[INDOLOGY] The meaning of "bhāvanādharmaḥ"

Wed Sep 24 08:10:16 UTC 2025

Thank you, David, for inviting my opinion, which, unfortunately, is a
disappointing one.

First, the dialogue between Kāruṇya and Agniveśya is part of the outermost
frame story – there are altogether three frame stories – which is, however,
characteristic of only the "Yogavāsiṣṭha" version, commented on by
Ānandabodhendra Sarasvatī in AD 1710. It is missing from all other strands
of transmission. This is why it is not included in the critical edition of
the Mokṣopāya.

If the Laghukālacakratantra has *kavibhir vyāsavaiśvānarādyaiḥ* and the
commentary explains *vaiśvānarakāvyaṃ = bhāvanādharmaḥ*, we would expect
*ādi* to be explained as *vasiṣṭha* and *vasiṣṭhakāvyam* (or *vāsiṣṭham*)
to be explained as *bhāvanādharmaḥ*, if such a reference was intended.
Which I doubt.

In terms of *bhāvanā*, however, the Mokṣopāya does not lack intriguing
'stories'. In fact, we are concerned with events testified by Vasiṣṭha to
have actually happened, which he uses as *dṛṣṭānta*s to exemplify his
teachings. These events point to what may happen to those who dedicate
themselves a little bit too much to the practice of profound meditation.
This is because whatever appears to be there and whatever appears to happen
are projections and transformations of myriads of temporarily
individualised particles (*cid-āṇu*) of mind-stuff (*cid*, *cid-dhātu*),
which intertwine and permeate one another with their respective
imaginations. Since the *svabhāva* of the mind is being active and
creative, its constant activity gives rise to images which develop their
own uncontrollable dynamics, including new and conscious identities. The
undesired results achieved by those trying to stop this creative process by
yogic mind control are recounted by Vasiṣṭha in a number of sometimes
extremely entertaining accounts. One might call this *bhāvanādharma*, too,
but from Vasiṣṭha's peculiar perspective. More on this in Jürgen Hanneder's
'The Meditating Monk' and Roland Steiner's 'Vasiṣṭha's Prahlāda', recently
published at:
https://www.harrassowitz-verlag.de/25_Years_of_Mok%E1%B9%A3op%C4%81ya_Studies/titel_8454.ahtml
.

As for the title Yoga-Vāsiṣṭha, I recommend restricting its use to the
Advaitavedānta version produced by Sarasvatī monks of Varanasi around the
17th century and printed under this very title - whence it gained momentum.
Referring to the earliest Kashmirian version or other earlier versions by
"Yoga-Vāsiṣṭha" would be anachronistic. On the other hand, Mokṣopāya or
Vāsiṣṭha (the latter without Yoga-) would be historically more appropriate.

I attach a paper on this issue, which, if it fails to get through, can also
be found in the publication referred to above.

Sorry I cannot offer any more on this matter.

Best wishes,

Walter

Am Mi., 24. Sept. 2025 um 06:09 Uhr schrieb David and Nancy Reigle via
INDOLOGY <indology at list.indology.info>:

> 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, Agnive
> śa 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
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20250924/fe6998e6/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 93 How the Yogav?si??ha Got its Name.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 585482 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://list.indology.info/pipermail/indology/attachments/20250924/fe6998e6/attachment.pdf>