Jump to content

Talk:Mahabharata/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Synopsis

I am currently adding lots more detail for the synopsis of Mahabharat. However I have come to notice that there is a error of some sort in the beginning of the battle of Kurushetra: The battle at Kurukshetra

[[Image:Mahabharata2.jpg|right|300px|thumb| Can someone please fix this link?

What is the section on Mahabharata Symbolism doing here? It is not anything from the epic but the interpretations of some school of thought( ancient, modern, pseud-ancient or somone's personal ???). It can hardly be kept in this article. It maybe moved to a page of its own. This kind of interpretaion can be applied any story, even Bollywood movies, ..certainly nobody has attributed this kind of glory to Shantanu.

DATING

I would simply like to say that Dr Narahari Achar's paper on the dating of the Mahabharata war which was achieved using direct comparison of the comets and other astronomical events described in the epic with a vision of the sky using software created by NASA has yielded superb results and this has now been presented and been accepted for publication. Dr Achar is of course a Professor of Physics at Memphis in the USA. His dating which is in almost perfect accordance with the 150 astronomical events described in the epic put the occurence of the war at Nov 12th 3067 BCE. This has great significance as it pushes human history backwords and makes the possibility of the Ramayan occuring in a different Yuga feasible.

I'd like to see some more technical information in this article. What about the actual structure of the verses? The meter? The rhyme scheme?

I may be wrong on this. But I suspect the names of the books given here, with a final consonant; e.g. Adiparvan are modern Malayalam or Tamil forms. The original Sanskrit form would not have the final 'n'.

Imc 15:51, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Yes, fixed. Three years late, but better than never :) --Shreevatsa 14:35, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm wondering (but don't know) if the 07:57, 16 Nov 2003 edit wasn't motivated by POV. It remobved the bit about upper caste and lower Indian identifying with different sides in the Mahabharata orthogonal 13:06, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Its possible it was POV. Only User:Imc can say. Jay 14:53, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
I think it is better removed because it seems to be only opinion which I personally have never heard at all. If it was general opinion then it could find place without citing sources, otherwise it needs some citing especially since the statement is politically incorrect. KRS 15:05, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
I trust that the only thing that is ‘politically incorrect’ is the term ‘lowest castes’, which it may be better to replace. It’s a bit worrying if anything else is seen as politically incorrect The fact that the names Duryodhan and Dushasan (for instance) are used in some communities is inarguable, even if not widely known. These names seem to be commonest in Jharkhand and Orissa. We can all agree that the dominant castes would not dream of using Kaurava names. Because those communities that use these names are not rich, numerous and not found on the internet in numbers, they can be difficult to find among the references to the characters in the standard story. Searches on google that try to pull up Kaurava names without references to the Mahabharata, e.g., http://www.google.com/search?q=duryodhan+-Mahabharat and http://www.google.com/search?q=dushasan+-Mahabharat pull up a few that are lower down the order. Imc 23:47, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Living in India( in the South), I have never, ever,heard anyone being named Duryodhan or Dusshasan... it would seem blasphemous to all Hindus, whether low or high caste. Probably a very specific community in some specific area may use it(you have mentioned some places) due to reasons unknown, but by no means can it be a blanket statement. Just for interest, when the Hindi villain Pran was at the height of his reign, almost all North Indians stopped naming their children Pran!!BTW, what do you mean to convey through the Google reference? KRS 14:56, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
If some castes from Orissa and Jharkhand are using Kaurava names then this is certainly of encyclopedic value, and a mention can be made of it in the article. But as KRS said, this is a specific instance and should not be generalized. I went through the google search link and was curious as to why there are 1000+ links. Most of them still refer to the Duryodhan of Mahabharat. So we need to come up with a more selective query. Jay 18:39, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
I did not think the original statement was unduly generalised. It is only more common in Orissa and Jharkhand, but it is found in other places - one of the links in my search set points to Uttaranchal communities and another to an individual in Bihar. Also, I'm a bit at a loss at producing a selective Google query that manages to lose the numerous hits on the book. In reference to KRS's previous post, I too come from the south, and I too had never heard of these things till relatively recently. Specifically an India Today article on the affected communities after the 1999 Orissa cyclone which then prompted me to look for more instances. Imc 21:35, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Continued, but return indents to left

I?m replacing the section about Pandava and Kaurava names that was taken out by 203.197.24.195 (Removed an incorrect remark) on 16 Nov 2003-12-02. I take it there are no disagreements on the Pandava names. To show justifications for the Kaurava names takes time, since they are swamped by the extracts from the standard Mahabharata. The following were obtained by putting search terms such as ?duryodhan -mahabharat ?mahabharata? into Google which only reduced the swamping.

Duryodhana 1. http://www.tribuneindia.com/2003/20030308/region.htm 2. http://news.daylightonline.com/Kulti.html 3. Many results (see Google) for Dr. Duryodhan Epili

Dushasana 1. http://www.tribuneindia.com/2001/20010408/nation.htm 2. http://www.nist.edu/newslet/e-news-5.htm 3. http://www.ifrc.org/docs/news/00/00021501/

Imc 23:03, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Removed generalization of lower castes. Need more statistics/information to decide what are the "lowest" castes and who go for the Kaurava naming. Need to find out if this practice is spread throughout India or only the eastern states. To say that these castes "identify with the Kauravas" is probably a POV. Need information on their purpose of keeping such names.
This discussion is appropriate at Demographics_of_India. Jay 00:14, 25 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Agrees. The practice is not unknown among indigenous tribes dwelling in the jungles and highlands of eastern India. But, the "lower caste" connection is too far-fetched, and points to a widespread use and a distinct cultural strain (which IMO is not true). It is at its best pretence, an interesting trivia rather than a revealing fact. Needs more research before this gets mentioned anywhere.

longest epic?

http://www.tibet-china.org/newbook/englishhtml/gesare.html http://web.utk.edu/~jftzgrld/MBh1Home.html

The above two sites both state the Tibetan Epic of king Gesar is the longest Epic. I've edited the text (Gesar doesn't seem to be in the wikipedia yet). I figured I'd cite my sources, since the Mahabharata may be a controversial subject. (Also, this is the first time I'm using a talk page, so I hope I'm doing this right).

re : longest epic

there are many sites which state that Mahabharat is the longest epic. i searched on google for gesar and mahabharat and only got this page as a result. so i think that in the absence of any information comparing the two, we should not make statements like Gesar is the longest epic. i have changed it back to what it earlier was because of this reason.

i also added a bit about the TV serial mahabharat.

I'm restoring the reference to the Tibetan epic on the strength of several sources. Here's one that gives specifics:
"Gesar is a great heroic epic collectively created by the ethnic Tibetan. It has been passed down for some 1,000 years. It is an immense work filling 120-odd volumes, with more than one million verses, totaling over 20 million words. It is longer than the total length of the famous five epics (the five epics are the Babylonian Gilgamesh, the Greek Iliad and Odyssey, and the Indian Ramayana and Mahabharata.) and is known as the longest epic in the world." source: http://www.ceg.com.cn/e1-n12.htm
Other sites oriented toward China or Tibet echo the claim, but it is perhaps more persuasive when supported by an Indian site (a newspaper in Malayalam), from which, in fact, some language seems to have been used for the Wikipedia article without attribution:
"It is the second longest literary work in the world (after the Tibetan Epic of Gesar). It is traditionally attributed to Vyasa, who places himself as one of the characters within the epic." source: copy cached by Google - http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:mJXbA2bezGcJ:www.deepika.com/education.htm+Gesar+Mahabharata+%22+longest+epic%22+-Wikipedia&hl=en
On these authorities I'm demoting the Mahabharata back to second place, while rewording the copyrighted material from Deepika. JamesMLane 19:45, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I have no clue about Gesar but I do know it was I who specfically wrote the clause "places himself as one of the characters within the Epic" and I don't read Malayalam or English-newspapers from India. It was original. Also, that whole sentence in general was constructed through numerous edits of multiple people, so it's likely whoever wrote that article took it from Wikipedia.--LordSuryaofShropshire 20:31, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)
My apologies, I stand corrected. In my defense I'll say that the possibility of copying the other way did occur to me. The copyright notice on the Indian site was dated 2002. I looked at the Wikipedia article as it stood early in 2003, and none of this content was in there. That's how I concluded that we'd stolen from them rather than vice versa. I guess the 2002 copyright applied to the site design but not to the specific text. At any rate, I don't care about any of the differences in wording, except that I made a stub on the epic of King Gesar, so the link should be preserved. "Tale of Gesar" doesn't seem to be a widely used name for the Tibetan epic. To avoid giving that impression, I'll lower-case the "tale" and make it a wikilink to the stub. JamesMLane 22:51, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Major reorganization of the page

I reorganized most of the page and only a handful of lines were removed or reworded. If anyone has any comments or questions about what I did, please feel free to drop me a line and improve anything you see. I'd appreciate any feedback (good or bad). Thanks. --Localizer 00:34, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)

Material from Rajagopalachari

A large chunk has been added with the notation "Paraphrased from C Rajagopalachari's translation of the Mahabharata". This isn't our normal format. If Rajagopalachari's work is merely a source, then it would usually be listed in a separate "References" section. If there's a significant amount of material quoted verbatim, then we have to consider whether it's permissible under fair use (or whether the original is now in the public domain). I'm not sure how to handle it, but something should be done, because as it is, it looks wrong. Furthermore, it's in a section that gives very brief descriptions of major characters, but then we encounter this long story about Yudishtira. Some reorganization seems to be called for, depending on whether this passage can even stay in the article. JamesMLane 11:32, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Gitopadesha

The newly added picture caption refers to "Mahabharata's Gitopadesha" but the term isn't used or explained anywhere else in the article. Does it refer to the conversation between Krishna and Arjuna before the climactic battle? or to the text of what Krishna tells Arjuna then? or something else? Absent an elaboration on this point, we should rewrite the caption. JamesMLane 11:53, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

yes, gitopadesha ('gita + upadesha' - sanskrit) refers to the conversation between Krishna and Arjuna before the climactic battle. This is what forms the 'Gita' or bhagavadhgita or shrimadhbhagavadgita.

Dating

I removed the bit about the Mahabharata coming a thousand years after the Ramayana because it must surely be a myth that 50 generations had passed since the Ramayana was written (just like the genealogies of Jesus in the Bible are a myth).Andriesb 21:47, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

details

Should there be a precedent set that would lead to the creation of over 100,000 seperate articles for each verse of the Mahabharata?

See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Individual Bible verses. ~~~~ 11:37, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Merging with Kurukshetra

There has been a proposal to merge Kurukshetra war with this article. Mahabharata plays a very large role among Hindus in India (and elsewhere) and just small parts of it themselves have significant roles in the culture. The war has a lot of significance. Events before, during and after the war have been aspects of current culture - like karna donating his armour and earrings to Indra, which, along with other things done by karna, are referred to when talking about generosity. Its like the articles on different significat parts of the bible. So it deserves a separate entry.

I oppose the idea for the practical reason that this article could get too long. The MB should be treated in Wikipedia as a set of encyclopaedia articles, and not as an electronic copy of the whole work. If this is accepted, then this article needs to remain as it is now, an overview of the entire work, with links to separate pages on the detail. As someone else has asked earlier, sections on the style of the work, the meter, and the original language, would be the sort of thing that would be appropriate here. Maybe brief summaries of a few of the principal parts of the work would be appropriate here, while the article is still relatively short, but perhaps not later. That bit currently in the article, on how Drona got killed should really be moved to the Drona or Yudishtira pages. (Even the battle on its own might get too large for a single page at some point, given that the Gita is part of it.) Imc 17:21, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
To previous poster, please sign and date these comments, otherwise we don't know if we are looking at something a year old. Thanks. Imc 17:21, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
Oppose Alren (talk · contribs)16:11, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Stories and characters

It seems to me that the recently added material on some of the principal characters would be better placed in the actual articles on those characters - e.g. Karna, Bhishma etc. The entries here should be little more than one line pointers to these. Imc 16:26, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Dating?

Encarta claims the poem was not set in its final form until around 300 CE. According the Yona article, the Mahabarata refers to the migrations of the Yavana (Greeks) and the Migration of Kambojas, which date to the 2nd/1st centuries BCE. I am not an expert on Hindu poetry, but I was under the impression that much of the material is thought to be very early (1500-1200 BCE), but that the poetry in its final form was not committed to writing until much later. Is this correct?--Rob117 17:14, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

The above is broadly in line with what I understand. The stuff in the Yona article seems speculative to me. The earliest known written text of the MB is (AFAIK) from about the 11th century CE. But it was probably in its final form bar the inclusion of peripheral works long before that. The history of the text is probably worth an article in itself. Imc 21:54, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Barbareek

I have removed this obtuse and very minor story from this page as it is quite unknown to most Hindus who grew up on the epic, and its addition here (and as the first "story" in the "stories" section no less!) deceives the Mahabharata-newbie into believing that Barbareek was somehow a significant character. That is anything but the truth - how many chapters is his name even repeated in? He's an extremely minor side character not involved in the major drama of the story - he didn't even take part in the war - and while he may be important to a small religious sect in modern times, his saga should not be included here, but kept on the Khatushyamji page.

I'd prefer a synopsis - however condensed - on this page, as is found on the Ramayana one. If no one else offers to write it, I will when I have time. Otherwise, the "stories" I believe that are essential to include here in the "stories" section should be, in rough chronological order: 1) Ganga, Shantanu and the birth of Bhishma 2) Bhishma, Satyavati and Amba/Ambika/Ambalika 3) the marriages of Pandu and Dhritarashtra 4) Drona and Drupada 5) the birth and education of the Kuru princes 6) the humiliation of Drupada and the syamvara of Draupadi 7) Indraprastha 8) the Game of Dice and its Aftermath 9) the 12-year exile 10) the 13th year and the last attempt at peace 11) the War 12) the War's aftermath and the end of the Pandavas

- V

I agree that the Barbareek story should go, to its own subject page. The same applies to the current long texts on some of the other characters; Karna for instance. A synopsis would be helpful, but perhaps it could also include the 'framework', in other words, Vyasa telling the story to Ganesha, et.c.. Imc 21:59, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

SWDesai21

  • I have reverted the total vandalisation of the article by SWDesai21.
  • The "short sysopsis" which SWDesai21 added to the article may well be short compared to the size of the Mahabharata but it was far too long relative to the size of the article. Also on the basis of SWDesai21's other edits, I am assuming it to be a copyright violation. -- RHaworth 07:29, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

shouldn't a spoiler warning be added?

since the stories are told, should a tag be added on the spoiler? just wondering Idleguy 07:31, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Not necesarry. Most people reading the Mahabharata already know the stories.

Accuracy question - comparison of length

By my count the Odyssey and Iliad together comprise 27,300 lines of verse, or something like that. If the Mahabharata is only 100,000 lines, then clearly one cannot say that it is seven times longer than the Iliad and Odyssey combined. I also have doubts about it being four times longer than the Bible, but it is difficult to compare because the Bible is not a verse poem. 4:38, 12 December 2005

74,000 (or 100,000) verses, not lines of verse. With a verse being four lines, it would fit the "more than 10 times as long" perfectly. --Shreevatsa 14:35, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Dating

According to my calculations and research, the Mahabharata war was fought in November 1180 B.C. This is the most accurate date and matches the astronomical solar eclipse and other phenomena. Also it goes with the Aryan invasion theory, which dates the aryan invasion to 2000 B.C. to 1500 B.C. I told it first here. Cheers.

Note that the Aryan Invasion is controversial (and false), and other sources place it at 3102BC while placing the Ramayan at 7323BC, therefore leaving a lot of room between avataras. (Ram -> Krishna) = 4300 yr difference. 3102 BC makes more sense and accounts for oral tradition.Bakaman%% 20:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Articles that need help

Anyone care to take a look at:

I encountered them while updating some links to Epic and they need some help. Some need quotes from the MHB translated. John 21:32, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

"Another viewpoint"

I have removed the portion of this article labeled "Another Viewpoint" as it is POV and entirely conjecture. It is also badly written, and belongs perhaps in a middle-school paper on the Mahabrata rather than on Wikipedia. "One view of this great epic, is that it never really happened. It is believed by many that it was written as we neared the end of the last downward Dwapara Yuga. This however, conflicts with the fact that the end of the Mahabharata symbolizes the beginning of the age of Kali (Kaliyug). Even today, research has shown evidence of the Mahabharata actually occuring. Examples such as the ruins of Dwarka (formerly the capitol of the Yadav kingdom) support the fact that the Mahabharata was more than a written story; it was crucial part of Vedic history that still inspires millions all over the world."


I think this article gives an impression that mahabharata certainly happened without evevn quoting any evidence..its definitely extremely biased......imagine the reality of arujna being lectured the whole bhagvadgita in front of the armies and those soldiers dying in boredom...........mahabharata might just be an epic written much later recording the battles in history and it might also be an attempt to consolidate the idea of unified india.....the only war that indian kingdoms ever unitedly fought may certainly be the independance movement ..so in 3000 bc all kingdoms taking up two sides doesnt logically make sense just coz there is an epic saying that.even if the epic was written latter with a lot of concoction it wud still appear real....

The Mahabharata undoubtedly has some exaggerations, but the fact is that it happened. The war happened, these great men and women existed. I hope you are not trying to deny that fact. Nobleeagle (Talk) 05:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Also Mahabharat Range

Besides the Mahabharata, Wiki needs an article on the Mahabharat Range. This sub-Himalayan mountain range, generally 2,000 to 3,000 meters high, is a major barrier between the northern plains of India and the mountainous highlands extending north to the main Himalayan range.

Generally it is the boundary between plains languages such as Hindi, Maithili and Bengali, and Pahari dialects such as Nepali, Garhwali and Kumaoni as well as more aboriginal Tibeto-Burman languages as well as between ethnic groups living on the plains and in the jungles of the lowest foothills and those living in the "hills".

The Mahabharat Range is also an important hydrographic barrier that gathers many tributaries descending from the Himalayas and even the Trans-Himalaya via extremely deep gorges between sub-ranges of the main Himalayan range, with relatively few gorges cutting through the Mahabharat Range so that candelabra-like drainage patterns have formed.

Is Bhagavatam an Epic?

Undobtedly of great importance to Hindus, is Bhagavatam an itihasa? Then what stops all the 18 Mahapuranas from being called epics? Even the Hindu tradition distingusihes between Itihasa and Puranas.

The Bhagavatam, as a Purana, is considered a part of the larger itihasa tradition, but the Puranas are always mentioned as separate from the Mahabharata and Ramayana. the Puranas are more like mythology/theology/philosophy farragos with no SINGLE overarching story... the closest to epic format would be the Bhavagatam, which essentialy breezes by the first seven avatars of Vishnu and then dwells for most of the book on Krishna... remember, the definition of 'epic' has been based on the Greek epics... the iliad, odyssey, and the later Roman Aeneid.-- 68.173.46.79 23:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Dhaumya

I'm not sure what's going on with this article, Dhaumya. I don't see why the article is just a complete list of all the characters from Mahabharata. Could someone take a look and figure out why it's that way and not about Dhaumya? Metros232 03:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

It looks like this article about Dhoumya has been deleted, probably because it was considered as a duplication of what was already told in the details for Mahabharata (where it probably belongs). To keep the link to Dhoumya, it is being redirected to List of characters in the Mahabharata. Not me, just guessing, but makes sense. You can research within the deletion comments and/or discussion threads. --Jdesmet 02:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Popular Story telling

I think both the articles about the Ramayana and the Mahabharata diserve a subject or a reference to popular story telling in India. I am thinking in the lines of an Indian Shadow play, or Chitrakathi Paintings. Again, not my subject, but maybe somebody else will pick up on it? --Jdesmet 02:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Oldenberg's 'Stipulation'

How can anyone 'Stipulate' (which means 'Order') somethng about a book, unless he is the editor or publisher? The Oldenberg POV is in not in context. The way it exists now, it seems to be a sneaky way of including a bad review of the book. He may feel that the tragedy no longer exists but equally eminent scholars have a different opinion. Are we then going to add Rudyard Kipling's fulminations on similar lines on heariing that the Oxford University Press included the Mahabharata in its list of all time great books. And surely not Macualay's opinion on the corpus of the entire Indian literature.


Shashi Tharoor's Work

The Great Indian Novel is absent in the Modern Interpretations section.

Gemini

In the section on The Pandavas, there is a link at "Ashwini" which points to Gemini, which is a disambiguation page. I'm not quite sure how it should be disambiguated. Perhaps it should be linked to something else entirely? The article on Castor and Pollux does mention a comparison of the Gemini twins to the Ashvins, but there's not enough context for me to be sure that that's the proper referent (although it does seem plausible). Perhaps someone more familiar with the source material can look into this, and change the link as appropriate? Thanks! Xtifr tälk 00:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

(Later) I went ahead and changed it to "Ashvins", just to fix the dab link. If this is wrong, please feel free to link it to something more appropriate, unlink it, or make it a red-link. Just please don't revert it back to Gemini! thanks Xtifr tälk 05:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

English Translations

There are several partial translations and retellings of the epic in English. Are they worth listing? Agingjb 08:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

UFO

Is it true that flying saucers capable of crossing entire India in less than an hour are described in this ancient epic, allegedly being powered by mercury boiling in iron tanks? It is also said the battle scenes correctly describe the symptoms of tactical nuclear explosions. Supposedly the ancient (antlantide?) civilization which was fighting those wars was more technologically developed than ourselves. 195.70.48.242 11:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

In terms of nuclear weapons there are theories in existence along those lines, see Brahmastra and the below links for interest.The nearest thing to UFO's in Mahabharata would probably be the Vimanas which are described in a number of the Puranic texts.
You will have to judge for yourself if you think there's any truth in the theories or not? Can't help with that one ;-) Regards, Gouranga(UK) 16:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Synopsis

Could any one check if the Synopsis is not just copy-vio? I think we can work on this article to make it a FA. Anyone wants to contribute?--æn↓þæµß¶-ŧ-¢ 20:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


Siva Rahasya?!

Man! I have never heard 'Siva Rahasya being discussed along with Ramayana and Mahabharata as 'three major epics of India'!!! Please! I always knew there are two 'major' epics, not in terms of size but in terms of significance.

Purusha Mruga

Not worth mentioning in the main article. The wiki article is a couple of months old, and definitely doesn't belong to the sort of summary that is expected here 72.79.112.87 00:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

What is the source for the map?

The map (Image:EpicIndia.jpg) does not cite the original source for the information displayed in it. Am I missing something in the documentation? The copyright information says it was created by the person who uploaded the image. Buddhipriya 17:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Date of the war

As far as I understand, we have the following:

  • Aryabhata et al., late 4th millennium BC
  • Puranic genealogies, roughly 15th to 18th c. BC
  • estimates informed by historical context, the Mahajanapada period (early 1st millennium BC)
  • various crackpot calculations, 6th millennium BC etc.

these are of different natures. the first two are venerable literary traditions. The third is a scholarly estimate gesturing at the rough timeframe of possible historical events inspiring the epic, and the last is of course just modern kookery (and as such may not even need to be mentioned). It is wrong to say that there is a "controversy" between the traditional dates and historical estimates, since they belong to completely separate fields: early medieval pious literature vs. rough guesswork informed by current historiography. dab (�) 14:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I object to the removal of citations to WP:RS. I have restored the following citation: "According to the History and Culture of the Indian People, a standard work commissioned by the Indian government, the Bharata war took place circa 1400 BC. (Citation given by Keay, p. 3.) I agree that this is only one of various possible dates that could be put forward, but there is no basis for removal of scholarly citations during this process.
When addressing the claims of extreme antiquity put foward by some recent authors, I would like to see some refutation of them made by citing WP:RS that examine such claims in more detail. Simply characterizing them as pseudoscience is only asking for edit wars to erupt here, and such statements represent a POV that has caused much turmoil on other articles. I believe that a better approach can be found based on citation of WP:RS. Buddhipriya 01:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I have adjusted the language of the sentence about Vartak to read: "A recent theory put forward by V. Vartak attempts to date the events of the Mahabharata as early as the 6th millennium BCE". This statement is sourced by only one self-published web site. On that basis, it seems to me to be a WP:FRINGE issue that does not deserve mention in the article. I propose that unless some WP:RS can be brought forward, the sentence be cut from the article. Buddhipriya 02:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I question Keay's citation of HCIP for a date of 1400 BCE. He is probably referring to Majumdar's essay on "Sources of Indian History" (Vol I, Book I, Ch II), where RCM writes "in round numbers between 1500 and 1000 B.C", not as a statement of settled fact, but as a description of some scholarly estimates in the context of an ongoing field of study. (The entire paragraph -- note how it starts "It is interesting to trace the gradual changes in the views of scholars..." -- is about historiography, not history.) rudra 03:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, when the issue about dating was discussed on the page for Bhagavad Gita I decided to fact-check Keay against my copy of Majumdar and then changed the wording of the article to cite the broad period. At this point since the primary reference to Majumdar is available, I think that the reference to Keay can be deleted, and then the correct characterization of Majumdar can be made. However I continue to object to the simple removal of citations without any discussion. I concur with your interpretation that the paragraph on p. 48 (second impression edition) is a general review of the historiography. I think on that basis the paragraph is notable and I am wondering if you would do a rewrite of the mention of it based on your reading of the complete paragraph. I have not yet gone over every reference to Mahabharata in the index to Majumdar so perhaps the 1400 BC date is in there somewhere else. Buddhipriya 04:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
There is a calculation of 1397 BC by Pusalkar (p.273) based on Puranic data, which he shades to "between 1400 and 1000 BC in round numbers", to reconcile it with Pargiter's calculation (c 950 BC). This is the kind of scholarly estimate that RCM referred to on p.48. rudra 04:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

On a related note, the "Puranic Date" subsection is a total mishmash (not surprising, with Kak as the source). As such, all such datings rely on Puranic evidence, so there is no need for this separate subsection (it seems to a be a wikibomb to puff Kak, actually.) rudra 04:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Why don't you take a stab at merging them, and replace any Kak citations to their equivalent primary source. Buddhipriya 04:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Okay. Some stuff will go poof, though. E.g. the Vartak piece, which is just blogpap. rudra 05:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Indra as the father of Arjuna

FYI, in the family tree as given on p. 218 of Narasimhan, Indra is shown as the father of Arjuna. This is repeated in the glossary where Arjuna is described as the third son of the Pandavas, born of Kunti by Indra. Is there a specific citation being used to support the parentage via Yama? See: Chakravarthi V. Narasimhan. The Mahābhārata. (Columbia University Press: New York, 1965). Buddhipriya 21:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Indra it is, it's been changed. Yama was just a mistake, I think.... ॐ Priyanath talk 21:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
In Venkateswaran's Dictionary of the Bhagavad Gita the human lineage is given, describing him as the third Pandava prince, son of King Pandu and Pṛtā. (R. J. Venkateswaran. Dictionary of Bhagavad Gita. (Sterling Publishers Private Ltd.: New Delhi, 1991) ISBN 81-207-1969-7. p. 16) It may be best to use the human lineage in the table and note the alternate as Indra. Buddhipriya 21:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I think it's correct as it is now - Pandu and Kunti (aka Prita) are the human parents, and Indra is the dev-father, as it now says in the footnote. ॐ Priyanath talk 01:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Page numbers in Majumdar

In doing reference checking in my copy of Majumdar, I think that the correct page number for these citation is to page 268, not 272 as given in the article. My edition is the second impression, dated 1952, which I believe was not changed from the 1951 edition. Can someone clarify if there is another edition? Here are the citations as they appear in the article now:

  • R. C. Majumdar and A. D. Pusalker (editors): The history and culture of the Indian people. Volume I, The Vedic age. Bombay : Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan 1951, p.272
  • R. C. Majumdar and A. D. Pusalker (editors): The history and culture of the Indian people. Volume I, The Vedic age. Bombay : Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan 1951, p.272. Brihat-Samhita. Rajatarangini. According to Varahamihira, Yudhisthira lived 2526 years before the beginning of the Saka era (Brhatsamhita 13.3); Varahamihira referred to an earlier astronomer Vrddha Garga. Kak 1994:60

Buddhipriya 02:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I have the full set of the HCIP, cobbled together from various editions. My Vol I is the fifth edition, dated 1988 (the sequence is 1951, 1952, 1957, 1965, 1988), and the passage is on p.272 (in fact, p.268 is a blank page facing the start of Book Four, "Historical Traditions".) And I'd dispense with the Kak reference, as Varahamihira (Brhatsamhita) and Kalhana (Rajatarangini) have already been mentioned by Pusalkar (i.e. Kak is not an independent reference - in all likelihood HCIP was the source of his information.) rudra 03:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I concur that HCIP was the likely source for what Kak repeats, and I think we should simply cite HCIP. I am still puzzled by the difference in page numbering between the editions. The front matter for my copy of volume 1, which is the one with the reference, just refers to it as a "second impression" of the 1951 edition, so the page numbers should have been as in the 1951 edition. For citation purposes, we need to just clarify the page numbering issue so others will be able to do fact checking as we have done. Buddhipriya 03:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm puzzled by page numbering too. My ed (the 5th) has, inter alia, Book 1 at p.37, Book 2 at p.125, Book 3 at p.205, Book 4 at p.271, each Book preceded by a front page with just the title (i.e. pp.35, 123, 203, 269). We could add a "5th Ed 1988" to the 1951 date, but it would really help, I agree, to get to the bottom of the discrepancy. rudra 04:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Mine has the end of the Abbreviations section on p. 34. Book 1 at an un-numbered page, followed by a blank page, then Chapter 1 on p. 37. So the two extra pages must precede p. 37. My editon was "Printed in Great Britain". A "Foreword" by K. M. Munshi is on pp. 7-12. Buddhipriya 04:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Narrowing down, here :-) Munshi's Foreword: 7-12. TOC: 13-19. List of Illustrations: 21 (20 is blank). Majumdar's Preface: 23-30. Abbreviations: 31-34. Printed in India for the BVB. rudra 05:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually, we may be looking in the wrong direction if our editions agree on Book 1 being announced on an unnumbered p35 and starting on p.37. The discrepancy would have to be after that. Or have I read your data wrong? rudra 05:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
They seem indentical for pages 1-34. Mine has TOC also on 13-19; 20 (blank); List of illustrations on 21; 22 (blank); Majumdar's Preface 23-30; Abbreviations on 31-34; p. 35 is not numbered but has "The Vedic Age: Book One: Introduction"; p. 36 is blank; Chapter 1 is pp. 37-46; Chapter 2 is pp. 47-64; Chapter 3 is pp. 65-78. Then on p. 79 we have the first page of text for "Chapter I: The Geological Background of Indian History" (a typo showing Chapter I rather than Chapter IV as in the Contents on p. 13). Buddhipriya 17:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Historicity

Some notes for the rewrite:

  • Kak is not WP:RS for this subject.
  • Basic sources:
    • HCIP, Vol 1, various chapters (need to decide on date for page numbering problem.)
    • SP Gupta and KS Ramachandran (Ed), Mahabharata: myth and reality. Agam Prakashan 1976.
  • Aryabhata's fixing of the Kaliyuga is actually an independent aprioristic approach to the problem. That is, here is a syllogistic combination of a dating on astronomical considerations alone of the onset of the Kaliyuga with the traditionalist assertion that the Kaliyuga started with the death of Krishna. It is basically Gupta period scholasticism.
  • Most of the "modern" datings also based on alleged astronomical considerations take the astrological intent of the poets too seriously (see, e.g. this summary and this reference). They also fail the anachronism test spectacularly: if planetary positions were noted meticulously in c.3000 BCE, how is it that the Vedangajyotisha, the foundational treatise that people want to date to 1400 BCE, makes no mention of planets at all?

rudra 05:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with all of your above points and look foward to what you will do with a rewrite. I have not seen SP Gupta and KS Ramachandran (Ed), Mahabharata: myth and reality. Agam Prakashan 1976 but I assume it is an academic handling. Is it worth trying to get a copy of it? I would do so only if you feel that it is a substantial work and if it has promise for use as a WP:RS more generally. Regarding the astronomical considerations, I really have never looked at them and therefore would tend to focus attention on source quality as the key issue. Are these claims addressed in any academic works? If so, I would like to see those citations used in preference to listservs, etc., in line with evaluation of WP:FRINGE materials.
Regarding potential WP:RS, I have not yet read The History of History: Politics and Scholarship in Modern India by Vinay Lal (Publisher: Oxford University Press, USA (September 25, 2003); Language: English; ISBN-10: 0195664655) but it looks promising as a potential source for a number of the articles. I wish we could find more academic sources that discuss the fringe claims and broaden the number of references used in these articles where historical disputes arise. Buddhipriya 17:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
The Gupta-Ramachandran book is WP:RS, I think, even though the material is somewhat uneven (there's some crackpotry included). In 1975, the epigraphist DC Sircar denied the historicity of the Mbh in a published interview, sparking a controversy. I believe there was a conference in Delhi in early 1976, where a number of scholars presented papers. This book is a development of that, bringing together papers on archaeology (e.g. BB Lal's work), epigraphy, art, textual materials and astronomy, together with comments by others -- quite a star-studded list. Given its date, it's obviously missing the latest round of astronomy-based datings, but otherwise it's a good source.
The astronomy part will be hardest to write about sensibly. It's a cottage industry, and cranks are legion. My basic fear is that mentioning even one crackpot will invite the usual parade of editors wanting to include their favorite fringelit as mention-worthy.
(Vinay Lal's book is a tough read, especially if one is not familiar with modern "leftist" and "subaltern" historiography in India. I'm not sure of its value as a source, except perhaps for the literature on the Ayodhya controversy.) rudra 18:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I think that the key to the historical questions is to focus on source quality. If a source cannot clearly be shown to be credible, then it should be treated as potential WP:FRINGE material. In academic discussions about what is in or out, as you know, one way to evalute source quality is to look at who cites whom. If the reliability of author X is challenged, one can look at who cites author X (if anyone) and see if they are treated as a reliable source by other sources whose quality is not in dispute. If no one cites author X it may be because the work is too new (not believable for a work published in the 1970s), or it may be because the work is simply not notable. The argument that it may be too specialized is not applicable to the topic of history of the Bharata war because that is a subject that had drawn lots of attention in multiple sources. So the key question for me is, which sources are fair game, and is it appropriate to raise the bar on source quality?
If the claims of people like B. B. Lal are notable, one would expect to see refutations of them in current works by other authors. Such in fact is the case in the new book by Martha Nussbaum, The Clash Within: Democracy, Religious Violence, and India's Future (The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press: Cambridge, Massachusetts, 2007) where on p. 221 she quotes B. B. Lal's claims of Harappan civilization dating to "4800 years ago" and then says "When we scrutinize these claims, they crumble (as all such highly specific claims are likely to do when confronted with scanty archaeological evidence)." These types of refutations appearing in WP:RS establish that B. B. Lal is notable, and that the claims are disputed.
In the spirit of full disclosure I should also say that I have a bias for using the most current possible academic sources. Indology does not stand still, and the continual re-examination of older sources in light of current academic thinking is as important in Indology as in any other field. Some of the standards in the field are of course much older, and deserve mention because they are standards. An example would be HCIP. But anything that is subject to dispute probably has been discussed again more recently, e.g. by John Keay (2000) who is the source for the "sticks in the craw" quote. In other words, the academic Indology literature has age strata of its own, just as the primary sources have age strata. So if possible, let's try to find the most current authoritative souces and work them in when we can. Buddhipriya 18:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, the rewrite is done, except for tweaks. rudra 04:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Page numbers in Basham

Rudra, perhaps we have different editons of Basham, since the quote you find on p. 40 is on p. 39 of my copy. See: [1] Mine is cited as the "Eleventh printing, First Evergreen Edition, 1959" by Grove Press, Inc., New York. Buddhipriya 23:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, mine is the "Third Revised Edition", Taplinger 1968. rudra 00:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Kuru family tree

The family tree is very useful; but I've a reservation about the implied chronology in it. I'm assuming that it is conventional to put the oldest sibling / prior marriage first, on the left. That is how I would understand it anyway. Then,

  • Ganga's marriage to Santanu should be on the left, before Satyavati's,
  • Ambika should be to the left of Ambalika,
  • and most important, Dhritarashtra should be placed before Pandu
  • Karna should be placed to the left of Yudhishtira.

Any comments? Imc 10:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome to change it if you like. If you have trouble coming to grips with the family tree code/formatting, you can request your changes to User:Priyanath, who added the family tree according to my knowledge. GizzaChat © 09:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I've amended the family tree as best I can to show birth order, though I've not shown Ganga's earlier marriage to Santanu in the right sequence. Is there any mention of whether Vyasa was older than Bhishma? Imc 11:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Karna

Why is Karna not mentioned as one of Kunti's sons(albeit him not being a Pandava)? rohith 18:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I think I may have taken him out of the synopsis to reduce its length. Add him, and of course, there will always be a 'next most important' character. Imc 12:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Kichaka

I can't see how to edit the names in the 'Characters' box at the bottom of the page. Can someone please change his name from Kichak to Kichaka. Thanks. Imc 12:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Done You have to edit Template:Mahabharata directly. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 21:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! Imc 08:31, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

Mahabharata → Mahābhārata — More accurate Anglicization, conformity with articles such as Śruti —-Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 21:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Survey

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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.


Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Discussion

Any additional comments:
The larger issue is the use of IAST in Wikipedia articles, a subject for which no formal standard is currently in force. In general when I have tried to use IAST in article titles I have encountered resistance. For an overview of various threads that I have collected on this issue, which have no formal standing whatsoever, see: User:Buddhipriya/IASTUsage. My personal opinion is that the use of IAST in articles will need to increase in order for these articles to have any credibility, but I am not sure if changing one article such as this will be supported by current consensus. It will be interesting to see what comments this proposal gets. I would also comment that I do not support the use of voting on talk pages in the manner which you are proposing to use. Voting forces a confrontational approach rather than a dialog. Thus I suggest that you remove the voting structure above and instead focus on careful listening to the views of others. Buddhipriya 04:26, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks With any luck, editors know that polling is not a substitute for discussion. I would be happy to have a more consistent approach to these articles. If you propose something on WP:RM, let me know. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 04:54, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Quote - “More accurate Anglicization...” - that's not so, it's more accurate transliteration, perhaps less accurate anglicization. Many people's idea of accurate anglicization results in them spelling Bhima as Bheema. I think that in this context it is helps to disabuse the many Indians (and native English speakers) who seem to think that the Latin script was invented for English.
There was a similar policy issue in botany for the naming of plants. When I joined, the practice / policy was to name plants by their common name in English, and not by their botanic name. This was always untenable in the long run, and now this policy has been reversed.
I would be in favour of using IAST, but as Buddhipriya said above, there is opposition, and it would certainly rise for a popular subject such as Mahabharata. Meanwhile, the article is correctly named as per the 'simplified' transliteration scheme at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Indic). Standardisation is the next best thing to accurate standardisation. It may be better to argue at on the talk page at [2] or at a similar suitable place that that the recommended use of the simplified transliteration system should be removed from the convention.
Imc 08:31, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Curioser and curioser It appears that there is a real can of worms here and while I am speaking out of relative ignorance, I am on the side of the pro-IAST camp. Again, if you organize some push for pro-IAST, please let me know on my talk. And, I agree that some standardization is better than none. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 18:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
The old Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Indic) is in practice defunct, but even efforts to clean that up have met with resounding lack of interest. I think I may be viewed as an IAST crank, because I bring the subject up often, generally producing the same reaction one might get when going on at length about one's hobby among those who have no interest in it. ("Don't get Buddhipriya started on IAST...") On a practical basis, I see more and more IAST creeping in on articles despite the lack of a clear standard. That is probably because eventually Wikipedia content will gravitate in the direction of WP:RS on these subjects, almost all of which use IAST, since it is the academic standard. Therefore I believe that time is on the side of the IASTarian movement. Buddhipriya 20:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Let's do it I'm on board with moving some articles and changing some texts. Do you maintain a list of articles to be changed? Can you? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 05:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

*Oppose. These articles are sometimes referred to from outside, and an article name that contains Unicode fancy characters not in the old basic 256 extended-Ascii character set will cause much annoyance and trouble. Anthony Appleyard 16:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC) - Vote moved above by -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 18:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Response Can you give me an example of how anyone's computer/browser/etc. would not function properly? Bear in mind that the ASCII name will simply redirect to the proposed name. I don't see how this could be a problem. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 18:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

This article has been renamed from Mahabharata to Mahābhārata as the result of a move request. --Stemonitis 16:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

as a belated comment: you need to treat this with common sense, on a case-by-case basis. Topics of Norse mythology have exactly the same issues, see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Norse mythology). The idea is to honour really familiar anglicizations like Odin or Thor (as opposed to Óðinn, Þórr), but give the precise spelling in cases that do not have a familiar anglicization anyway, such as Vörðr or Lóðurr. I think Rigveda and also Mahabharata is better than Ṛgveda, Mahābhārata, because these are very familiar terms, unlike, say, Śākaṭāyana, but there is of course room for disagreement. dab (�) 11:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Another image

This image was created by me on Google Earth, people are most welcome to use it here if they so desire. (http://good-times.webshots.com/photo/2781856640100145658OQoRah) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aupmanyav (talk • contribs) 07:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


Total number of Characters in Mahabharta

I'll appreciate if somebody can give the total number of characters in Mahabharta. Thanks in advance. plasmid talk ||| sign plz! 07:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

do you mean syllables (aksharas)? in IAST, the text has 12.3 million characters, including linefeeds and space marks. Removing these, we're at 11.1 million. A quick count of aksharas gives me 4.6 million. --dab (�) 09:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thanks buddy for the answer..i meant the main CHARACTERS [Paatra] [the people count like Krishna, Pandavas (5) or Kauravas (101)] plasmid talk ||| sign plz! 01:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


Itihas not mythology

Mahabharat is itihas, i.e. what happened, i.e. history. It's not a myth, i.e. a figment of somebody's imagination. So I replaced the word "mythology" with "itihas". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarojraj (talk • contribs) 02:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

itihāsa (lit. "so indeed (it) was") properly means "legend". "History" is a strictly modern usage; traditionally, there never was a term at all for the category of history. rudra 04:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

There are no references to state that the Mahabharata is mythological in nature. If none can be quoted, then the controversial statement should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.44.84.194 (talk) 17:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

1; Many of the references quoted in the article, and at the base of the article use the word myth (and related words such as legend, and story) in regard to it, 2; myth is a standard English word for material that is not accepted academic history, 3; the link is to an article Hindu mythology which itself contains a relevant link back to this article, and as such it does not need a reference. Imc (talk) 21:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

"Citation needed", or Entropy Redux

This citation notice is somewhat amusing, considering that the now quoted passage was at one time the actual prose of the paragraph! It was put into quotes by the snIPer who introduced the bit about Vyasa. Modulo some minor tweaks, the only other significant edit seems to have been this. Dispensing with the quotes (and the weasel words) seems to be in order. rudra (talk) 04:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mahabharata/Archive_1&oldid=1146790804"