Mahabharata: Volume 7 Read Free

Pratijna
9
365
69) Jayadratha-vadha
61
2914
70) Ghatotkacha-vadha
33
1642
71) Drona-vadha
11
692
72) Narayanastra-moksha
8
538
Total = 173
Total = 8069
(8) Karna
73) Karna-vadha
69
3870
(9) Shalya
74) Shalya-vadha
16
844
75) Hrada pravesha
12
664
76) Tirtha yatra
25
1261
77) Gada yuddha
11
546
Total = 64
Total = 3315
(10) Souptika
78) Souptika
9
514
79) Aishika
9
257
Total = 18
Total = 771
(11) Stri
80) Vishoka
8
177
81) Stri
17
468
82) Shraddha
1
44
83) Jala-pradanika
1
24
Total = 27
Total = 713
(12) Shanti
84) Raja-dharma
128
4511
85) Apad-dharma
39
1560
86) Moksha-dharma
186
6935
Total = 353
Total = 13006
(13) Anushasana
87) Dana-dharma
152
6409
88) Bhishma-svargarohana
2
84
Total = 154
Total = 6493
(14) Ashva-medhika
89) Ashvamedha
96
2741
(15) Ashra-mavasika
90) Ashrama-vasa
35
736
91) Putra-darshana
9
234
92) Naradagamana
3
91
Total = 47
Total = 1061
(16) Mousala
93) Mousala
9
273
(17) Mahapra-sthanika
94) Mahaprasthanika
3
106
(18) Svargarohana
95) Svargarohana
5
194
Hari Vamsha
96) Hari-vamsha
45
2442
97) Vishnu
68
3426
98) Bhavishya
5
205
Total = 118
Total = 6073
Grand total = 19
Grand total = 98 (95 + 3)
Grand total = 2113 (1995 + 118)
Grand total = 79,860 (73787 + 6073)
    Thus, interpreted in terms of BORI’S critical edition, the Mahabharata no longer possesses the 100,000 shlokas it is supposed to have. The figure is a little short of 75,000 (73,787 to be precise). Should the Hari Vamsha be included in a translation of the Mahabharata? It doesn’t quite belong. Yet, it is described as a
khila
or supplementto the Mahabharata and BORI includes it as part of the critical edition, though in a separate volume. Hence, I have included the Hari Vamsha in this translation as well. With the Hari Vamsha, the number of shlokas increases to a shade less than 80,000 (79,860 to be precise). However, in some of the regional versions the text of the Mahabharata proper is closer to 85,000 shlokas and with the Hari Vamsha included, one approaches 95,000, though one doesn’t quite touch 100,000.
    Why should there be another translation of the Mahabharata? Surely, it must have been translated innumerable times. Contrary to popular impression, unabridged translations of the Mahabharata in English are extremely rare. One should not confuse abridged translations with unabridged versions. There are only five unabridged translations—by Kisori Mohan Ganguly (1883–96), by Manmatha Nath Dutt (1895–1905), by the University of Chicago and J.A.B. Van Buitenen (1973 onwards), by P. Lal and Writers Workshop (2005 onwards) and the Clay Sanskrit Library edition (2005 onwards). Of these, P. Lal is more a poetic trans-creation than a translation. The Clay Sanskrit Library edition is not based on the critical edition, deliberately so. In the days of Ganguly and Dutt, the critical edition didn’t exist. The language in these two versions is now archaic and there are some shlokas that these two translators decided not to include, believing them to be untranslatable in that day and age. Almost three decades later, the Chicago version is still not complete, and the Clay edition, not being translated in sequence, is still in progress. However, the primary reason for venturing into yet another translation is not just the vacuum that exists, but also reason for dissatisfaction with other attempts. Stated more explicitly, this translation, I believe, is better and more authentic—but I leave it to the reader to be the final judge. (While translating 80,000 shlokas is a hazardous venture, since Ganguly, Dutt and Lal are Bengalis, surely a fourth Bengali must also be pre-eminently qualified to embark on this venture!)
    A few comments on the translation are now in order. First, there is the vexed question of diacritical marks—should they be used or not? Diacritical marks make the translation and pronunciation more accurate, but often put readers off. Sacrificing academic purity, thereis thus a conscious decision to avoid diacritical marks. Second,