe in these two books that due to less accurate oral tradition inspite of epic originated in 900BC, it loosed its initial form. Both the origin and compilation date are important from a encyclopedic point of view, Thank you--Luky (talk) 13:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Complete text
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)
 * This article is not the story, but about the story. We write our articles here on the basis of how scholarly reliable sources view them and attach due importance to the way such third party sources allocate it. I'll leave a welcome message for you, you can read that and then get an idea about how to make changes to this article. cheers. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  15:02, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Compare the essay WP:PLOTSUM, and WikiProject_Novels/Style_guidelines. Wareh (talk) 16:35, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Weapons in mahabharata.
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)


 * This is none of our business. We develop our articles only by using reliable sources, see WP:VERIFY and WP:RS. We should not be using this page to discuss the subject of the article, only to discuss improvements in the article which can't include our own opinions. Please read WP:NOR and WP:NOTFORUM. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 09:55, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Historical Statusof Mahabharata
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)