Why the Shift?? - Page 10

That was transalation by kmg calling saying as abhimanyu vadh ghatoch kach vadh and it is not necessary every transalation word has to be correct

I am talking about original language . In original language ved vyas never say abhimanyu vadh

The chapter names are original: only the verses are translated. Words like abhishek, parva, vadh,... are not English words, yet the book has volumes like Sabha Parva, Van Parva,...

Those title names were not translated to English. Maybe they could have been, maybe they should have been, but they weren't

And it is not necessary vadh has to use to use in only in battle

In shishupal vadh there was no battle but still it is called shishupal vadh

In bhasmasur vadh there was no battle as mohini as incarnation of Lord vishnu told to bhasmasur to dance according to me and when Lord vishnu kept his hand over head so bhasmasur and when bhasmasur keep his hand on his hand he turns into ashes as he got boon from Lord shiv that if bhasmasur will place hand on any head that person will turn in to ashes

Yeah, I've already said that: vadh is used either in battle or in case of an execution

Sishupala vadh was an execution.

Originally posted by: NoraSM

Provinces under British India

That was a struggle for full-blown independence. Autonomy is the wrong term to use there

Autonomy means a limited form of self government - like the Gorkhaland council in Left Bengal. Or what some union territories have. Essentially, it allows the government in question to manage all local issues - fixing roads and potholes, collecting the garbage, issuing permits, etc while leaving anything that has a scope of exceeding that entity's boundaries w/ the overlord power.

No in vedyas orginal text there was no mention of any vadg chapter name abhimanyu vadh or keechak vadh or jarsandandh vadh or shishupal vadh

In fact there is no chapter name in vedvyas samskrit text

And even there no name of any parv in ved vyas original text

Only book number and under each book number only chapter number is given in ved yas sanskrit text

U can check this on mahabharat archieve mansion

Considering the fact Vaishampayana narrates the names of the parvas in the beginning, any claim that there was none has to be backed up by research showing that part is interpolation.

The earliest discovered written version, the Spitzer Manuscript, definitely has parvas, albeit named differently. And yes, the manuscript is in Sanskrit.

If you have access to anything older, I'm sure the scientific community will want to hear.

I am not talking about manu script. I am talking about ved vyas mahabharat in sanskrit

In ved vyas mahabharat sanskrit there is no certainly no name of parv and no chapter

Link of ved vyas mahabharat text

https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/mbs/index.htm

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

Considering the fact Vaishampayana narrates the names of the parvas in the beginning, any claim that there was none has to be backed up by research showing that part is interpolation.

The earliest discovered written version, the Spitzer Manuscript, definitely has parvas, albeit named differently. And yes, the manuscript is in Sanskrit.

If you have access to anything older, I'm sure the scientific community will want to hear.

Those manuscripts are the earliest we have for Mahabharata. The links that we have has been taken from there itself. On any day the earliest manuscripts are more reliable

Like we don't say birbal chalak they. We say birbal chatur they

Using chalak word for birbal will make negative sense about birbal character

And using chatur word for birbal will make positive sense about birbal character