[INDOLOGY] The meaning of "bhāvanādharmaḥ"

[David and Nancy Reigle]

Thank you very much, Walter, for your expert views on this question. Yes, I
should have referred to the *Vāsiṣṭha* rather than to the *Yogav**āsiṣṭha*.
Since there is no evidence for any *Vāsiṣṭha* having the Agniveśya stories
in existence at the time the Kālacakra texts were written, that possible
link to the *bh**āvanā**-dharma* referred to in the *Vimalaprabhā* is
invalidated. This, in turn, makes it unlikely that the *bh**āvanā**-dharma* is
the *Vāsiṣṭha* or *Mok**ṣ**op**ā**ya* in any form. Your valuable input has
made it possible to reject this hypothetical connection. Unless some text
attributed to or associated with Agniveśya or Agniveśa comes to light, the
identification of Vaiśvānara here remains a mystery.

Thank you also for your clear presentation of the philosophical position of
the *Mok**ṣ**op**ā**ya*, and how it may or may not relate to any idea of
*bh**āvanā*. This is very helpful to know, not only in this context, but
also for other contexts.

Your attached paper, "How the Yogavāsiṣṭha Got its Name," came through to
me fine, and is much appreciated. It shows clearly why we should not refer
to any such text prior to the 17th century as the *Yogavāsiṣṭha*.

Best regards,

David Reigle
Colorado, U.S.A.

On Wed, Sep 24, 2025 at 2:10 AM Walter Slaje <walter.slaje at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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, 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
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/cbb2972f/attachment.htm>