Talk:Mahabharata/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Edit request from Iceeshwinn, 26 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} The Part about the Mahabharatha being like the Kurann and Greek Drama is actually false because The MahaBhartatha came forst and that should either be gotten rid of or reworded Iceeshwinn (talk) 01:47, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Not done: In fact the article states that the Mahabharata's importance to the world has been compared to those works. Chronology has no bearing on that subjective claim, which is attributed to its source. Wareh (talk) 03:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Pulks, 22 April 2011

Please add the following to 'Modern Interpretations' section, just below Kannada novel by Bhyrappa.

Another Kannada novel 'Sanchu' written by Bheemasen Torgal attempts to interpret Mahabharata as a regular story without any godly elements. As per the author, there were no heroes or villains in Mahabharata, but conventional kings and dynasties fighting for power. This novel has been selected by National Book Trust of India to be translated into all the Indian languages. The Hindi version Shadyantra is already available. Pulks (talk) 14:55, 22 April 2011 (UTC) Pulikeshi T Chicago, IL

 Not done Please cite a source for the above information. MorganKevinJ^(talk) 01:27, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Derivative Works

A feminist stage play WE ARE SO DIFFERENT NOW by Shauna Singh Baldwin (2009), in which Draupadi talks a modern Indian woman out of committing suicide. http://www.amazon.com/We-Are-Different-Now-ebook/dp/B003DA42W6/ref=sr_1_8?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1311484176&sr=1-8 — Preceding unsigned comment added by PVeraswamy (talk • contribs) 05:13, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Kalpathyram, 13 September 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

Puranic literature presents genealogical lists associated with the Mahabharata narrative. The evidence of the Puranas is of two kinds. Of the first kind, there is the direct statement that there were 1015 (or 1050) years between the birth of Parikshit (Arjuna's grandson) and the accession of Mahapadma Nanda, commonly dated to 382 BCE, which would yield an estimate of about 1400 BCE for the Bharata battle.[1] However, this would imply improbably long reigns on average for the kings listed in the genealogies.[2] Of the second kind are analyses of parallel genealogies in the Puranas between the times of Adhisimakrishna (Parikshit's great-grandson) and Mahapadma Nanda. Pargiter accordingly estimated 26 generations by averaging 10 different dynastic lists and, assuming 18 years for the average duration of a reign, arrived at an estimate of 850 BCE for Adhisimakrishna, and thus approximately 950 BCE for the Bharata battle[3]

Kali Yuga (Devanāgarī: कलियुग [kəli juɡə], lit. "age of (the male demon) Kali", or "age of vice") is the last of the four stages that the world goes through as part of the cycle of yugas described in the Indian scriptures. The other ages are Satya Yuga, Treta Yuga and Dvapara Yuga. The duration and chronological starting point in human history of Kali Yuga has given rise to different evaluations and interpretations. According to one of them, the Surya Siddhanta, Kali Yuga began at midnight (00:00) on 18 February 3102 BCE[4] in the proleptic Julian calendar, or 23 January 3102 BC in the proleptic Gregorian calendar. This date is also considered by many Hindus to be the day that Krishna left earth to return to his abode. Most interpreters of Hindu scriptures believe that earth is currently in Kali Yuga[5]. ^ 1. A.D. Pusalker, History and Culture of the Indian People, Vol I, Chapter XIV, p.273 ^ 2. FE Pargiter, Ancient Indian Historical Tradition, p.180. He shows estimates of the average as 47, 50, 31 and 35 for various versions of the lists. ^ 3.Pargiter, op.cit. p.180-182

^ 4. The Induand the Rg-Veda, Page 16, By Egbert Richter-Ushanas, ISBN 8120814053 ^ 5. The Holy Science, by Jnanavatar Swami Sri Yukteswar Giri, Yogoda Sat-Sanga Society of India, 1949

Kalpathyram (talk) 05:56, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I've cancelled out the direct request; as it said, This template may only be used when followed by a specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".. If discussions resultt in such a specific request, please use another {{edit semi-protected}}. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  03:07, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

add info

http://bombay.indology.info/mahabharata/statement.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.117.211.196 (talk) 10:41, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request: new versions

There are three recent Mahabharata versions that should be added.

One is the full English translation by the author Ashok Banker. His own page should also be updated. Another is an English condensation by the author Sharon Maas: Sons of Gods, the Mahabharata Retold, working under the pen name Aruna Sharan. Sharon's page should also be updated. A third is a derivative work: Palace of Illusions by Chritra Banerjee Divakaruni. This is a novel based on the Mahabharata: it is the first person narrative of one of the female characters, Draupadi (Panchaali), telling the Mahabharata story from her viewpoint. All of these authors have Wikipedia pages. I am reluctant to add them myself due to Conflict of Interest: I am Sharon Maas.

Thank you, Arunadasi (talk) 13:08, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Greek influence on the Mahabarata story

It is important to speak to the similarities and coencidences found between the stories and characters in Homer's Iliad and Odyssey to the two Indian epics the Mahabharata and the Ramayana.

This subject has been skirted by most scholars in the past to avoid the wrath of criticism from generally India based Hindu scholars. But for the Wikipedia to be fact based, this subject must be adressed - who wrote it, why it was written, when was it written and does it refelct Indian culture and society of the time.

1. Chariots in Mahabharata (Technology deficit) Indian warfare of the time based on archeological evidence collected in reputable museums (Delhi, Patna and Kolkata museums) suggests that India did not have the technology of chariot warfare. The only chariot or Ratha in India is found in Puri, Orissa in the Ratha Yatra festival and it is a very crude hand pulled contraption. However, this technology was used by Greeks, Egyptians and Romans of the same period and even before and this must have been known to Indian writers.

If you look at the two paintings in the Wikepedia page showing the use of chariots, it is clear that if a chariot was built to these specifications, no horse would be able to pull it, let alone move quickly for warfare. This is not the case for paintings and bas releif found in Egypt or Greece of much older antecendence that show a workable chariot technology. In fact the second painting on the Wikepedia page shows the warriors wearing Mughal clothes and head dresses; which makes the picture more ridiculous. In essence there really was not this level of warfare technology in India during the period of the Mahbharata.

2. Timing of the texts (why was it written) The two epics in India seem to surface only after the visit of Alexander to the subcontinent and the revelation of Greek culture to Indian writers, including the writings of Homer, Pluto and Socrates.

The timing also needs to be reviewed in the local context in India. At the time of Alexander's visit, Brahmanism or the core tenet of Hinduism of four casts including Priests, Warriors, Traders and Untouchables was on its way out because of the influence of Buddhism. This may explain the reason for writing a new text to revitalize the basic tenets of Hinduism and reestablish the caste system which recognized the superirotiy of Brhamins over Buddhist monks who could be anyone including women. This would answer why the text was wirtten and why it would would have a very nebulous origin - written by Vyasa with the help of Ganesha a Hindu God of mixed animal and human form (similar to Horus in Egypt).

The idea perpetrated that the text always existed or that it has devine origin is to completely shutter any debate or questioning by the general public, an Indian tradition which has been mantained to this day by India based intellectuals of Hindu origin.

3. Karna The character of Karna is suspiciuosly close to Achilles the hero of Homer's Odyssey - Karna is an invincible warrior, born of the Sun god and a mortal woman Kunti. No one can vanquish Karna except in an unchivalrous manner as Achilles was hunted down. Karna's chariot is ensnared in sand or mud and as he tries to salvage his chariot he is hunted down by Arjuna in an unchivalrous manner. The problem with this story is that chariots were never used in warfare in India and the story seems to be a version of actual events recorded in an Egyptian bas relief of an acutal war where Hittite chariots carrying pairs of warriors bogged down in the sand in northenr Egypt and were encricled by lighter Egyptian chariots carrying one person, led by the army of Ramases.

4. Arjuna shooting his arrow through the eye of a wheel

This event is baed on the story when Odyssey returns home and has to prove to Penelope that he is truely her husband Odyessey. He not only strings a bow but shoots the arrow through a very difficult target. The Greek story is a credible because at that time Greeks used a compound bow; which is very difficult to string and only few people could string a particular bow.

However according to arceholgoical evidence the Indian subcontinent did not have compound bow or even long bows. There is no arcehological evidence at all in Delhi, Patna or Kolkata museums that indicates that such a technolgoy existed for warfare in India. Most wepaons used were the Axe, the javelin and similar crude weapons. The idea of fighting with bows and arrows was lifted from a foreign text. Also no Indian temple of the puruported period of writing of the Mahbharata shows anything resembling this sort of warfare, while Egyptian, Greek and Roman temples are full of bas relief which confirm the technolgies mentioned in Homer's text for warfare. In esence there is no physical evidence or corroboration of the core battle scenario described in the Mahabhrata. At best it is just an Indian version of various foreign stories and none of it is local event with the inspiration being the Iliad and the Odyssey.

4. Swaymvara

The story of a woman chosing a husband from many suitors based on their demonstrated level of valour seems to be lifted from Penelope's story. Odyssey had to fend off many suitors of Penelope upon his return to Greece by demonstrating his valour. This is an entirely credible story corroborated by historical records of Greek women's status in society including stories about the conduct of Alexander's mother, who was a historical person. This was not the case for Indian women and the story of Swaymavar which repeats in the Ramayan seems just that a story albeit a foreign one. There is no evidence of this custom being practiced by Royal families anywhere in India or any other families in the betrothal of tehir daughters. Again a Greek story repeated verbatim in Indian script.

According to historical research, daughters in India were either given to temples as Deva Dasi for work in the temple or betrothed to the highest bidder in a process called Kanay dan (literally giving away a daughter) or same as Go dan (giving away a cow). Women and children were traditionally treated as commodities in ancient India; which continues to this day and manifests itslef in child labour and trafficing of women across modern India as we write this article. The idea of Swayamvar is a make believe fairy tale based on foreign customs.

5. Physical evidence of the Mahabhrata story - paintings, temple carvings, rock cut carvings

Most of the physical evidence that can be connected to the story seem to be of recent lineage. The freize in the walls of Angkor Wat or no older than 10 th or 11 th AD. The painted manuscript on the Wikepedia page of Mahabharata is around 10 th century AD. Even the places in India such as caves where apprently Pandavas had slept turn out to be old Buddhist rock cut caves which were forcibly converted to Hindu themes. For example the caves of Ajanta and Ellora were Buddhist caves which were converted later on to Hindu themes.

Most of the physical evidence such as paitings and pictures or temple carvings in India that may depict the Mahabhrata and Remayana story are extreemly recent. Majority were created after the arrival of muslim rulers in India to possibly create arceholgoical evidence of the Hindu caste system in an attempt to prevent mass exodus of the lower castes away from Hinduism and also possibly to prevent the construction of mosques in holy places.

"What reliable sources - who is a relaible source - the one who screams the most. If you can challenge any of the specifics of the items 1 to 5 then say so. Who on earth is a reliable source on a document which does not have an author and is purported to be written by an elephant headed man."

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.103.104.11 (talk) 18:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC) 

You seem to have provided the reasons why this doesn't belong here - it hasn't been discussed among scholars. Please read WP:NOR. We can only add information to the article based on what we call 'reliable sources' as defined in WP:VERIFY and WP:RS. And this page is not an appropriate venue to discuss the issue, it is not a talk forum but a page where we discuss improvements to the article based on what reliable sources say about the topic. Dougweller (talk) 19:20, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 23 January 2012

Please replace the word "EPIC" with "Religious Text" > When Bible and Quaran aren't called epics ....Why you Mention > Mahabharatham and Ramayana as an Epic.Its against our Religion.Its our > Holy Thing.Please remove epic in all the content related to this.Please > Mention it as Religious Text.its Provocating our feelings >

62.189.77.47 (talk) 05:27, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

 Not done, it's not supposed to be offensive, it's what they're known as, see Indian epic poetry--Jac16888 ^Talk 14:23, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 February 2012

Please change: "The year in incognito spent at the court of Virata." To: "The year spent incognito at the court of Virata." Line #4 under the "contents" column in the table "The 18 parvas", as the former is an awkward sentence structure. Furthermore, shouldn't those column headings be capitalized? CBryanKing (talk) 23:49, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Done — Bility (talk) 01:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Derivative works

There are three more plays attributed to Bhāsa, which also draw their theme also from the Mahābhārata. The text of the page could be modified in this direction: "Five out of the thirteen plays ascribed to Bhāsa draw their theme from the main frame story of the Mahabhārata. They are called Madhyamavyāyoga, Dūtavākya, Dūtaghaṭotkaca, Karṇabhāra and Ūrubhaṅga." See Bhāsanāṭakacakram. Plays ascribed to Bhāsa. Original Thirteen Texts in Devanāgarī. Critically ed. by C.R. Devadhar. (Poona Oriental Series 54). Poona: Oriental Book Agency 1937, Reprint Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass 1999.

Best regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vidyanandin (talk • contribs) 11:29, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request March 16 2012

It would be helpful if the section on "Just War" were edited for phrasing, to avoid the implication that the Mahabharata's formulation of just war theory ultimately had an impact on European thought. (This is implied by the structure of the first sentence in the section.) Right now there's no evidence suggesting that it did, although it's certainly possible that it could have done so. Without evidence or scholarly consensus as to such influence, it seems the wording should be revised to avoid unwarranted implications. (It's also a bit contestable to suggest that this is in fact the earliest version of just war theory, given the appearance of similar principles in Chinese texts, but that's presumably a topic for another time.)

Any changes in this regard would be much appreciated.71.173.163.252 (talk) 21:39, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Addendum to the above, re just war theory and being first in time: see wikipedia's brief page on Duke_Xiang_of_Song. Given uncertainties as to the timeline of the Mahabharata, it could still be first. The point is, though, that codes of just war have tended to show up in many different times and places. Altering the text to suggest that it's one of the first examples, rather than definitively the first, might be appropriate. 71.173.163.252 (talk) 21:53, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry - I just realized I needed to be more specific about phrasing. This current phrasing needs to be changed: "The Mahabharata, offers history's first instance of a Just War, which later becomes pivotal for civilization as far away as Europe." Please replace it with this text: "The Mahabharata offers one of history's first instances of theorizing about Just War, illustrating many of the standards that would later be debated in Europe and elsewhere." 71.173.163.252 (talk) 22:17, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Change has been made, though not quite as requested; the reference to Europe was removed instead. Is there is a reason for mentioning Europe specifically? Imc (talk) 18:41, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Excellent revision. Much appreciated. No, there's no reason at all to mention Europe specifically. I'm just new to this particular page, and thought it best to keep changes narrowly focused. So, yours is very well made.

On a related note: the text now uses the term "proportionality" where the term "distinction" would be more accurate. Would probably be worth changing at some point as well (not to be greedy!) 71.173.163.252 (talk) 16:07, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

"Existing places associated"

I've removed the short new section. Apart from the poor title, issues are first, that the list could grow very long indeed, second that many of the associated places are speculative and relatively modern associations. The function of this section is better served by a category, there already is a category for connected articles, and a more specific one for associated kingdoms. If necessary another can be created for associated places. Imc (talk) 07:15, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Manuscripts

This article is complete and exhaustive. However, I think that should be indicated which are the oldest, most complete, and most accurate manuscripts, upon which the critical edition is based. Often, the most important manuscripts of the most important works have their own Wikipedia article. Lele giannoni (talk) 13:43, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that this idea that there are ' oldest, most complete, and most accurate manuscripts' applies to the MB. The Critical Edition was compiled according to [1] from over a thousand manuscript versions, using a set methodology. Various accounts of this methodology exist in print, one of these accounts is mentioned at the page just referred to. Imc (talk) 21:48, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 21 September 2012

Lākṣagṛha (The House of Lac) was built by Purochana and not Purvanchan as specified in this page.Please check and make necessary correction. Chandrakanthr (talk) 09:08, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done! Thanks for the notice. ||Dharmadhyaksha|| {T/C} 09:37, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 21 September 2012

Lākṣagṛha (The House of Lac) was built by Purochana and not Purvanchan as specified in this page.Please check and make necessary correction. Chandrakanthr (talk) 09:08, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done above. ||Dharmadhyaksha|| {T/C} 09:38, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Mention of inscription

Hi,

Can someone add aihole inscription Aihole_inscriptions? It mentions Mahabharata directly. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.91.95.81 (talk) 13:16, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

For the Record - It is the Serpents who were being removed from Existence, not 'snakes'. A Significant difference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.174.120.38 (talk) 02:48, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Father of Pandu and Dhrithrastra

Team,

Father of Dhiritharastra and Pandu is not Vichitravirya. Its Vyasa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.178.149.86 (talk) 09:52, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. The text gives the correct information, it is the family tree where it says that Vichitravirya is the father. However it is amended by the note (b) below that says Pandu and Dhritarashtra were fathered by Vyasa after Vichitravirya's death. Dhritarashtra, Pandu and Vidura were the sons of Vyasa with Ambika, Ambalika and a maid servant respectively. This is correct in that this gives the line of succession - Dhritarashtra and Pandu can succeed to the throne because they are acknowledged as descendants of the Kuru line through (the wives of) Vichitravirya. Ideally there would be connecting lines between Vyasa and his sons to indicate this but it is difficult to show all the relationships in a single 2D diagram. Imc (talk) 17:56, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Could someone please correct

In the section "The End of the Pandavas" the name Yudishthira is spelt wrong (2nd para 3rd line) as "Yudhishitra". Could this be corrected please? Rowdyclown (talk) 11:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Done Imc (talk) 19:06, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Werd stuf

I've been seeing some minor web articles (1, 2, 3) about Rajasthan being a site of an ancient nuclear detonation, as depicted in the Drona Parva section of the Mahabharata. Don't get me wrong, I'm in no way even suggesting its truthfulness, I am wondering why there isn't an article about this particular conspiracy theory, which seems to have something of a following.. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:26, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

The claim is little more than one interpretation of the script. One might also ask "Why doesn't the main article on the Bible talk about aliens when verse_____ clearly states that they were around?" (as some have suggested) The answer is that it doesn't, and neither does the Mahabharata. And while some may think there's a connection I don't see any substantial evidence of this being real at all. Feel free to add a section about it to the page List of conspiracy theories. See [WP:Fringe], [WP:DUE], and [WP:NOT]. Coinmanj (talk) 00:03, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Derivative Work

Please add the below text in derivative work.

Yajnaseni, wrote by Pratibha Ray is Mahabharata from perspective of Draupadi. This book won Moorti Devi Award in 1991 and has been translated from Oriya in many languages including Hindi and English. Yuganta written by Irawati Karve talks about characters of Mahabharata. The book written in Marathi was translated in English and won Sahitya Akademi Award in 1968. After Kurukshetra written by Mahashweta Devi is a reflection on what happened to some of Mahabharata characters after the great war. Mritunjay written by Shivaji Sawant is on the most enigmatic character of Mahabharata, Karna. Shivaji Swant also wrote Yugandhar which is a biopic of Krishna. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaverma (talk • contribs) 08:01, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

My view is that there should be minimal content for derived works and modern interpretations and that generally these are of little importance compared to the standard reference works. Only those that are culturally significant and can be shown to be such by good references should be included. Perhaps this content should be split off into a separate article. Imc (talk) 07:03, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree. This novel by Pratibha Ray may need a bit more detail in her article, perhaps a section, but we simply can't have every derived work here. A list? Dougweller (talk) 14:16, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Geneaology

Regarding the age of Mahabharata: The Rajtarangini begins with Jarasandha, a contemporary of Krishna who was the Pandavas' moral leader, and places Jarasandha about 2526 BCE (Hindu History of Kashmir, by H.H. Wilson, article dated 1825). This does not establish when the Mahabharata was written, but it tells us when the epic battle took place. 122.177.209.227 (talk) 14:27, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

There is a mistake in the family tree. The two sons of Śāṃtanu and Satyavatī, Citrāṇgada and Vicitravīrya, both die childless. After their deaths the two parents arrange for the two widows of Vicitravīrya, i.e. Ambikā and Ambālikā, to have children with Satyavatī's child from a previous marriage, Kṛṣṇa Dvaipāyana Vyāsa. Thus the father of Dhṛtarāṣṭra and Pāṇḍu is not Vicitravīrya as shown but Kṛṣṇa Dvaipāyana Vyāsa. This is actually quite important to the story since it is the ugliness of Kṛṣṇa Dvaipāyana Vyāsa that makes Ambikā close her eyes during sex, and Ambālika turn pale which accounts for Dhṛtarāṣṭra being blind and Pāṇḍu being pale (the word pāṇḍu means 'pale')! Whoever constructed the family tree needs to correct it. Jayarava (talk) 08:46, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Your post is essentially the same statement that is made in the post of 3 Jan above "Father of Pandu and Dhrithrastra". There is no mistake. The family tree provides the formal statement of succession, that by which Parikshit eventually claims to be the successor of Santanu. Dhritarashtra and Pandu claim the throne by their mother's marriage to Santanu's son, not by their actual fathering by Santanu's commoner half brother step-son. The same reasoning applies to the sons of Kunti and Madri, who are not actually the sons of Pandu, but nevertheless are shown as such, because this family tree shows the formal succession. The conflict with the detail of the story is given in the notes. If the family tree reflects the actual parent then Pandu also needs to be shown as childless. This of course is not done in the standard story because it weakens Yudhishtira's claim to the throne. Imc (talk) 07:31, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

But I've added a statement to the front of the family tree stating this, even though it was clear from the notes. Imc (talk) 08:14, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 April 2013

Pandava wives other than Draupadi.

Yudhishthira - Devika, the daughter of Govasana of the Saivya tribe. Yaudheya - Son of Yudishtra and Devika.

Bhima - Hidimbi (sister of Tribal King Hidimba), Valandhara. the daughter of the King of Kasi. Sarvaga - Son of Bhima and Valandhara Ghatotkacha - Son of Bhima and Hidimbi.

Arjuna - Subhadra (Krishna's sister), Chitrangada (Manipura princess) and Uloopi ( the Naga princess). Abhimanyu - Son of Arjuna and Subhadra. Babhruvahana - Son of Arjuna and Chitrangada. Iravan - Son of Arjuna and Uloopi.

Nakula - Karenumati, the princess of Chedi. Niramitra - Son of Nakula and Karenumati.

Sahadeva - Vijaya, the daughter of Dyutimat, the king of Madra. Suhotra - Son of Sahadeva and Vijaya.

Upa Pandavas were children of Draupadi with the Pandavas. They were - Prativindhya by Yudishtra Sutasoma by Bhima Srutakarman by Arjuna. Satanika by Nakula, Srutasena by Sahadeva. 27.63.4.238 (talk) 20:29, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

We have to keep the article within bounds and provide a succinct account of the complete work. It cannot hold all the detail of the 100 000 verses. The information could go instead into the articles of the individual brothers. Imc (talk) 18:25, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Sanskrit source for the name 'mahabharata'

For the second or third time the Devanagari source of the name of the book has been changed from the original महाभारत to महाभारतम् (which seems to be from IAST mahābhārata to mahābhāratam ). I believe this is incorrect, but it is the title of the corresponding article in the Sanskrit wiki, which is why it keeps reappearing. This sawiki title महाभारतम् also appears at other related places, such as the Sanskrit wikisource. It is contradicted at other external sources such as at [2] and [3] which have महाभारत. It's not straightforward for me to figure out which of these can be counted as RS, though of course no wikipedia is reliable. Is there anyone knowledgeable enough on Sanskrit to comment? Imc (talk) 19:03, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

In fact, महाभारतम् is correct. महाभारत is the Hindi form of the original Sanskrit name. Both of your references show the Anglicized form "Mahabharata" which is incorrect. Since it is a Sanskrit literary work, the Sanskrit name should be considered authentic. - PrinceMathew (talk) 08:37, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Devanagari script is used for several languages. There different ways the similar words end in Indic languages. Many neutral gender words in Sanskrit ends with a -am (Like "KeraLam"). When transliterated for the first time into English/ European languages, the western scholars omitted the last -m (Like "Kerala"). Likewise, Hindi has a practice of closing such words without the -am at all. (Like "KeraL").

The practice of writing महाभारत (महाभारत्) is a completely false notion heavily influenced by the use and modern popularity of Hindi. The Sanskrit has very strict rules on spelling and word formations. In general most books/works/titles that describes of a person or event or object shall be a neutral gender term ending with some "-am" or "-iyam". Hence words such as महाभारतम्, रामायणम्, पुराणम्, नारायणीयम्, गीतगोविन्दम् etc.

Citations to this fact can be many original texts. Most English-transliterated versions such as given above are corrupted by the influence of Hindi. For a quick reference, Please look up Vaman Apte's Practical Sanskrit - English Dictionary (4th edition 1965 - ISBN 089581-171-5 Page 716) for the term 'भारत' (भारत्), -तः, -ताः, -तम्)for a pure illustration of this. ViswaPrabhaവിശ്വപ്രഭ^talk 10:23, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Mahābhārata is the stem form (or vocative case) of the noun (actually an adjective with the neuter noun ākhyāna[m] understood), and Mahābhāratam is the nominative/accusative. It's not self-evident that it has anything whatsoever to do with the Hindi form Mahābhārat. (Online scan of the page in Monier-Williams' dictionary, which gives the word under the stem form Mahābhārata.) I suppose that with any inflected language, there is a bit of an open question which form of a word to use to represent the word's many forms when writing in an uninflected language such as English. I have more experience with Greek and Latin, where the use of the nominative is taken for granted. I'm not entirely sure why the English-language reliable sources on the Sanskrit language tend instead to identify substantives by their stem forms. Perhaps the propensity of Sanskrit to form nominal compounds (where each item shows up in its stem form) has something to do with it (certainly there are many extant compounds beginning Mahābhārata-). I'd be curious to know whether the practice of Sanskrit grammarians has something to do with it. Anyway, it seems there's a pretty strong argument that reliable scholarly sources on the Sanskrit word identify it under the name Mahābhārata. Though I'm not going to involve myself in changing any articles, I would personally only be sympathetic to adding terminal neuter m etc. if, say, someone could point out to me that the new Deccan Sanskrit dictionary has abandoned the traditional and widespread practice whereby the name of each word is its stem form (it is not clear to me from the previous post whether Apte's dictionary has done this, but I'd want more than that book to go on). Wareh (talk) 14:57, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

In the dictionaries only stem are used. Using roots/stems were helpful to include the verbs in Sanskrit dictionaries. While naming (a person, book or a thing), you must use the nominative case. When used as the name of a book महाभारतम् is correct. Similarly, when you search for a translation for 'flower' in a Sanskrit dictionary, you will find पुष्प- only. It is the stem. But when it is used, you must say पुष्पम् in (neuter gender-singular-nominative case form). पुष्पे is dual and पुष्पाणि is plural.

When used as a title, in Sanskrit, महाभारतम् ('Mahābhāratam') is the correct form . Here the stem महाभारत- is to be used in neuter gender singular form. In the dictionaries, gender of the stem are generally denoted by giving notations like m(for masculine), f(for feminine) and n(for neuter). If you are searching in dictionaries, you must look at these notations m/f/n and the stem is to be used accordingly. Here, in the case of महाभारत-stem, you can find in dictionaries that, when it is to be used as the title of a book, it should be in neuter gender. Hence महाभारतम् is correct in Sanskrit, not महाभारत.--Naveen Sankar (talk) 17:07, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Cover page of Ramayana in Sanskrit - Here what is written is रामायणम् (Rāmāyaṇam), neither Rāmāyaṇa nor Rāmāyaṇ.In English, it can by Rāmāyaṇa and in Hindi, it can be Rāmāyaṇ. But in Sanskrit, it is रामायणम् (Rāmāyaṇam) only.--Naveen Sankar (talk) 18:03, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Here is a similar title page for the Mahabharata. Yes, it does make sense that the nominative case is used to name things: that's what the word "nominative" means. I'm convinced that -am is the correct Skt. form to give. Wareh (talk) 18:38, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

The Sanskrit script is Ok, IAST needs to be Mahābhārata as per WP:COMMONNAME (common usage) in scholarly books. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:22, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

That doesn't seem to make sense. If we conclude that the English "common name" is Mahabarata, but that in Sanskrit the common name is Mahabharatam, then we need to be consistent and give the -m in the Devanagari, the transliteration, and also the IPA (which no one has done yet), since these are all representations of the word in Sanskrit. Now, the English name with macrons is an alternate standard English name, so by all means, outside the parentheses giving the Sanskrit, we could have "The Mahabharata or Mahābhārata..." in theory. Wareh (talk) 18:26, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

If scholarly refs are clear that the Sanskrit name is with the '-m', then the lead could say something like "The Mahabharata (Mahābhārata, derived from Sanskrit Mahābhāratam)". This would take care of both aspects, i.e. the English usage and the correct Sanskrit. There's no point giving an name in another script if it is incorrect. Imc (talk) 19:54, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

(←)

• Common English spelling: Mahabharata. The IPA needs to be consistent with this, IMO.
• Common IAST spellings: Mahābhārata (I have hardly seen a Mahābhāratam anywhere in books)
• Mahābhāratam is nominative singular of the root/stem Mahābhārata. So, Mahābhārata is not derived from Mahābhāratam, it is vice versa.
• The common trend followed in wikipedia and scholarly books (IAST, not Sanskrit) is use the root. The exception being roots ending in vat, mat; where nominative singulars are used e.g. Iravan, Hanuman. For FA Iravan, we had a discussion to name it Iravan or Iravat, where I argued since Iravat has no gender and can be masculine (Iravan) or feminine (Iravati), we prefer the nominative singular, else we stick to the root word as in other articles. Talk:Iravan#References_and_Transliteration

Redtigerxyz ^Talk 08:30, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I think Imc got a point that is getting missed in this analysis. It elides an important point to say, as in Redtiger's edit summary, "Mahābhārata is the common IAST in scholarly refs." This sidesteps the distinction between the English word and the Sanskrit word. Yes, good scholarly sources speak of "the Mahābhārata," but that is in their English text not in text in the Sanskrit language. Since IAST refers to a protocol for transliterating words that occur in Sanskrit texts, I'm not sure whether we ought to call words that show up in this fashion as IAST-transliterated Sanskrit at all. This is nothing like some commentary that speaks of some particular, inflected Skt. word like dharmaksetre (please excuse my lacking ready facility to type diacritics).

Here's what I think is wrong with the current article intro ("The Mahabharata (Sanskrit: महाभारतम्, Mahābhārata, IPA: [məɦaːˈbʱaːrət̪ə])"). It should say, as Imc suggests more or less, "The Mahabharata or Mahābhārata (Sanskrit: महाभारतम्, Mahābhāratam, IPA: [məɦaːˈbʱaːrət̪əm]). The point is that the final three terms all refer to Sanskrit. Correct IAST transliteration of a Sanskrit word doesn't omit final -m just because the English name of the epic doesn't have it. If any scholar transliterated a text in which the Mahabharata was named (in the nominative), it would give the -m. QED. The fallacy is supposing that what's in parentheses as a transliteration of a Sanskrit word has anything to do with what the English WP:COMMONNAME of something in WP:RS is. Bear in mind that, just above, I myself was exploring the "dictionary lemmata without case endings are the WP:COMMONNAME" argument. I still believe this is true for how we name these words/things in English, but what's in parentheses after "Sanskrit:" is precisely not an account of how we name these things in English-language scholarship. I'm going to be bold based on what I perceive as 2 vs. 1 here, recognizing that further discussion and input may give a different emergent consensus. Wareh (talk) 21:50, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 20 May 2013

The section "Themes" needs to be expanded because the text contains more themes than simply "Just War". Swami A. Parthasarathy [Parthasarathy (2008) "Bhagavad Gita"; A. Parthasarathy; Mumbai, India; Printed in the EU; see pp7-11] highlights the following themes:

1. The purpose of human life, which is to attain spiritual Enlightenment (conveyed by dharma ... mama as the first and last words of the text)
2. Conflict between higher and lower natures within a human (symbolised by the clash of 'evil' Kauravas & 'good' Pandavas)
3. An individual is prepared to receive spiritual knowledge when mind & senses are controlled (symbol of chariot)

Wiki kitng (talk) 17:23, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I'm answering the edit request you made. Please suggest what text you would like inserted. --RA (talk) 21:19, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Would this content not be better placed in the Bhagavad Gita article rather than here? Imc (talk) 21:50, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Picture caption misspelled

There is a picture of Ganesha and the caption says Ganesha writing the Mahabharat. It should be Mahabharata or Mahabharatam.

can someone change this please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.244.138.234 (talk) 16:50, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• Done - changed to Mahabharata as per usage in the article. Thanks. Imc (talk) 21:36, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

UFO connection

Why doesn't this article refer to various topics that some UFO commenters mention? Something like flying ships, battle or war in the sky, I dunno. A singular reference to speculative shows such as Ancient Aliens probably wouldn't do. But if this 1.8 million word document refers to flying craft, etc., I think that mention of such is merited. I myself would like to read such passages, without having to wade through a million other words to find such. References? Misty MH (talk) 09:15, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

"Ancient Aliens" series promotes WP:FRINGE theories, while wikipedia notes only mainstream. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:37, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Errors

While tidying up the section 'Textual history and structure', I came across the passages below. On close reading these seem to be very obviously wrong to me, despite having been there for almost 3 years and I and many others having read through them many times. Sanjaya did not recite 'Jaya' (the almost hypothetical orignal work that became the MB), he told the story of the great battle, i.e. the Bhagavad Gita. But there's good stuff once the confusion of Jaya and the Gita is sorted out. I've taken out the passages for a complete rewrite but include them again here for any comments.

Jaya, the core of the Mahabharata is structured in the form of a dialogue between Kuru King Dhritarashtra and Sanjaya, his advisor and chariot driver. Sanjaya narrates each incident of the Kurukshetra War, fought in 18 days, as and when it happened. Dhritarashtra sometimes asks questions and doubts, and sometimes laments, sensing the imminent destruction that would be caused by the war, to his sons, friends and kinsmen. He also feels guilty about his own role in the lead-up to this war.

In the beginning, Sanjaya gives a description of the continents of the Earth, and of the other planets. He focuses on the Indian Subcontinent and gives an elaborate list of hundreds of kingdoms, tribes, provinces, cities, towns, villages, rivers, mountains, forests, etc. of the (ancient) Indian Subcontinent (Bhārata Varsha). He also explains about the military formations adopted by each side on each day, the death of each hero and the details of each war-racings. Some 18 chapters of Vyasa's Jaya constitutes the Bhagavad Gita, a sacred text of the Hindus. Thus, this work of Vyasa, called Jaya deals with diverse subjects like geography, history, warfare, religion and morality. According to the Mahabharata itself, Vaisampayana's Bharata expanded on the story, with Vyasa's Jaya embedded within it. Ugrasrava eventually composed the final Mahabharata, with Vyasa's Jaya and Vaisampayana's Bharata embedded in the epic.

Imc (talk) 09:01, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Parvas and Subparvas

The information provided by this page on the subparvas contained within each of the 18 parvas or books is not in agreement with the information otherwise provided by the individual pages existing on each of the parvas. For instance, Book 3, the Araṇyaka Parva or Vana Parva, is said on the Mahābhārata page to contain subparvas 29-44 (which amount to a total of 16) whereas on the Vana Parva page itself it is said to contain 13 subparvas. Not only that. The Hindi page on the Mahābhārata presents yet a different account of the subparvas (cf. [4]), with 22 subparvas allocated to Book 3 for instance. The Hindi page further bears witness to the names, which must be traditional. I would therefore suggest either adding an explanation of the reasons for these discrepancies, or to correct the account according to the Hindi page, which is likely to be more reliable for the accepted divisions. Aggfvavitus (talk) 17:59, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 February 2014

Hello, I want to make a note on other indian versions of Mahabarath. Please allow. Sai santhosh00 (talk) 12:49, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, as the template message says, you're supposed to put here "a verbatim copy of the text" that you want inserted in the article. So please type here exactly what text you plan to include (as if you were editing the article itself), along with where in the article you'd like it to be. Then, someone will take a call on whether it can be inserted into the article. Shreevatsa (talk) 14:57, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 January 2014

Request to edit "Cultural influence" section. Edit ought to note that an academic article recently published notes that independent India's diplomats have throughout the post-1947 period, have ordered themselves according to the Mahabharata. Those ordering themselves in terms of that text include current National Security Advisor Shivshankar Menon. The article argues that this ordering is indicative of how the Mahabharata provides the foundation for the rationale for Indian diplomacy. The article may be found here: http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198085409.001.0001/acprof-9780198085409-chapter-4?rskey=FsitBU&result=3 There is another online resource about the article here: http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=vx&list=H-Asia&month=1308&week=b&msg=z5556xrzbunJdRFY6FbQUg 202.177.247.142 (talk) 16:43, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

What I can see is a brief abstract of one recently published article and another very brief primary source. IMO not really enough or sufficiently notable as yet to add anything significant to the article. Imc (talk) 12:49, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Please note that the article is published by the foremost academic publisher in the world. And the suggestion was made after having read the piece. Realising most don't have access to academic productions, the argument of the article is summarised above. (Sorry for not replying in the correct format). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.177.247.142 (talk) 16:56, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. I agree with Imc here, and you'll need to either come up with better INDEPENDENT RELIABLE SOURCES" or get a CONSENSUS that the sources that you've given are adequate. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 16:49, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 February 2014

Under the sub-heading 'Modern Interpretations' please add "Saarrthi,a Hindi television drama broadcast on STAR Plus and produced by Neela Telefilms. The story is a reworking of the Hindu epic, the Mahabharata, detailing the conflict between two brothers and their families in contemporary India." Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saarrthi 122.176.251.133 (talk) 07:50, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

We can’t use Wikipedia itself as a source. If the above article has independent references for the addition, please adduce them instead.—Odysseus1479 08:37, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 16:50, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

February 2014

The page does not attribute into anything archeologically true, for example, what is the oldest known script for Mahabharata. The standard history books date the whole ballad to Gupta Age, however, some highly biased Indian organisations are setting it up way before that. The oldest preserved Gita is dated around 1400 AD. This is sensitive to the Hindus in a way, therefore I believe we should lock free modification on this page, and site properly from which source the dates came.

Nmondal (talk) 05:28, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

(moved from top of page by Imc (talk) 19:36, 28 February 2014 (UTC))

I assume that by 'oldest known script' you mean the oldest existing physical document. From memory I think it goes back to about the 11th century, but that may not include the Gita. I think there may some comment about this in the intro of the first volume of Van Buitenen's translation, I'll have to check. This does not mean that the MB story as a whole is not much older. Imc (talk) 19:56, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 April 2014

Please add wife of parikshit as Madravati which is given as per in the vedas 123.237.110.122 (talk) 16:27, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 11:37, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Madravati is mentioned in the Parikshit article, and is quite removed from the core of this topic - we cannot reproduce everything in one article here. Imc (talk) 19:51, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 May 2014

I request you to please edit the spellings of the names of the characters in the Mahaabhaaratha, so that the other user can have an ease in pronouncing the Sanskrit name correctly and appropriately, such as in 'Mahabharata', it should be written as, ' Mahaabhaaratha', 'Bheeshma Pithaamahaa', 'Krishna', 'Ghatothkachha', 'Upapaandavas', et cetera, or as, 'Mahābhārața', 'Bhīshma Pītāmahā', et cetera, so that the users can understand the name and pronounce each syllable correctly according to the Sanskrit and Hindi language.

117.212.127.1 (talk) 17:29, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

This article follows Indian English conventions which spells Mahabharata (or Mahabharat). --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:42, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

The article includes the Sanskrit source term, a complete transliteration and a pronunciation guide at the start (Mahabharata or Mahābhārata (Sanskrit: महाभारतम्, Mahābhāratam, pronounced [məɦaːˈbʱaːrət̪əm]) ). Most of the articles for the links also have similar data. Imc (talk) 07:08, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 May 2014

please mention the bengali version of mahabharata written by kashiram das in c 16th AD Sayed lincoln (talk) 06:59, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I can, but it will be better if you provide some references of your information. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:07, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Subramaniya Bharathiyar's Tamil Version of Mahabharatham : " Panchali Sabatham"

Maha Kavi Subramaniya Bharathiyar has written a Complete Tamil Version of Mahabharatham titled as "Panchali Sabatham". The Poet has equated Panchali and India. Dhuriyothana and Duchadhana are the British and the disrobing of Panchali by the two brothers Dhuriyothana and Duchadhana is equated to the British occupation of India and Lord Krishna who is saving the modesty of Panchali is actually Mahathtma Gandhi, the father of the nation. The public in the Mahabharatha who simply observe the disrobing are the then Indian Public who did not do anything to stop the rape of India by the British - the silent spectators. He is furious with such apathy and inspire the Indian slaves to arise awake and fight for independence. However such story behind story or the 'uruvagams' are not written in as many words - but the reader is made to imagine this subtly. This is a great work woth mentioning here. 50.156.3.241 (talk) 21:12, 24 June 2014 (UTC) D.Devadas (devadasdgs@hotmail.com);

 : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subramanya_Bharathi ;

http://www.thehindu.com/books/a-historic-vow-revisited/article4203421.ece ;

Subramanya Bharathi – A Symbol of Vibrant Nationalism | Arise Bharat http://arisebharat.com/2013/12/11/subramanya-bharathi-a-symbol-of-vibrant-nationalism/ Dec 11, 2013 ... Subramanya Bharathi was born on December 11, 1882 in Ettayapuram ... The poem Panchali Sabatham [The vow of Panchali] depicts the dice ...Subramanya Bharathi |

I ... reach!!http://ireach.wordpress.com/tag/subramanya-bharathi/ Apr 27, 2013 ... Posts about Subramanya Bharathi written by Srividya Ram. ... those strong verses - be it those dialogues by Panchali in “Panchali Sabatham”, ...

Semi-protected edit request on 6 August 2014

I would like to add an External Link to a Podcast on Mahabharata: https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/mahabharata/id888135469?mt=2 Bhawmik (talk) 16:08, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Non-academic link not added. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:33, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Mahabharata is not dated by the palm leaf which is it is written on as its a oral handed down story, so you date via land marks or historical events that can be tracked

The "Mahabharata" is a oral transition of stories passed on by each generation, its dates are far older then the palm leaf which you are pinning the date of its orgins and history on.

Dr. P.V. Vartak from pune india established a date Using astronomical references and variety of other sources, to be (16th October 5,561 B.C) this was published in Dr.P.V. Vartak's Marathi book "Swayambhu" and "Scientific Dating of the Mahabharat War" in English.

The Mahabharata can be seen published in "classical sanskrit", classical sanskrit is of "The spoken or sung literature of the Vedas" eg (oral transition)

Dr.P.V. Vartak's Marathi book "Scientific Dating of the Mahabharat War" in English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.96.38 (talk) 04:47, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Archaeologically impossible. Dougweller (talk) 10:23, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

The paleoastronomy ref i gavewas fine and is accepted by wiki, you have no right to stop indians from dating the story via paleoastronomy

1."THE STORY" of the Mahabharata is classed as (Prehistory), yet the Prehistory page on wiki cannot class any of the rig vedas as prehistory due to the(lack of effort) on this page to include ANY of the indians history of text as Prehistory.

2. "A ORAL STORY" uses (((paleoastronomy))) as reference , paleoastronomy is The relationship of information about the sky to historical records; a fusion discipline between paleontology and astronomy, you have a write up about it on wiki..

(Dougweller) "Archaeologically impossible"

I never asked you what was possible and what was not possible, i asked for a paleoastronomy ref to be added not your speculative answers.

The chinese use paleoastronomy on wiki as ref, using paleoastronomy gives us date of its composed prehistory time frame, If the chinese can use paleoastronomy as ref then so can indians!

i understand that im not going to be able to date the children's nursery rhyme of "humpty dumpty had a great fall" by a archaeological dig for a....half man half chicken egg because i know that the rhyme was estblished in 1797 via england and its modern lingustics, But if the rhyme humpty dumpty was written in a lost language of avesta while quoting ancient river systems that historians now belive have been dead for over 3,000 years, aswell as giving exact paleoastronomy accounts gives a very different view of this crude dating which seems to be lingering on wiki.

Prof. Nicholas Kazanas the indo european greek scholar, Director of IMILOS Meleton Cultural Institute has stated that the Mahabharata dates to 3,000bc and can be seen in this youtube video dating all of the scriptures with historical factshis book can be found on google.

Could i have a better reason for why you will not accept "paleoastronomy" to date a (prehistory) EARLY ORAL EPIC, i would also want wiki to up date the Prehistory page with the rigveda.caplock74 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.96.38 (talk) 23:27, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't really understand what the problem is. We wouldn't use a surgeon as a source, but we already have this material. The article says:

W:ttempts to date the events using methods of archaeoastronomy have produced, depending on which passages are chosen and how they are interpreted, estimates ranging from the late 4th to the mid-2nd millennium BCE. The late 4th millennium date has a precedent in the calculation of the Kaliyuga epoch, based on planetary conjunctions, by Aryabhata (6th century). His date of February 18 3102 BCE has become widespread in Indian tradition (for example, the Aihole inscription of Pulikeshi II, dated to Saka 556 = 634 CE, claims that 3735 years have elapsed since the Bharata battle.) Another traditional school of astronomers and historians, represented by Vriddha-Garga, Varahamihira (author of the Brhatsamhita) and Kalhana (author of the Rajatarangini), place the Bharata war 653 years after the Kaliyuga epoch, corresponding to 2449 BCE. That does what you want I believe, showing various views. Dougweller (talk) 09:58, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

References

Additional text on Draupadi

The text added today in the family tree was removed because it was not relevant to the family tree subject, and not to this summary article. It may be appropriate, if referenced, in the article on Draupadi. Imc (talk) 17:02, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Draupadi should be added in the Mahabharata family chart because the chart shows parentage. Draupadi had children.

It was only an extra couple of mouse clicks, but it seems natural to link "Vedic times" from the following section...:

There are references to "Vedic times" that could benefit with a link to this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vedic_period

Textual history and structure The epic is traditionally ascribed to the sage Vyasa, who is also a major character in the epic. Vyasa described it as being itihāsa (history). He also describes the Guru-shishya parampara, which traces all great teachers and their students of the Vedic times.

Accretion and redaction Research on the Mahabharata has put an enormous effort into recognizing and dating layers within the text. Some elements of the present Mahabharata can be traced back to Vedic times.[12]

Family chart of Mahabharata

Draupadi and Yudhisthira succeeded Dhritarastra and Gandhari. Not Arjuna and Subhadra. Family chart is showing only the parentage.

Agreed. But also not shown is the sequence of succession events involving Dritarashtra and Pandu, and the succession of Duryodhana until his death. It is a complex subject and difficult to show in a chart that also shows parentage. May have to describe it in text, but it is worth some thought first. Imc (talk) 17:07, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Arjuna and the all female state

I was wondering when Arjuna's encounter with the all female state occurs within the narrative, so that it can be mentioned on the page in the appropriate section. They are described as warrior maidens that killed any men who stayed more than a month.

You probably want to read the work to find out! And while this topic may be important in other settings, it is questionable if it is of significance in this article, which really needs to focus on the thread of the major story. Imc (talk) 21:31, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 April 2015

In the family tree notes, mention that Draupadi and Yudhisthira ascended the throne. not Arjuna and Subhadra.

Draupadi12 (talk) 11:15, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Done. Imc (talk) 19:50, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 June 2015

Where is Panchali in the Kuru family tree? 2601:D:3781:33A0:DC80:A036:CC:2989 (talk) 21:46, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done as you have not requested a change. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 02:19, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Panchali is another name for Draupadi, described under this more common name in the article. She is not included in the family tree because 1. the succession shown is not through her, 2. indicating her complex status with marriage to five brothers is difficult for a simple tree diagram. Imc (talk) 19:51, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 September 2015

The final line, adding this article to the category "Fictional books", should be removed. The Mahabharata is a work of fiction, but since it actually exists, it is not a "fictional book" in the sense of that category. 209.179.108.118 (talk) 16:23, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

 Done, good spot. —SpacemanSpiff 16:36, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2015

Give A Character sketch of ashwasthama and karna because a most character in mahabharata 117.55.243.22 (talk) 05:43, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Not done. You must specify what exactly what it is you want inserted. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 06:37, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2015

Give A Character sketch of ashwasthama and karna because a most character in mahabharata 115.112.139.122 (talk) 05:43, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Not done. You must specify what exactly what it is you want inserted. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 06:38, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

About Chadra Vamsh or Chandra Dynasty

• Pandavas family (vamsha-Dynasty) is called Chandra Vamsha (faamly), Kuru comes in the middle of that family tree; Itis decribed in the 1st Book 'Adi Parva',75th part(canto) 'Sambhava parva' from the verse (3309)/ 1 to 65, Though it is important not at all mentioned here, but only taken from Kuru. If wanted to feed here, I will give the details.(It is a long list)Bschandrasgr (talk) 17:31, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Is this not a matter of low relevance to the subject here, which is a summary of the Mahabharata? It should instead be included in a more specific subject page. Imc (talk) 18:21, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Specify "anti-semitism"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closing per request of thread starter.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 23:37, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

---

Please Ignore this discussion, dating error

Discussing improvements to Mahabharata wikipedia article for the following section:

Use in (1.) German anti-Semitism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahabharata#Use_in_German_anti-Semitism)

According to Vishwa and Joydeep, (2.) German indologists arbitrarily identified "layers" in the Mahabharata and Bhagavad Gita with the objective of fueling (3.) European anti-Semitism via the Indo-Aryan migration theory.[77] This required equating Brahmins with Jews, resulting in anti-Brahminism.[78]

1. "German anti-Semitism" should read "Nazi anti-Semistism" to be more accurate.

2. "German indologists" should read "Nazi indologists" to be more accurate.

3. "European anti-Semitism" should read "Fascist anti-Semitism" to be more accurate.

see: -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism & -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism

˜˜˜˜ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quantumphant0m1 (talk • contribs) 18:36, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:08, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello Quantumphant0m1 (talk) 16:55, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

No, it predates Nazism. Remember there were centuries of German anti-antisemitism before Nazis.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 17:04, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, antisemitism predates Nazism and Fascism, but pre-Nazi antisemitism was not related to the Mahabharata and Indologists. Editing Talk:Mahabharata (section): (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahabharata#Use_in_German_anti-Semitism) Quantumphant0m1 (talk) 17:31, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Please Ignore this discussion, dating error, should the whole conversation be deleted? Quantumphant0m1 (talk) 17:38, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Is it really the longest?

According to its own page, the Epic of Manas is two-and-a-half times longer than the Mahabharata. If that's true then obviously this page shouldn't be claiming that the latter is "the longest poem ever written". -- Hux (talk) 06:16, 17 June 2015 (UTC) Hux (talk) 06:16, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Wendy Doniger in EB has put the length at 100,000 stanzas and others (including the listed sources) have used that to say it's the longest have brought in comparison with Odyssey, Illiad etc. I haven't seen any comparison in length for Manas (not to say they don't exist), so if there's some other source that contradicts these claims then we'd need to evaluate that. —SpacemanSpiff 06:50, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

The page on the Epic of Manas says that its longest written down version is half a million lines long (not sure how to convert it to stanzas). However, the epic itself is an oral poem and the Kyrgyz people had no script at the time of the epic, while Mahabharata existed in written form even before recorded history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.216.189.190 (talk) 08:22, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Alva2bryant (talk) 12:32, 13 April 2016 (UTC)All epic poems have started out orally and were later written down. This is true of even the Homeric epic works, of which Milman Parry deciphered them as oral poems that would have been dictated by a single singer, much like that of the epic of Manas. Even so, versions of Manas, recited by Manaschis very much in the same vein as how the singers of the Iliad would have sung the Homeric work, have been recorded. The latest published recordings are more than three thick volumes (of which I currently have the first) in length and are generationally based, starting with Manas, moving to his son Semetei and then to his grandson Seitek. Previous publishings have more than six or seven volumes of the epic. I will grab the source information later this evening. Alva2bryant (talk) 12:32, 13 April 2016 (UTC)Alva

Semi-protected edit request on 4 December 2015

MANAS IS THE LONGEST EPIC POEM THAT HAS EVER WRITTEN,FOR SURE. 151.250.156.15 (talk) 23:18, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

• Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. --Stabila711 (talk) 23:27, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Alva2bryant (talk) 12:33, 13 April 2016 (UTC)Please change to from "the longest" to "one of the longest"Alva2bryant (talk) 12:33, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 April 2016

The Mahabharata is not the longest epic in the world. Manas and the Tibetan King of Gesar are the longest epics. Will provide sources later today. Alva2bryant (talk) 12:20, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Feel free to re-open template when you provide the sources Cannolis (talk) 15:28, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Use in German anti-Semitism

I have removed the section on "Use in German anti-Semitism". From the Mahabharata's point of view that's irrelevant trivia. It was hardly a significant work inspiring or affecting anti-Semitic thought in any way, and while it may have been abused in that way, that's not relevant to an understanding of the Mahabharata. Besides, the section offered too little context to be useful. There was no timeframe to allow us to put it in context - which idologists did so, when did they do so? Where did it cause anti-Brahminism - in Germany? in India? If the latter, why would British colonial authorities or the Indian public be influenced by anti-Semitic German ideologues and their far-fetched schemes? If the former, would regular Germans even have been able to tell Brahmins from other Indians? I rather doubt that. The reference pointed to more than a hundred pages; that's rather unspecific. If this line of German indology should be discussed at all, it's in the article on indology itself, not here. Huon (talk) 11:15, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

See discussion above. There was a dispute over whether to call it German or Nazi anti-Semitism, but no one suggested to delete the info. This material has CONSENSUS.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 13:35, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

A vague, unclear passage about some tenuous connection to anti-semitism is irrelevant and inappropriate in an article on a millenia-old text. I don't see any consensus for adding that random section. There will be thousands of reliable sources on a subject like this - we don't include everything in this article, WP:WEIGHT is the guiding policy here. I'm removing that section again. FireflySixtySeven (talk) 14:54, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Written In city of Rourkela in Odisha

I want to share, It was written by Ganesh where as dictated by Ved Vyasa in Rourkela a city in Odisha. There is very big temple of Lord Shiva in a place called "Vedvyas" which is in the side of River Brahmani. In the ancient temple the cave and meditation place of rishi is also there. The tree is also present where Lord Ganesh sat and wrote the Granth. Itsyouranmol (talk) 17:52, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Synopsis

Would it be useful to have a brief book by book synopsis, instead of the current synopsis section?Bodha2 (talk) 22:26, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mahabharata. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080514050120/http://www.indiastar.com/satyajitray.html to http://www.indiastar.com/satyajitray.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:51, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mahabharata. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071113221249/http://www.plantcultures.org/pccms/action/showItem?id=340 to http://www.plantcultures.org/pccms/action/showItem?id=340

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:31, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Nudity

Not essential to the Mahabharatha - just typical Wikiporn - the Fisherwoman picture showing the nipple is not at all modest and is in violation of Indian, Hindu, and Vedic standards of decency. I propose it should be removed. Samsbanned (talk) 01:27, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm curious to know whether the Khajuraho temple complex of Madhya Pradesh, India is also in violation of "Indian, Hindu, and Vedic standards of decency." CMurdock (talk) 20:45, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, not only are we not censored, our article on the painter, Raja Ravi Varma, says "He is considered among the greatest painters in the history of Indian art". So no, it should stay. Doug Weller talk 09:51, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I would say it is how the breast of ladies are shown. It may be devotional, it may be affection, it may be sexual. So far as Khajuraho is concerned the idea behind khajuraho is if some one is engaged in the sexual pleasures he can not reach to the god. As all the Kaamsutr carvings are on the outer side of the temple so if the visitor gets engaged in those will not enter the temple. Things change with time in Victorian age the ladies in England would wear long gowns so that no skin is seen now they wear hardly any cloths. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AtulR (talk • contribs) 03:25, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 June 2017

The correct pronunciation of the Hindi/ sanskrit words must be written without 'a' in the end. correct it Ram, not Rama, correct is Bharat not Bharta, correct is Ved not Veda, correct is Shloak, not shloka, correct is Itihas, not Itihasa, correct is Lakshman, not Lakshmana. I will appreciate if proper changes are made. AtulR (talk) 01:43, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 14:22, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I support the decision to reject the proposed change. The originator of the request is proposing a particular regional interpretation of pronunciation of the Devanagari script often used for writing Sanskrit. There are multiple issues with the proposal

• Sanskrit is written with different scripts (other than Devanagari used in North India)
• The standard pronunciation of Devanagari when used for writing Sanskrit is different from the pronunciation of Devanagari when used for writing Hindi

Here is an excerpt from one of many pronunciation guides :

Dropped ‘a’s

You will often hear people drop the final ‘a’ in many words. For example, ‘asana’ becomes ‘asan’, ‘pranayama’ becomes ‘pranayam’ and even ‘yoga’ becomes ‘yog’. This has to do with the differences among various regional pronunciations in India. In some regions, the trailing ‘a’ is dropped while saying a word and in other regions, it is not.

In Sanskrit itself, the last ‘a’ is always articulated as a short vowel.

Comment

As mentioned above, there are regional differences in how South Asian languages deal with the implicit short 'a" (schwa) sound attached to words ending in a bare consonant. These differences can seem extreme -- for instance, in the South Indian language Tamizh the short 'a' is almost as long as the regular 'a' in Hindi, while there is no short 'a' in Hindi at all (which is the source of the above complaint). Classical Sanskrit falls between Hindi and Tamizh in practice. The result is that the SAME Sanskrit word (say "Rama") written in Devanagari will be pronounced "Ram" by a Hindi speaker, "Ramə" by a Classical Sanskrit speaker, and "Rama" by a Tamizh speaker.

Ancient maharashtra

Mahabharat was a epic which cant come again . I appreciate all pandavas and also people fought to enemies and also some good peopla such as kanr ,bhishm ,etc . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.212.195.187 (talk) 07:35, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

"Sandskrit" vs "Classical"

I think that saying "sandskrit" misleads people to think that these stories weren't part of Indian culture through word-and-mouth. Sandskrit is simply the first language that it was written down in - it's akin to saying the bible is a "latin" or "hebrew" text - which sounds a bit odd to me, especially in the opening paragraph. Lankandude2017 (talk) 17:32, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

No, we say "Mahābhārata started as an orally-transmitted tale of the charioteer bards." You'd also need academic sources to compare the Chinese material. See WP:VERIFY. Doug Weller talk 18:24, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Translations

Andhra Mahabharatam is the Telugu version of Mahabharatha written by Kavithrayam (Trinity of poets), consisting of Nannayya, Thikkana and Yerrapragada (also Known as Errana).The three poets translated the Mahabharata from Sanskrit into Telugu over the period of 11-14th century AD, and became the idols for all the following poets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:1D60:E93:D16A:6CC6:44E4:A724 (talk) 01:18, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Date of Mahabharat

All,

There are around 100 research papers discussing date of Mahabharat. Dates proposed varies by great degree. I would request all of you to read one of most recent research done by Dr. Narahari Achar. [redact copyvio link, no evidence of permission]

I am surprised that this date is not even mentioned in the article.

Dixitsandeep (talk) 09:53, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

It's in Kurukshetra War but I'm not sure why, as we would normally want to see that mainstream sources discuss it before adding one person's dating. See WP:UNDUE Doug Weller talk 15:59, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Merge

Bhanumati (Mahabharata) has been proposed to be merged with this page by Kvng. Support as there is not enough content to qualify a separate article. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 02:58, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Oppose. There is more than sufficient significant coverage on her in Ajaya: Rise of Kali. The coverage in the Mahabharata does not appear trivial (or passing mention) either. Hinduresci (talk) 03:01, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Ajaya: Rise of Kali is a novel and so not a reliable source. Mahabharata is a WP:PRIMARY source, if you want to call it that, so also not a good indication of notability. other than an assertion that a separate article is allowed by WP policy, what is the benefit to readers of having coverage in a separate article? Just because a separate article is allowed (and you've not acutally made a good case for that), doesn't mean it is a good idea. ~Kvng (talk) 14:12, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I reckon merging the article in question into the Mahabharata article will contribute to making the latter article excessively big. And aside from that, I for one really do not think the subject of the former article is not notable enough for a stand-alone article, especially for the following two reasons: 1. According to WP:BOOKCRIT, when a book's author is historically very significant, any of the author's written works may be considered notable. Similarly, since the Mahabharata is so highly notable, the consort of its arch-antagonist should in all likelihood be deemed worthy of notice. 2. Although Ajaya: Rise of Kali, for instance, is a novel and therefore presumably unreliable, the mere fact that it is a notable work and that it appears to have taken a notice of the subject in a substantial manner, seems to imply that there is objective evidence that the subject is worthy of notice. And it seems that there are at least 3 more sources of such type. Hinduresci (talk) 08:23, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Furthermore, although the sources such as Ajaya: Rise of Kali, or for that matter Ajaya: Roll of the Dice, are unreliable, they are notable, and since they cover the subject significantly, their coverage could be described in the article under a section like "Novelistic accounts". Don't you think it makes sense? Hinduresci (talk) 08:31, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Let me put it this way. The mere fact that the subject of the article in question is dealt with by a source as vital and influential as the Mahabharata in a non-trivial manner, signifies the notability of the subject for a stand-alone article. Hinduresci (talk) 08:47, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

One more thing! It seems there are several articles, if not many, that look similar to the article in question when it comes to notability, such as Ambika (Mahabharata). Should they all be merged into the Mahabharata article which already looks pretty big? I for one am convinced that the answer to that question could not be in the affirmative. Hinduresci (talk) 09:05, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Support:- The article's topic is not significient at all. She is not a major character in Mahabharata. This article fails General notability guideline.ABCDE22 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:47, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

New destination

I suggest all such articles be either merged into this article or in the Characters in the Mahabharata. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 17:01, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Suggesting Merge with page Maha bharata

According to Sanskirt pronunciation，maha & bharata should be separated into two words. And all the other language wiki user connected their wikipedia page with page maha bharata. I think it be better to transport all the content into the item maha bharata and redirect this item mahabharata to the maha bharata.

Zzt514 (talk) 06:46, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

This will be against WP:COMMONNAME, among other things. Also worth noting that a compound word is still a word. – Uanfala (talk) 01:35, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Kuru Family Tree Correction

At the bottom of the family tree, Abhimanyu is shown married to Uttara. This is accurate, but Uttara links to a different character of the Mahabharata who is similarly named, and is in fact a male. This is the correct link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uttar%C4%81_(Mahabharata). 107.179.231.210 (talk) 14:41, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 May 2018

2405:204:949D:C926:D2B:8725:9F4B:618C (talk) 20:34, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Mayuri meri jaan

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. According to google translate "Mayuri meri jaan" is Finnish for "Mayuri sea junngle". I have no idea to what this is a reference. NiciVampireHeart 20:48, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 July 2018

CHANGE X great tale of bhãrata dynasty TO Y great bhãrata as it is that literally

CHANGE X The oldest preserved parts of the text are thought to be not much older than around 400 BCE, though the origins of the epic probably fall between the 8th and 9th centuries BCE ........TO Y .....mahãbhãarat along with other ancient shãstras wes transmitted orally generation to generation and refers to events said to be at end of dwãpara yuga and begining of kaliyuga which corresponds to According to Puranic sources,[2] Krishna's departure marks the end of Dvapara Yuga and the start of Kali Yuga, which is dated to 17/18 February 3102 BCE.[3]... this is according to wikipedia so please consider these factors and insert necessary changes Ombaba123456 (talk) 17:24, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: I'm not sure which references you want to use for this edit. (The second reference in the article's References section doesn't support the sentence where you placed the "[2]" inline citation.) Can you please provide references that support the changes you're proposing?​ — Newslinger talk 01:42, 4 August 2018 (UTC)