The aṃśāvataraṇa Intervention: from the Ādiparvan to Kṣemendra

The Mahābhārata's Ādiparvan description of the descent of the portions of the gods (aṃśāvataraṇa, MBh 1.58-61) provides a double rationale for the divine intervention which eventually culminates in the great Bhārata war: the earth has become overburdened due to the longevity of her virtuous inhabitants, and she has moreover become afflicted by demonic kings. While Kṛṣṇa, the earthly form of Nārāyaṇa, is among the many gods taking birth in this account, little attention is paid to him in particular and the intervention is framed as a corporate divine undertaking directed by Brahmā. This aṃśāvataraṇa episode is retold in the Harivaṃśa — the Mahābhārata's khila or appendix — as a prelude to its account of the life of Kṛṣṇa, which serves as a supplement to the epic narrative. The Harivaṃśa rendering of the descent episode occurs chiefly at HV 40-45, but it expands significantly upon the epic's plan of and rationale for divine intervention, amplifying Viṣṇu's role in the affair with a back-story elaborated across the preceding ten chapters as well, yielding a significantly larger block of material (HV 30-45). This section of the Harivaṃśa has been seldom studied as a unit in relation to the Mahābhārata, yet constitutes one of the most important developments in the early formation of the avatāra system: HV 40-45, and the larger block of HV 30-45 as a whole, effectively comments on and refashions MBh 1.58-61 in such a way as to construe the general avataraṇa of all the gods, and purpose thereof, in the terms of Viṣṇu's prior prādurbhāvas or manifestations such as the boar, man-lion and perhaps most significantly as Rāma Jāmadagnya. The first task of this paper is thus to underscore just how and why the Harivaṃśa modifies and amplifies the Mahābhārata aṃśāvataraṇa. As such, my initial examination involves a return to the oft-posed question: to what extent should we conceive of the Mahābhārata itself as a "Vaiṣṇava" text? My concern in this paper, however, extends beyond the immediate Mahābhārata-Harivaṃśa context to a number of sources which provide important examples of the reception and refining of the aṃśāvataraṇa intervention. Some of these have been treated briefly already by Paul Hacker (e.g. the Rāmopākhyāna within the Mahābhārata, MBh 3.258-260 and Brahma Purāṇa 180-181). My chief focus, however, will be the Bhāratamañjarī of the Kashmiri poet Kṣemendra (ca. 11th century), who as a poet seeking to retell in synoptic form both the Mahābhārata and Harivaṃśa in a kāvya mode, provides a very different kind of reception of this important motif. Particularly as his sources closely match our critical edition (Bhandarkar) Mahābhārata and Harivaṃśa, Kṣemendra's handling and retelling of the original Ādiparvan and Harivaṃśa 30-45 materials may help to attest the impact of the Harivaṃśa on the popular reception and understanding of the epic story itself. In other words, I will ask here: to what extent is Kṣemendra's understanding of the Mahābhārata, and its descent myth in particular, shaped by the Harivaṃśa?