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 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@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 tarkasiddhāntayuktaḥśāstrañ 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@list.indology.info
https://list.indology.info/mailman/listinfo/indology