[INDOLOGY] The meaning of "bhāvanādharmaḥ"

Fri Sep 26 15:04:08 UTC 2025

Dear Colleagues,
Thank you for all your suggestions, I learned much more, even from outside
of the realm of the Kālacakra, than I expected!  I will have to consider
the points you have raised and come up with a solution for the translation,
which will certainly be better for this discussion!
Paul

On Thu, Sep 25, 2025 at 1:12 AM Matthew Kapstein via INDOLOGY <
indology at list.indology.info> wrote:

> 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 *Yogav*
> *āsiṣṭha*. Since there is no evidence for any *Vāsiṣṭha* having the Agnive
> śya 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
>>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20250926/4cc07944/attachment.htm>