Talk:Mahābhārata

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Mahābhārata has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
Article milestones Date Process Result January 9, 2007 Featured article candidate Not promoted February 15, 2008 Good article nominee Listed Current Status: Good article

	Mahābhārata is part of WikiProject Poetry, a WikiProject related to Poetry.
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.

	Mythology Portal This article is supported by WikiProject Mythology . This project provides a central approach to Mythology-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Krishnaism.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Vaishnavism.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hindu mythology.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism.
GA	rating on the quality scale
Top	rating on the importance scale

This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.

Additional information: GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale. Feel free to make short comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. ??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale. This article is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images.

WikiProject Echo has identified Mahābhārata as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Kannada or Malayalam language Wikipedias.

Archives

1

Contents 1 Siva Rahasya?! 2 Purusha Mruga 3 What is the source for the map? 4 Date of the war 5 Indra as the father of Arjuna 6 Page numbers in Majumdar 7 Historicity 8 Page numbers in Basham 9 Kuru family tree 10 Karna 11 Kichaka 12 Requested move 12.1 Survey 12.2 Discussion 13 Another image 14 Total number of Characters in Mahabharta 15 Itihas not mythology 16 "Citation needed", or Entropy Redux 17 No UFO discussion? 18 Improving article 19 GA Review 20 Ganguli Translation 21 Please lock the entry

[edit] Siva Rahasya?!

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

[edit] Purusha Mruga

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

[edit] What is the source for the map?

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

[edit] Date of the war

As far as I understand, we have the following:

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

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

I object to the removal of citations to WP:RS. I have restored the following citation: "According to the History and Culture of the Indian People, a standard work commissioned by the Indian government, the Bharata war took place circa 1400 BC. (Citation given by Keay, p. 3.) I agree that this is only one of various possible dates that could be put forward, but there is no basis for removal of scholarly citations during this process.

When addressing the claims of extreme antiquity put foward by some recent authors, I would like to see some refutation of them made by citing WP:RS that examine such claims in more detail. Simply characterizing them as pseudoscience is only asking for edit wars to erupt here, and such statements represent a POV that has caused much turmoil on other articles. I believe that a better approach can be found based on citation of WP:RS. Buddhipriya 01:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I have adjusted the language of the sentence about Vartak to read: "A recent theory put forward by V. Vartak attempts to date the events of the Mahabharata as early as the 6th millennium BCE". This statement is sourced by only one self-published web site. On that basis, it seems to me to be a WP:FRINGE issue that does not deserve mention in the article. I propose that unless some WP:RS can be brought forward, the sentence be cut from the article. Buddhipriya 02:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I question Keay's citation of HCIP for a date of 1400 BCE. He is probably referring to Majumdar's essay on "Sources of Indian History" (Vol I, Book I, Ch II), where RCM writes "in round numbers between 1500 and 1000 B.C", not as a statement of settled fact, but as a description of some scholarly estimates in the context of an ongoing field of study. (The entire paragraph -- note how it starts "It is interesting to trace the gradual changes in the views of scholars..." -- is about historiography, not history.) rudra 03:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, when the issue about dating was discussed on the page for Bhagavad Gita I decided to fact-check Keay against my copy of Majumdar and then changed the wording of the article to cite the broad period. At this point since the primary reference to Majumdar is available, I think that the reference to Keay can be deleted, and then the correct characterization of Majumdar can be made. However I continue to object to the simple removal of citations without any discussion. I concur with your interpretation that the paragraph on p. 48 (second impression edition) is a general review of the historiography. I think on that basis the paragraph is notable and I am wondering if you would do a rewrite of the mention of it based on your reading of the complete paragraph. I have not yet gone over every reference to Mahabharata in the index to Majumdar so perhaps the 1400 BC date is in there somewhere else. Buddhipriya 04:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

There is a calculation of 1397 BC by Pusalkar (p.273) based on Puranic data, which he shades to "between 1400 and 1000 BC in round numbers", to reconcile it with Pargiter's calculation (c 950 BC). This is the kind of scholarly estimate that RCM referred to on p.48. rudra 04:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

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

I agree. Why don't you take a stab at merging them, and replace any Kak citations to their equivalent primary source. Buddhipriya 04:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Some stuff will go poof, though. E.g. the Vartak piece, which is just blogpap. rudra 05:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Indra as the father of Arjuna

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

Indra it is, it's been changed. Yama was just a mistake, I think.... ॐ Priyanath talk 21:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

In Venkateswaran's Dictionary of the Bhagavad Gita the human lineage is given, describing him as the third Pandava prince, son of King Pandu and Pṛtā. (R. J. Venkateswaran. Dictionary of Bhagavad Gita. (Sterling Publishers Private Ltd.: New Delhi, 1991) ISBN 81-207-1969-7. p. 16) It may be best to use the human lineage in the table and note the alternate as Indra. Buddhipriya 21:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it's correct as it is now - Pandu and Kunti (aka Prita) are the human parents, and Indra is the dev-father, as it now says in the footnote. ॐ Priyanath talk 01:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Page numbers in Majumdar

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

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

Buddhipriya 02:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I have the full set of the HCIP, cobbled together from various editions. My Vol I is the fifth edition, dated 1988 (the sequence is 1951, 1952, 1957, 1965, 1988), and the passage is on p.272 (in fact, p.268 is a blank page facing the start of Book Four, "Historical Traditions".) And I'd dispense with the Kak reference, as Varahamihira (Brhatsamhita) and Kalhana (Rajatarangini) have already been mentioned by Pusalkar (i.e. Kak is not an independent reference - in all likelihood HCIP was the source of his information.) rudra 03:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I concur that HCIP was the likely source for what Kak repeats, and I think we should simply cite HCIP. I am still puzzled by the difference in page numbering between the editions. The front matter for my copy of volume 1, which is the one with the reference, just refers to it as a "second impression" of the 1951 edition, so the page numbers should have been as in the 1951 edition. For citation purposes, we need to just clarify the page numbering issue so others will be able to do fact checking as we have done. Buddhipriya 03:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm puzzled by page numbering too. My ed (the 5th) has, inter alia, Book 1 at p.37, Book 2 at p.125, Book 3 at p.205, Book 4 at p.271, each Book preceded by a front page with just the title (i.e. pp.35, 123, 203, 269). We could add a "5th Ed 1988" to the 1951 date, but it would really help, I agree, to get to the bottom of the discrepancy. rudra 04:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Mine has the end of the Abbreviations section on p. 34. Book 1 at an un-numbered page, followed by a blank page, then Chapter 1 on p. 37. So the two extra pages must precede p. 37. My editon was "Printed in Great Britain". A "Foreword" by K. M. Munshi is on pp. 7-12. Buddhipriya 04:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Narrowing down, here :-) Munshi's Foreword: 7-12. TOC: 13-19. List of Illustrations: 21 (20 is blank). Majumdar's Preface: 23-30. Abbreviations: 31-34. Printed in India for the BVB. rudra 05:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, we may be looking in the wrong direction if our editions agree on Book 1 being announced on an unnumbered p35 and starting on p.37. The discrepancy would have to be after that. Or have I read your data wrong? rudra 05:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

They seem indentical for pages 1-34. Mine has TOC also on 13-19; 20 (blank); List of illustrations on 21; 22 (blank); Majumdar's Preface 23-30; Abbreviations on 31-34; p. 35 is not numbered but has "The Vedic Age: Book One: Introduction"; p. 36 is blank; Chapter 1 is pp. 37-46; Chapter 2 is pp. 47-64; Chapter 3 is pp. 65-78. Then on p. 79 we have the first page of text for "Chapter I: The Geological Background of Indian History" (a typo showing Chapter I rather than Chapter IV as in the Contents on p. 13). Buddhipriya 17:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Historicity

Some notes for the rewrite:

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

rudra 05:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with all of your above points and look foward to what you will do with a rewrite. I have not seen SP Gupta and KS Ramachandran (Ed), Mahabharata: myth and reality. Agam Prakashan 1976 but I assume it is an academic handling. Is it worth trying to get a copy of it? I would do so only if you feel that it is a substantial work and if it has promise for use as a WP:RS more generally. Regarding the astronomical considerations, I really have never looked at them and therefore would tend to focus attention on source quality as the key issue. Are these claims addressed in any academic works? If so, I would like to see those citations used in preference to listservs, etc., in line with evaluation of WP:FRINGE materials.

Regarding potential WP:RS, I have not yet read The History of History: Politics and Scholarship in Modern India by Vinay Lal (Publisher: Oxford University Press, USA (September 25, 2003); Language: English; ISBN-10: 0195664655) but it looks promising as a potential source for a number of the articles. I wish we could find more academic sources that discuss the fringe claims and broaden the number of references used in these articles where historical disputes arise. Buddhipriya 17:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The Gupta-Ramachandran book is WP:RS, I think, even though the material is somewhat uneven (there's some crackpotry included). In 1975, the epigraphist DC Sircar denied the historicity of the Mbh in a published interview, sparking a controversy. I believe there was a conference in Delhi in early 1976, where a number of scholars presented papers. This book is a development of that, bringing together papers on archaeology (e.g. BB Lal's work), epigraphy, art, textual materials and astronomy, together with comments by others -- quite a star-studded list. Given its date, it's obviously missing the latest round of astronomy-based datings, but otherwise it's a good source.

The astronomy part will be hardest to write about sensibly. It's a cottage industry, and cranks are legion. My basic fear is that mentioning even one crackpot will invite the usual parade of editors wanting to include their favorite fringelit as mention-worthy.

(Vinay Lal's book is a tough read, especially if one is not familiar with modern "leftist" and "subaltern" historiography in India. I'm not sure of its value as a source, except perhaps for the literature on the Ayodhya controversy.) rudra 18:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that the key to the historical questions is to focus on source quality. If a source cannot clearly be shown to be credible, then it should be treated as potential WP:FRINGE material. In academic discussions about what is in or out, as you know, one way to evalute source quality is to look at who cites whom. If the reliability of author X is challenged, one can look at who cites author X (if anyone) and see if they are treated as a reliable source by other sources whose quality is not in dispute. If no one cites author X it may be because the work is too new (not believable for a work published in the 1970s), or it may be because the work is simply not notable. The argument that it may be too specialized is not applicable to the topic of history of the Bharata war because that is a subject that had drawn lots of attention in multiple sources. So the key question for me is, which sources are fair game, and is it appropriate to raise the bar on source quality?

If the claims of people like B. B. Lal are notable, one would expect to see refutations of them in current works by other authors. Such in fact is the case in the new book by Martha Nussbaum, The Clash Within: Democracy, Religious Violence, and India's Future (The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press: Cambridge, Massachusetts, 2007) where on p. 221 she quotes B. B. Lal's claims of Harappan civilization dating to "4800 years ago" and then says "When we scrutinize these claims, they crumble (as all such highly specific claims are likely to do when confronted with scanty archaeological evidence)." These types of refutations appearing in WP:RS establish that B. B. Lal is notable, and that the claims are disputed.

In the spirit of full disclosure I should also say that I have a bias for using the most current possible academic sources. Indology does not stand still, and the continual re-examination of older sources in light of current academic thinking is as important in Indology as in any other field. Some of the standards in the field are of course much older, and deserve mention because they are standards. An example would be HCIP. But anything that is subject to dispute probably has been discussed again more recently, e.g. by John Keay (2000) who is the source for the "sticks in the craw" quote. In other words, the academic Indology literature has age strata of its own, just as the primary sources have age strata. So if possible, let's try to find the most current authoritative souces and work them in when we can. Buddhipriya 18:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Page numbers in Basham

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

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

[edit] Kuru family tree

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

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

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

You are welcome to change it if you like. If you have trouble coming to grips with the family tree code/formatting, you can request your changes to User:Priyanath, who added the family tree according to my knowledge. Gizza^{Chat ©} 09:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I've amended the family tree as best I can to show birth order, though I've not shown Ganga's earlier marriage to Santanu in the right sequence. Is there any mention of whether Vyasa was older than Bhishma? Imc 11:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Karna

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

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

[edit] Kichaka

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

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

Thanks! Imc 08:31, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

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

[edit] Survey

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

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

[edit] Another image

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

[edit] Total number of Characters in Mahabharta

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

do you mean syllables (aksharas)? in IAST, the text has 12.3 million characters, including linefeeds and space marks. Removing these, we're at 11.1 million. A quick count of aksharas gives me 4.6 million. --dab (�) 09:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

thanks buddy for the answer..i meant the main CHARACTERS [Paatra] [the people count like Krishna, Pandavas (5) or Kauravas (101)] plasmid ^{talk ||| sign plz!} 01:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Itihas not mythology

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

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

[edit] "Citation needed", or Entropy Redux

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

[edit] No UFO discussion?

The History channel says that the Mahabharata discusses UFOs... http://www.history.com/media.do?id=ufosightings_mahabarata_broadband&action=clip. Timneu22 (talk) 04:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Improving article

In response to the recent nomination of this for GA status, I thought it would be desirable to discuss some improvements. The following two thoughts occurred to me yesterday.

• Usage of IAST names. Given that the article title is now the formal and 'academic' version with diacritics, do others feel that all other Sanskrit usage in it should also be the same for consistency and style? If it is not to be used throughout, I'd suggest that any first use of any original name should be in IAST.

• The synopsis contains some material that is not in original works (some of was it changed yesterday, from a sanitised version of the conception of Dhritarashtra and Pandu). I felt then that it should be based on a named reference so that this can be avoided. Narasimhan's abridged English translation seems a good enough source, so I intend to work on this during following days, without extending the current length of the synopsis unduly.

Imc (talk) 18:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

(In response to a query by Redtigerxyz); I don't, at present, intend to expand the article significantly or to add new sections. However, I feel there is a fair bit of improvement possible. Other items beyond that in my first post, include

• • is the discussion of whether the Greeks were referring to the Iliad or the MB, really appropriately placed in the 'Textual history and organisation' section;
  • other spelling issues; (parvan or parva)
  • overlong detail on forthcoming translations, with insufficient material on the current translations in widespread use.
  • expansion, and a possible new section on the use of the MB as a historic repository for Indian literature.

Imc (talk) 16:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): [[Image:|15px]]

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   One of the images ([:Image:Razmnama Dronacharya.jpg]) has been listed for speedy deletion. However, this is because the image is thought to be a duplicate image. The editors may want to check out what is going on here so that they are not caught by surprise if the image disappears.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Overall, quite a good article. jackturner3 (talk) 14:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ganguli Translation

The article says that this is the only complete English translation. I am reading it now, and I was surprised to find a sexually explicit passage had been translated not into English but into Latin! It occurs in Section CIV of the Sambhava sub-parvan of the Adi-parvan. Here's the relevant section from Project Gutenberg:

""In this connection there is another old history that I will recite to you. There was in olden days a wise Rishi of the name of Utathya. He had a wife of the name Mamata whom he dearly loved. One day Utathya's younger brother Vrihaspati, the priest of the celestials, endued with great energy, approached Mamata. The latter, however, told her husband's younger brother--that foremost of eloquent men--that she had conceived from her connection with his elder brother and that, therefore, he should not then seek for the consummation of his wishes. She continued, 'O illustrious Vrihaspati, the child that I have conceived hath studied in his mother's womb the Vedas with the six Angas, Semen tuum frustra perdi non potest. How can then this womb of mine afford room for two children at a time? Therefore, it behoveth thee not to seek for the consummation of thy desire at such a time. Thus addressed by her, Vrihaspati, though possessed of great wisdom, succeeded not in suppressing his desire. Quum auten jam cum illa coiturus esset, the child in the womb then addressed him and said, 'O father, cease from thy attempt. There is no space here for two. O illustrious one, the room is small. I have occupied it first. Semen tuum perdi non potest. It behoveth thee not to afflict me.' But Vrihaspati without listening to what that child in the womb said, sought the embraces of Mamata possessing the most beautiful pair of eyes. Ille tamen Muni qui in venture erat punctum temporis quo humor vitalis jam emissum iret providens, viam per quam semen intrare posset pedibus obstruxit. Semen ita exhisum, excidit et in terram projectumest. And the illustrious Vrihaspati, beholding this, became indignant, and reproached Utathya's child and cursed him, saying, 'Because thou hast spoken to me in the way thou hast at a time of pleasure that is sought after by all creatures, perpetual darkness shall overtake thee.' And from this curse of the illustrious Vrishaspati Utathya's child who was equal unto Vrihaspati in energy, was born blind and came to be called Dirghatamas (enveloped in perpetual darkness). And the wise Dirghatamas, possessed of a knowledge of the Vedas, though born blind, succeeded yet by virtue of his learning, in obtaining for a wife a young and handsome Brahmana maiden of the name of Pradweshi. And having married her, the illustrious Dirghatamas, for the expansion of Utathya's race, begat upon her several children with Gautama as their eldest. These children, however, were all given to covetousness and folly. The virtuous and illustrious Dirghatamas possessing complete mastery over the Vedas, soon after learnt from Surabhi's son the practices of their order and fearlessly betook himself to those practices, regarding them with reverence. (For shame is the creature of sin and can never be where there is purity of intention). Then those best of Munis that dwelt in the same asylum, beholding him transgress the limits of propriety became indignant, seeing sin where sin was not. And they said, 'O, this man, transgresseth the limit of propriety. No longer doth he deserve a place amongst us. Therefore, shall we all cast this sinful wretch off.' And they said many other things regarding the Muni Dirghatamas. And his wife, too, having obtained children, became indignant with him."

The passage is also partially Latinised on Sacred Texts.
Eroica (talk) 16:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please lock the entry

I have noticed that of recent there have been many people editing the entry Mahābhārata, adding anti-Hindu derogatory comments (seemingly by someone Islamic, because the words used were mostly of Arabic origin). I request the administrator to kindly lock the entry so as to prevent further non-genuine editing. The Mahābhārata is a book of great wisdom and should thus be respected.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.247.66.107 (talk) 15:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)