% Mahābhārata: General information % Last updated: Fri Sep 25 2020 % Encoding: Unicode Roman % Electronic text (C) Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, % Pune, India, 1999 % ================================== Electronic text of the Mahābhārata ================================== This file contains information about the electronic text of the Mahābhārata. Anyone who intends to make use of the text is asked to read it carefully. It is divided into four sections: * The status of the electronic text * The history of the electronic text * The format of the electronic text * Notes on the electronic text John D. Smith University of Cambridge ------------------------------------------------------------------------ The status of the electronic text ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The electronic text of the Mahabharata is Copyright (C) The Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute (BORI), Pune. This authorised and regularly updated text is available only via the web page http://bombay.indology.info/mahabharata/statement.html. Please do not provide copies of the text to others. The text is as accurate as possible, but errors may well still appear. If you believe you have found an error, please report it by email to Suvarna Deshpande (suvarnad09 [at] gmail.com) or Pranav Gokhale (pranavpg88 [at] gmail.com). Before reporting any error, please read the rest of this document! Corrections will be made to errors remaining in the text as they come to light. Check the “Last updated” date at the head of each parvan against the current dates listed on the distribution website (URL https://bombay.indology.info/mahabharata/welcome.html) to see whether you need to download newer versions. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ The history of the electronic text ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ This text has its origins in the work of Prof. Muneo Tokunaga of the University of Kyoto. During the late 1980s and early 1990s, Prof. Tokunaga typed the entire text of the Critical Edition of the Mahābhārata (BORI, 1933-66) into a computer, and in 1994 he placed the electronic text he had thus created on the Internet. The enormity of the labour involved in the creation of the text is matched only by Prof. Tokunaga’s generosity in making it so freely available to the scholarly world. This version of the text derives ultimately from that first version, and I am deeply grateful to Prof. Tokunaga for permitting this use of the products of his labour. In transcribing the Mahābhārata, Prof. Tokunaga took a number of policy decisions which can cause difficulties for would-be users whose requirements differ from his. Most of these -- for example, his use of “m” for both m and anusvara, and “n” for the dental, palatal and velar nasals -- can be overcome with a little effort. Much the most serious problem is caused by his use of a single separator to divide word from word and compound-member from compound-member (something he did not do in his transcription of the Ramayana). The result is that, for example, the Gita begins dharma kṣetre kuru kṣetre, not dharmakṣetre kurukṣetre. In 1995 I devised a method which I believed would allow me to rejoin a significant percentage of these “split” compounds. It involved using a computer to analyse differences between substantial passages of Mahābhārata text before and after full “correction” by hand. In this way the computer could learn to recognise large numbers of typical split compounds, and could therefore be used to correct them wherever they occurred in the text as a whole. Applying this method over a period of months led to the elimination of perhaps 75% of the split compounds occurring in the electronic text; I also made large numbers of corrections of other kinds. Then, like Prof. Tokunaga before me, I made the resulting text available via the Internet; I also began to make use of it in my own scholarly work. However, this kept its remaining deficiencies all too permanently before my eyes, and I determined to find a way of bringing the text to (notional) perfection. With the aid of generous funding from the Humanities Research Board of the British Academy, the Society for South Asian Studies and the Smuts Memorial Fund (University of Cambridge), I was able to set up a project at BORI to achieve this goal. A team of five assistants -- Indu Deshpande, Kirti Sharad Thakar, Pradnya Anant Rayrikar, Samita Vasant Shinde and Shilpa Mulay -- were employed to work through the entire text correcting any split compounds or other errors they encountered. The task was done throughout in duplicate, so that slips made by one assistant would show up through comparison with the work of another. I was responsible for collating the results, which form the basis of this electronic text. For their dedicated work, and the levels of accuracy that they have brought to a long and demanding task, the members of the team, like Prof. Tokunaga himself, have earned the gratitude of all those who make use of the electronic Mahābhārata. My own gratitude goes in addition to Prof. Saroja Bhate, without whose help the project would never have reached such successful results. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ The format of the electronic text ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 1. Line-numbers --------------- The text is divided into eighteen files, one per main book (parvan) of the Mahābhārata. However, the format of each line is such as to identify it uniquely, whichever file it happens to come from. At the start of every line appears a nine-character line-number specifying the book or parvan (two digits), the chapter or adhyāya (three digits), the verse or śloka (three digits), and the quarter-verse or pāda (one letter, specifying the first of the two pādas that form each line). Thus the first line of the Gita appears as: 06023001a dharmakṣetre kurukṣetre samavetā yuyutsavaḥ indicating that it represents pādas a and b of the first verse of book 6, chapter 23. If the line is part of a verse in triṣṭubh or other longer metre, the division between the pādas is marked with a semicolon: 01001065a duryodhano manyumayo mahādrumaḥ; skandhaḥ karṇaḥ śakunis tasya śākhāḥ If the line is part of a passage in prose, the final letter of the line-number (which normally indicates the pāda) is capitalised: 01003001A janamejayaḥ pārikṣitaḥ saha bhrātr̥bhiḥ kurukṣetre dīrghasatram upāste If the line is a header such as janamejaya uvāca, the final letter of the line-number is replaced by a space: 01045003 janamejaya uvāca 2. Encodings ------------ The text is available in three encodings (character sets) commonly used for Sanskrit and other Indian languages: Unicode Devanagari, Unicode Roman (using the conventions defined in ISO 15919), and ASCII (using the Harvard/Kyoto conventions). 3. Spelling conventions ----------------------- It is impossible to achieve complete consistency in a text as large and diverse as the Mahābhārata, especially when it was edited over 33 years by several different scholars from a vast range of manuscript sources. So, for example, the spellings dvaṁdva and dvandva both appear in several books. No serious attempt at normalisation of spelling has been made in the electronic text, but some consistency in purely editorial matters is clearly desirable, especially given that people will wish to search the entire text for words and phrases. The following rules have been applied, which may introduce minor changes from the text as printed; the words chatra etc. raise a particular problem which is addressed in some detail below. General rules +++++++++++++ Forms such as kiṁ cit (/cana/api) are everywhere spelt as two words in Roman representations of the electronic text (assuming that sandhi does not prevent this, as in kāpi), whatever the usage in the printed text; similarly kiṁ svit, etc. The word kaccit of course is unchanged, as are compounded forms such as kiṁciccheṣa “having little left remaining”. In the Devanagari versions of the text, forms such as kiṁcit are spelt as single words to respect normal usage in Indian scripts. The phrase atha vā is always written as two words. The same applies to periphrastic perfects: kathayāṁ babhūva, etc. Use of the word-internal avagraha in forms such as yaśo’rtha is not entirely consistent in the printed text (e.g. yaśo’rthaṁ 7.86.20c but yaśortham 8.29.25b). The Errata to Book 1 contain five such cases, in all of which Sukthankar requests the deletion of the avagraha (he missed a single further case at 1.115.11d). Arguments could be mounted against this practice, but the editorial intention is very clear, and the internal avagraha has been removed in the few cases where it does appear. An effort has been made to standardise the use of double avagraha in cases where the elided vowel is not a but ā. This is the normal usage in the printed text, but there are a few cases where single avagraha appears instead; the electronic text corrects these. The words kārttika, kārttikeya, etc., are for the most part spelt with double “t” in the Critical Edition, but there are some occurrences of “kārtika” and “kārtikeya”. These have been silently normalised in the electronic text. Similarly, the absolutive chittvā is occasionally spelt with a single “t”: such occurrences have been normalised to the correct form. The words chatra, satra and patra +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The words chatra, satra and patra are spelt inconsistently in the Critical Edition: some editors favoured the spelling with single “t”, others that with double “tt”. It appeared undesirable to leave such inconsistency in place, and all three words are uniformly spelt with single “t” in the electronic text. This applies also to derivative forms in -in, etc. The choice of single over double “t” reflects the overall weight of opinion amongst the editors: this appeared a more important criterion than any questions of etymological “correctness”. Note, however, that the word tottra is spelt with double “t”, since the Critical Edition is entirely consistent in spelling it thus at every occurrence. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Notes on the electronic text ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Occasionally the electronic text corrects an error in the printed edition. The following is a complete list of such corrections: each line is quoted as it is actually printed, followed by a comment explaining the correction. (In a few cases a possible correction is noted that has not in fact been implemented.) Note that changes made purely to adhere to the spelling conventions listed above are not included. Note also that all corrections included in the printed edition’s various lists of errata, etc., have been applied to the electronic text: they too are not referred to here. In these notes, “PAE” refers to Phillip Ernest, who has spent many hours checking problematical readings in manuscripts used in the preparation of the Critical Edition and still available for consultation at BORI. Thanks to his efforts it has been possible to establish beyond doubt that certain puzzling readings found in the printed edition are simple typographic errors. 01001046a bhūtasthānāni sarvāṇi rahasyaṁ vividhaṁ ca yat The first printing of Book 1 (in separate fascicules) has trividhaṁ here, but in the second printing (in bound form) this has been replaced by vividhaṁ. Since vividhaṁ is also quoted as a variant reading, it is clear that it is the latter form which is a typographic error. I am grateful to James L. Fitzgerald for drawing my attention to this problem. 01001174c ajeyaḥ paraśuḥ puṇḍraḥ śambhur devāvr̥dho ’naghaḥ This is the only occurrence of the word śambhu- spelt with nasal “m” rather than anusvāra. The spelling with anusvāra occurs seventeen times, including an occurrence later in Book 1 (01058043c). It is clear that this was the spelling preferred by Sukthankar and the other editors, and I have restored it in this one discrepant instance. I am grateful to James L. Fitzgerald for drawing my attention to this problem. 01058043a tam uvāca mahārāja bhūmiṁ bhūmipatir vibhuḥ It is certain that tam is a typographic error for tām. The editor records no variant readings for the word, and yet the Bombay Edition and manuscripts K0, Da1 and D1 all have tām (PAE). 01179009a kejid āhur yuvā śrīmān nāgarājakaropamaḥ 02024018c uragāvāsinaṁ caiva rocamānaṁ raṇe ’jayat See the Supplementary Addenda, p. 515. 05032014c virocate ’hāryavr̥ttena vīro; yudhiṣṭhiras tvayi pāpaṁ visr̥jya See the note on p. 726 of the edition. 05070042c praśāntāḥ samabhūtāś ca śriyaṁ tān aśnuvīmahi It is certain that tān is a typographic error for tām. The editor records no variant readings for the word, and yet the Bombay Edition and manuscripts K1, Ds1 and D5 all have tām (PAE). 07005034c traiyyambakam atheṣvastram astrāṇi vividhāni ca traiyyaṁbakam is also quoted as a variant reading. 07035011a tam udīkṣya tathā yāntaṁ sarve droṇapurogamāḥ “Coming” rather than “going” is necessary for the sense here. 07053014c utsahante ’nyathākartuṁ pratijñāṁ savyasācinaḥ Monier Williams allows anyathā-kr̥- as a compound verb, but all the other ten occurrences of anyathā + verbal form of kr̥- in the Mahābhārata (01003133B, 01091013c, 03131015c, 03205010a, 05081053a, 07052011c, 07172048a, 13043025a, 13047036a, 16009027c) are printed as non-compounds. Of these, seven consist of anyathā kartum, including two further occurrences of the pāda-phrase utsahante ’nyathā kartum, one in the previous chapter (07052011c), the other later in the same parvan (07172048a). I am therefore preferring the non-compounded form. 07054005c pratisrotaḥpravr̥ttāś ca tathā gantuṁ samudragāḥ Clearly a typographic error (cf. the almost identical 07167002c: pratisrotaḥ pravr̥ttāś ca gantuṁ tatra samudragāḥ). 07054010a snuṣā śvaśvrānaghāyaste viśoke kuru mādhava 07070037c sahasenaḥ sahāmātyo drāpadeyān avārayat 07076029a iti kr̥ṣṇā maheṣvāsau yaśasā lokaviśrutau 07079025c bhūriśravās tribhir bāṇair hemapuṅkhaḥ śilāśitaiḥ 07085021c abhyavarṣañ śarais tīkṣṇaiḥ kaṅkabarhiṇavājitaḥ 07120069e adr̥śyau ca śaroghais tau nighnatām itaretaram 07164037a taṁ sātyakiḥ pratyaviddhat tathaiva daśabhiḥ śaraiḥ It is certain that pratyaviddhat is a typographic error for pratyavidhyat. The editor records no variant readings for the word, and yet the Bombay Edition and manuscripts Dc1 and D6 both have pratyavidhyat (PAE). 07165044c mahimānaṁ mahārāja yogamuktasya gacchataḥ It is certain that yogamuktasya is a typographic error for yogayuktasya. The editor records no variant readings for the word, and yet the Bombay Edition, P. S. S. Sastri’s edition of the southern recension and manuscripts Dc1, D5 and D7 all have yogayuktasya (PAE). 07165055c palāyanakr̥totsāhā dudruvuḥ sarvato diśam 08031004c yudhiṣṭhiraṁ cābhibhavann asapavyaṁ cakāra ha It is certain that asapavyaṁ is a typographic error for apasavyaṁ. The editor records no significant variant readings for the word, and yet the Bombay Edition and manuscripts K1, D4 and D8 all have apasavyaṁ (PAE). 08062047c sa vājisūteṣvasanas tathāpatad; yathā mahāvātahato mahādrumaḥ The line is unconstruable unless the initial sa is taken as part of the following compound. 08065014c athābravīt pāṇinā pāṇim āghnan; saṁdaṣṭāṣṭho nr̥tyati vādayann iva 08069017a yaḥ sa dyūtajitāṁ kr̥ṣṇāṁ prāha satpuruṣādhamaḥ I believe this is a rather celebrated case, and I am grateful to Saroja Bhate for directing my attention to it. 09001052c samāśvāsayata kṣattā vacasā madhureṇa ha See Critical Notes. 09006023a etac chrutvā yathābhūtaṁ kuru mādhava yat kṣamam See Critical Notes. 09016058e saṁnyastakavacā dehair vipatrāyudhajīvitāḥ This line has been reproduced unchanged as it appears in the printed edition; however, it seems likely that vipatrāyudhajīvitāḥ is a typographic error for vipannāyudhajīvitāḥ, the reading found in the Bombay Edition and the manuscript D10. This reading is not recorded by the editor (though he does record other variants beginning with vipannā-). However, manuscript K2 does read vipatrāyudhajīvitāḥ, so I do not feel justified in modifying the printed text. Manuscript information from PAE. 09018062c punar evānvartanta pāṇḍavān ātatāyinaḥ 10001050c ślaukau nyāyam avekṣadbhis tattvārthaṁ tattvadarśibhiḥ 11008039a bhavān karmaparo yatra buddhiśreṣṭhaś ca bhārata It is certain that karmaparo is a typographic error for dharmaparo, as suggested by James L. Fitzgerald (The Mahābhārata translated, vol. 7, Chicago and London, 2004, pp. 666-7). The editor records no variant readings for the word, and yet the Bombay Edition and manuscripts K1, K2 and D3 all have dharmaparo (PAE). 12047006a etaiś cānyair munigaṇar mahābhāgair mahātmabhiḥ 12089018a sthānāny etāni saṁgamya prasaṅge bhūtināśanaḥ This line has been reproduced unchanged as it appears in the printed edition; however, James L. Fitzgerald (The Mahābhārata translated, vol. 7, Chicago and London, 2004, p. 740) suggests that prasaṅge is an error for prasaṅgo. noting that this is the reading of the Citraśālā edition, but that no variants are recorded by the editor. It is also the reading of the Bombay Edition and manuscripts Da1 and Da2; however, manuscript K1 does read prasaṅge, so I do not feel justified in modifying the printed text. Manuscript information from PAE. 12155004c tapasaiva hi sidhyanti tapo mūlaṁ hi sādhanam I am grateful to James L. Fitzgerald for pointing out this error (tapomūlaṁ must be a bahuvrīhi compound meaning “having asceticism for its basis”). 12244011a vyavasāyātmikā buddhir manovyākaraṇātmakam I am grateful to Kirti Sharad Thakar for pointing out this error. 12291043c yo ’haṁ soha ’m iti hy uktvā guṇān anu nivartate 12292027c divasānte guṇān etān abhyetyaikovatiṣṭhati 12309024c r̥tvāsyaḥ samabalaśuklakr̥ṣṇanetro; māṁsāṅgo dravati vayohayo narāṇām It is certain that māṁsāṅgo is a typographic error for māsāṅgo. The editor records no variant readings for the word, and yet the Bombay and Kumbakonam editions and manuscripts K1 and D4 all have māsāṅgo (PAE). I am grateful to James L. Fitzgerald for pointing out this error. 12319002c pādāt prabhr̥tigātreṣu krameṇa kramayogavit I am grateful to James L. Fitzgerald for pointing out this error (prabhr̥ti when governed by the ablative pādāt must be an independent word). 12323057e parāṁ gatim anuprāpta iti naiṣṭhikam ajjasā 12324024c na kṣutpipāse rājendra bhūmeś cchidre bhaviṣyataḥ 12331030a śvetadīpe mayā dr̥ṣṭās tādr̥śāv r̥ṣisattamau 12331035c śvetadīpe tvayā dr̥ṣṭa āvayoḥ prakr̥tiḥ parā I am grateful to James L. Fitzgerald for pointing out this error. 12334014c ekāntināṁ śaraṇado ’bhayado gatido ’stu vaḥ; sa makhabhāgaharas triguṇātigaḥ 12334015a catuṣpañcadharaḥ pūrte;ṣṭayoś ca phalabhāgaharaḥ I am grateful to Kirti Sharad Thakar and Samita Vasant Shinde for correcting what must be an editorial slip in the division of the text into pādas. The critical note says, “Very probably ekāntināṁ is a marginalia for vaḥ and should not be regarded as part of the line”; however, the version adopted in the electronic text is clearly preferable. 12338005a idaṁ puruṣasuktaṁ hi sarvavedeṣu pārthiva 12342008c provāca vacanaṁ ślaṣṇaṁ prājño madhurayā girā 13016013a sa dr̥ṣṭvavān mahādevam astauṣīc ca stavair vibhum 13023006a na brāhmaṇaḥ sādhayate havyaṁ daivāt prasiddhyati 13027098c bhajed vācā manasā karmaṇā ca; bhaktyā yuktaḥ parayā śraddhadhānaḥ 13028022a tataḥ saṁtāpayām āsa bibudhāṁs tapasānvitaḥ 13059005a mriyate yācamāno vai tam anu mriyate dadat This line has been reproduced unchanged as it appears in the printed text; however, it seems likely that the final word should appear as ’dadat. 13061025a pitr̥ṁś ca pitr̥lokasthān devaloke ca devatāḥ 13076007c klaiśair vipraṁ yo ’phalaiḥ saṁyunakti; tasyāvīryāś cāphalāś caiva lokāḥ 13091001c bhr̥gvaṅgarasake kāle muninā katareṇa vā 13101024c pitr̥̄ṇāṁ mānuṣāṇāṁ ca kāntāyās tv anupūrvaśaḥ 13110062a kalahaṁsavinirghoṣair nūpūrāṇāṁ ca nisvanaiḥ 13125022c na bhāti kāle ’bhihitaṁ tenāsi hariṇa kr̥śaḥ 13134027c pravaktr̥̄n pr̥cchate yo ’nyān sa vai nā padam arcchati This line has been reproduced unchanged as it appears in the printed text; however, as the editor’s critical note observes, “nāpadam, that is na āpadam (for nā padam) is certainly more natural”. 14011010a vyāptāsv athāsu vr̥treṇa rase ca viṣaye hr̥te 14017035e tac chrutvā naiṣṭhikīṁ buddhiṁ buddhyethāḥ karmaniścayāt 15005006a yac cāhaṁ pāṇḍuputreṇa guṇavatsu mahātmasu It is certain that pāṇḍuputreṇa is a typographic error for pāṇḍuputreṣu. The editor records no variant readings for the word, and yet the Bombay Edition, P. S. S. Sastri’s edition of the southern recension and manuscripts K3, K4 and D9 all have pāṇḍuputreṣu (PAE). 15033012a iyaṁ ca mātā jyeṣṭhā me vītavātādhvakarśitā It is certain that vītavātādhvakarśitā is a typographic error for śītavātādhvakarśitā. The editor records no variant readings for vīta-, and yet the Bombay Edition, P. S. S. Sastri’s edition of the southern recension and manuscripts K3, K4 and D9 all have śītavātādhvakarśitā (PAE). 15044008a mā sma śoke manaḥ kārṣīr diṣṭena vyathate budhaḥ The sense demands diṣṭe na. 15044039c gamyatāṁ putra maiva tvaṁ vocaḥ kuru vaco mama It is certain that maiva is a typographic error for maivaṁ. The editor records no significant variant readings for the word, and yet the Bombay Edition and manuscripts K3, K4 and D9 all have maivaṁ (PAE). 16004004c te sāgarasyopariṣṭhād avartan; manojavāś caturo vājimukhyāḥ 16008039a tat sāgarasamaprakhyaṁ vr̥ṣṇicakraṁ mahardhimat 16009012a punaḥ punar na mr̥śyāmi vināśam amitaujasām It is certain that mr̥śyāmi is a typographic error for mr̥ṣyāmi. The editor records no significant variant readings for the word, and yet the Bombay Edition and manuscripts K3, K4 and D9 all have mr̥ṣyāmi (PAE). 17001011a mātr̥bhiḥ saha dharmātmā kr̥tvodakam atandritaḥ It is certain that mātr̥bhiḥ is a typographic error for bhrātr̥bhiḥ. The editor records no variant readings for the word, and yet the Bombay Edition and manuscripts K3, K4 and D9 all have bhrātr̥bhiḥ (PAE). 18001016c draupadyāś ca parikleśaṁ na cintayatum arhasi It is certain that cintayatum is a typographic error for cintayitum. The editor records no variant readings for the word, and yet the Bombay Edition and manuscripts K3, K4 and D8 all have cintayitum (PAE).