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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]>: >> >>> 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 >>> <[email protected]> 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 [email protected] >>>> https://list.indology.info/mailman/listinfo/indology >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> INDOLOGY mailing list [email protected] >>> https://list.indology.info/mailman/listinfo/indology
_______________________________________________ INDOLOGY mailing list [email protected] https://list.indology.info/mailman/listinfo/indology
