[INDOLOGY] The meaning of "bhāvanādharmaḥ"

[David and Nancy Reigle]

The identification of the text or genre of texts of course closely relates
to the identification of the writer. The Shong ston and Jo nang Tibetan
translations of Vaiśvānara as simply *me*, "fire," yield Agni, as you have
indicated, Paul. The Gyijo/rMa Tibetan translation just transliterates
Vaiśvānara rather than translates it. The Rwa Tibetan translation takes
Vaiśvānara as *me bzhin 'jug*. This word is found in the *Mahāvyutpatti* as
Agniveśa. Bu ston's annotation to *me* as found in the *Vimalaprabhā* is *me
bzhin 'jug gi bu*, "son of Agniveśa," while Jo nang Phyog las rNam rgyal's
annotation to *me* as found in the *Vimalaprabhā* is just *bzhin 'jug gi bu*.
It seems, then, that there was confusion about this among the Tibetans.
Since Agniveśa is the son of Agni in Hindu mythology, Agniveśa should be
the son of Vaiśvānara. Agniveśa should not be the same as Vaiśvānara, as
Rwa has it. Nor should Vaiśvānara be the son of Agniveśa, as Bu ston and Jo
nang Phyogs las rNam rgyal have it. Unless . . . .

Unless Vaiśvānara refers to a specific writer or speaker different from the
mythological Agni. At this point in the *Vimalaprabhā* commentary on this
verse, the author has moved past *ś**ruti* and *sm**ṛ**ti* texts, and gone
on to texts written by *kavi*-s. He gives the examples of the *Mah**ābhā*
*rata*, the *R**āmāyaṇ**a*, and the *M**ārkaṇḍeya Purāṇ**a*. This makes the
Upaniṣads per se less likely. We would expect a large text that features
meditation and is also poetic. It so happens that the *Yogav**āsiṣṭha* is
such a text, and it opens and closes with stories about and by Agniveśya.
This book consists of stories within stories, so that the main story proper
could be considered a story within the opening story told by Agniveśya to
his son Kāruṇya. Walter Slaje has extensively studied this text and its
more original version, the *Mok**ṣ**opaya* (which lacks the Agniveśya
stories, as was found by Walter). He would be in a position to say more
about whether the *Yogav**āsiṣṭha* could be the *bh**āvanā**-dharma*
referred to in the *Vimalaprabhā* Kālacakra commentary.

Best regards,

David Reigle
Colorado, U.S.A.

On Tue, Sep 23, 2025 at 1:03 AM Paul Thomas via INDOLOGY <
indology at list.indology.info> wrote:

> Hello Colleagues,
>
> I'm currently working on a translation of the *Vimalaprabhā *for the
> 84000 translation project. The *Vimalaprabhā* is the most extensive
> Indian commentary on the Buddhist *Laghukālacakratantra*, composed in the
> earlier part of the eleventh century.
>
> There, I’ve come across the title of a text, or, more likely, a term for a
> genre of texts that was current in medieval India at the time that the
> *Vimalaprabhā* was composed.  The term comes in the commentary on
> *Laghukālacakratantra* 2.96 that lists out false sources of knowledge (
> *vidyā*), listing the Vedas with their ancillaries, the Smārta doctrines,
> logic (Pramāṇa), the Śaiva Siddhānta, and the works (*śāstram*) composed
> by Vyāsa (the *Mahābhārata*) and Vaiśvānara.  It is the last on this
> list, the work(s) composed by Vaiśvānara that I can’t identify:
>
> *Laghukālacakratantra* 2.96ab:
>
> *vedaḥ sāṅgo na vidyā smṛtimatasahitas tarkasiddhāntayuktaḥ**śāstrañ
> cānyad dhi loke kṛtam api kavibhir vyāsavaiśvānarādyaiḥ* |
>
> The commentary defines the works of Vaiśvānara, who, as I understand it,
> is the god Agni, as the *bhāvanādharmaḥ*, using a construction parallel
> to that used to describe the “teachings of the Purāṇas,” composed by
> Mārtaṇḍeya (*mārtaṇḍeyakāvyaṃ* *purāṇadharmādayaḥ*). Therefore I think
> *bhāvanādharmaḥ* here is not a title strictly speaking, but rather should
> be interpreted to mean “the teachings of *bhāvanā,*” whatever that may
> mean:
>
> *Vimalaprabhā* v. 1, p. 221:
> *evaṃ śāstraṃ cānyad dhi loke kṛtam api kavibhir vyāsavaiśvānarādyair iti
> vyāsakāvyaṃ bhārataṃ vaiśvānarakāvyaṃ bhāvanādharmaḥ | ādiśabdena
> vālmīkikāvyaṃ rāmāyaṇaṃ mārkaṇḍeyakāvyaṃ purāṇadharmādayaḥ saṃgṛhītāḥ kṛtaṃ
> kavibhir ebhir na vidyā* |.
>
> Some sources say that Vaiśvānara composed some of the hymns of the Ṛgveda,
> but this doesn’t seem to be what is referred to here.  The Tibetan
> translations are of no help, simply translating *bsgom pa’i chos* if I
> recall, and neither does the Tibetan scholar mKhas grub rje (1385–1438) identify
> what this is.
> Any ideas?
>
> _______________________________________________
> INDOLOGY mailing list
> INDOLOGY at list.indology.info
> https://list.indology.info/mailman/listinfo/indology
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://list.indology.info/pipermail/indology/attachments/20250923/792e8b42/attachment.htm>