Talk:Mahabharata/Archive 1

message: 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)
thread_title: Material from Rajagopalachari

message: 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)
thread_title:  Dating 

message: 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)
thread_title:  details 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Oppose 16:11, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging with Kurukshetra 

message: 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)
thread_title: Stories and characters

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Dating? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Barbareek 

message: * 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)
thread_title:  SWDesai21 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Accuracy question - comparison of length 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Dating 

message: Anyone care to take a look at:
*Epic Kamboja
*Chandravarma Kamboja
*Kamatha Kamboja
*Prapaksha Kamboja
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)
thread_title:  Articles that need help 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Another viewpoint" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Is Bhagavatam an Epic? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  [[Dhaumya]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Popular Story telling 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Gemini 

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Synopsis

message: 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)
thread_title: Purusha Mruga

message: 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)
thread_title:  What is the source for the map? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Indra it is, it's been changed. Yama was just a mistake, I think.... ॐ Priyanath  talk 21:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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) . 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Indra as the father of Arjuna 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text:  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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Page numbers in Majumdar 

message: Rudra, perhaps we have different editons of Basham, since the quote you find on p. 40 is on p. 39 of my copy. See:   Mine is cited as the "Eleventh printing, First Evergreen Edition, 1959" by Grove Press, Inc., New York. Buddhipriya 23:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, mine is the "Third Revised Edition", Taplinger 1968.  rudra 00:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page numbers in Basham 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Kuru family tree

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

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

message: :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.
*Support and hope that this does open the can of worms mentioned below, i.e., the use of IAST at Wikipedia for terms not in widespread general English use (not covered by WP:UE). —  AjaxSmack    01:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: 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)
thread_title:  Another image 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Total number of Characters in Mahabharta

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Itihas not mythology 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Citation needed", or Entropy Redux