[INDOLOGY] The meaning of "bhāvanādharmaḥ"

Wed Sep 24 19:25:20 UTC 2025

It is of course possible that Vaiśvānara is not appropriately connected to Agni here,
but that the Tibetan translators simply plugged in the "official" translation - Tib. me, which also renders Skt. agni - because this is what was entered into the Mahāvyutpattii (no. 3160 in Sakaki's edition). This may not correctly reflect the meaning here of the KCT or its commentary.

Matthew

Matthew T. Kapstein
Professor emeritus
Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes, PSL Research University, Paris

Associate
The University of Chicago Divinity School

Member, American Academy of Arts and Sciences

https://ephe.academia.edu/MatthewKapstein

https://vajrabookshop.com/product/the-life-and-work-of-auleshi/

https://www.cornellpress.cornell.edu/book/9781501716218/tibetan-manuscripts-and-early-printed-books-volume-i/#bookTabs=1

https://www.cornellpress.cornell.edu/book/9781501771255/tibetan-manuscripts-and-early-printed-books-volume-ii/#bookTabs=1

https://brill.com/edcollbook/title/60949

Sent with [Proton Mail](https://proton.me/mail/home) secure email.

On Wednesday, September 24th, 2025 at 9:11 PM, David and Nancy Reigle via INDOLOGY <indology at list.indology.info> wrote:

> Thank you very much, Walter, for your expert views on this question. Yes, I should have referred to the Vāsiṣṭha rather than to the Yogavāsiṣṭha. 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 bhāvanā-dharma referred to in the Vimalaprabhā is invalidated. This, in turn, makes it unlikely that the bhāvanā-dharma is the Vāsiṣṭha or Mokṣopāya 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 Mokṣopāya, and how it may or may not relate to any idea of bhāvanā. 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 dṛṣṭāntas 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 Vaiśvānararather 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 śruti and smṛti texts, and gone on to texts written by kavi-s. He gives the examples of the Mahābhārata, the Rāmāyaṇa, and the Mārkaṇḍeya Purāṇa. 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 Yogavāsiṣṭha 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 Mokṣopaya (which lacks the Agniveśya stories, as was found by Walter). He would be in a position to say more about whether the Yogavāsiṣṭha could be the bhāvanā-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 (mārtaṇḍeyakāvyaṃpurāṇadharmādayaḥ). 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/20250924/721fd28c/attachment.htm>