The Mahabharata of Krishna-Dwaipayana Vyasa Translated into English Prose From the Original Sanskrit Text (Set of 14 Volumes)

Email

Whatsapp

Facebook

Pinterest

Twitter

Copy link

The Mahabharata is regarded as the fifth Veda since it presents the strong Dharma of the Veda only. A perfect study of the epics and the purana texts is mandatory for an impeccable understanding of the Veda. The Veda is scared of such person who is untrained in the epics and puranas yet attempts to explain or interpret the meaning of the Veda. Therefore, the study of the Mahabharata has been considered as very essential for a clear understanding of our ancient culture and civilization.

In the context of world civilization, the Mahābhārata, according to W. J. Johnson, is as important as the Bible and the Quran. It is an akhyana, as it is found in the text itself (1.2.235, 236, 238 etc.). Anandavardhana, of the 9 century AC, discussed and established that the sentiment of this epic is Shanta (tranquility).

The copper-plate inscription of the Maharaja Sharvanatha (533-534 CE) from Khoh (Satna District, Madhya Pradesh) describes the Mahābhārata as a "collection of 100,000 verses" (śata-sahasri samhitä).

According to the Hindu tradition, it was Jaya samhita of about 8800 verses that transformed into Bharata of 24,000 verses that ultimately settled as Mahabharata of one lakh verses. Thus the Mahabharata reached to a stage gradually as described below:

1. The version of Sage Vyasa, the original author, 2. A revised recension in the form of the Bharata text by Vaisampayana giving it the extent of 23,282 verses reaching to the round figure of 24,000; 3. The Mahabharata version, of not one lakh verses and not even 78,675, but less than that; and, 4. The Mbh. version comprising several additions including the Harivamsa as its Khila parvan, which is purely a puranic text.

Nilakantha Caturdhara (A Brahmin scholar of Mahārāştra of the 17-18th centuries), who wrote a magnanimous commentary called Bhāratabhāvadīpa on the Mahabharata, may be regarded as the first scholar who had taken up the herculean task of considering a critical edition of the Mahabharata for the first time.

The object of a translator should ever be to hold the mirror upto his author. That being so, his chief duty is to represent so far as practicable the manner in which his author's ideas have been expressed, retaining if possible at the sacrifice of idiom and taste all the peculiarities of his author's imagery and of language as well. In regard to translations from the Sanskrit, nothing is easier than to dish up Hindu ideas, so as to make them agreeable to English taste. But the endeavour of the present translator has been to give in the following pages as literal a rendering as possible of the great work of Vyasa. To the purely English reader there is much in the following pages that will strike as ridiculous. Those unacquainted with any language but their own are generally very exclusive in matters of taste. Having no knowledge of models other than what they meet with in their own tongue, the standard they have formed of purity and taste in composition must necessarily be a narrow one. The translator, however, would ill-discharge his duty, if for the sake of avoiding ridicule, he sacrificed fidelity to the original. He must represent his author as he is, not as he should be to please the narrow taste of those entirely unacquainted with him. Mr. Pickford, in the preface to his English translation of the Mahavira Charita, ably defends a close adherence to the original even at the sacrifice of idiom and taste against the claims of what has been called 'Free Translation,' which means dressing the author in an outlandish garb to please those to whom he is introduced.

In the preface to his classical translation of Bhartrihari's Niti Satakam and Vairagya Satakam, Mr. C.H. Tawney says, "I am sensible that in the present attempt I have retained much local colouring. For instance, the ideas of worshipping the feet of a god of great men, though it frequently occurs in Indian literature, will undoubtedly move the laughter of Englishmen unacquainted with Sanskrit, especially if they happen to belong to that class of readers who revel their attention on the accidental and remain blind to the essential. Buta certain measure of fidelity to the original even at the risk of making oneself ridiculous, is better than the studied dishonesty which characterises so many translations of oriental poets."

We fully subscribe to the above although, it must be observed, the censure conveyed to the class of translators last indicated is rather undeserved, there being nothing like a 'studied dishonesty' in their efforts which proceed only from a mistaken view of their duties and as such betray only an error of the head but not of the heart.

**Contents and Sample Pages**