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