The Harivaṃśa has usually been seen as a later addition appended to the Mahābhārata, and so the Mahābhārata has usually been understood without it. This article first introduces an alternative approach, whereby these two texts are viewed as a single whole, and justifies that approach on the basis of the details presented in Mbh 1.2. Then the Harivaṃśa’s narrative mechanics are summarized, to contextualize what follows. The main body of the article offers three kinds of answer to the title question (...) of what difference the Harivaṃśa makes to the Mahābhārata. The first answer is theological: the Harivaṃśa emphasizes the divine level of the Mahābhārata story as the story of the gods descending to help the earth. The second answer is narratological: the Harivaṃśa continues and completes the story of Janamejaya begun in Mbh 1, thus emphasizing his role for the text as a whole. The third answer is structural: if the Mahābhārata includes the Harivaṃśa then the whole text can be studied and analyzed as a macrocompositional unit. The “Mahābhārata as a whole” has been the subject of collaborative study in recent years, and this article continues that study, with regard to a fuller whole. The article, unlike that whole, is short, sketchy, and provisional. It looks forward to further and corrective studies in all the sketched areas, and more. (shrink)

Many modern scholars working on the early Upaniṣads translate ādeśa as substitute, substitution, or the method or rule of substitution. The choice of this translation, which often affects the larger analysis of the text, started only in 1960s, with the late Paul Thieme who understood ‘substitute/substitution’ as the meaning of ādeśa in the Pāṇinian tradition and introduced that meaning to Upaniṣadic analysis. After carefully analysing all relevant passages in their contexts—not just the individual sentences in which the term occurs, this (...) paper rejects Thieme’s idea. It shows that the term never violates its etymological meaning of indication, and argues that ādeśa by itself does not mean substitute or replacement even in the Pāṇinian tradition. This paper further shows that ādeśa, usually used in the plural, was once the formal term referring to the class/genre of Vedic teachings now known as Upaniṣads. As it analyses different passages from the early Upaniṣads, this paper touches on the origin and composition of some of the Upaniṣads, for example arguing that the original Upaniṣadic teaching of the archaic Brāhmaṇa of the Vājasaneyas begins eleven sections before the formal beginning of the Bṛhad Āraṇyaka Upaniṣad. (shrink)