dharmapala vs yidam?

[fckw]

Can anyone knowledgeable explain me what the difference is between a dharmapala and a (don't know how to call it correctly: "full blown") yidam like, let's say, dorje drollo or hevajra? What's the qualitative difference, in other words why is it generally hold that one should not start a practice with the former if not already very advanced with the latter? I know that some dharmapalas are said to be not completely enlightened. With these, I understand that this could be potentially misleading at very subtle levels of mind. And there seem to be very worldly protectors or even demons. Yet other protectors are said to be completely enlightened. So, what would be the qualitative difference then to a yidam?

[Ayu]

I picked this question out of this thread: http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=77&t=10826
Nobody answered it there, while the thread went off-topic.

[conebeckham]

I posted a bit of an answer-but can't seem to cut and paste on my iPad at the moment.

[conebeckham]

Yidam is the root of accomplishment. Dharmapalas are the activity root. Mahakalas, for example, can be either, though normally one takes another "yidam" deity first, and accomplishes that--taking a wisdom protector as Lama, or Yidam, comes later in most cases. This is because the dharmapalas are primarily associated with performing activity, and such focus is not engaged in prior to "accomplishment."

(Cut and pasted from the old thread....)

[Malcolm]

Can anyone knowledgeable explain me what the difference is between a dharmapala and a (don't know how to call it correctly: "full blown") yidam like, let's say, dorje drollo or hevajra? What's the qualitative difference, in other words why is it generally hold that one should not start a practice with the former if not already very advanced with the latter? I know that some dharmapalas are said to be not completely enlightened. With these, I understand that this could be potentially misleading at very subtle levels of mind. And there seem to be very worldly protectors or even demons. Yet other protectors are said to be completely enlightened. So, what would be the qualitative difference then to a yidam?

A dharmapāla is generally a bodhisattva in a wrathful, and usually non-human form, who has taken an oath to protect the Dharma.

A yidam on the other hand is a method of practicing the path based on a sambhogakāya manifestation of a buddha.

Some dharmapālas, such as Mahākāla also double as yidams, that is, they can be practiced as both depending on context and need.

Wisdom dharmapālas are considered dharmapālas who are on the pure bodhisattva stages. Worldly dharmapālās are those who are not on the bodhisattva stages at all. The latter are generally powerful beings of the preta class who have been bound to the Dharma as losers in a conflict with a mahāsiddha such as Padmasambhāva. They frequently need to be reminded of their vows.

[conebeckham]

Can anyone knowledgeable explain me what the difference is between a dharmapala and a (don't know how to call it correctly: "full blown") yidam like, let's say, dorje drollo or hevajra? What's the qualitative difference, in other words why is it generally hold that one should not start a practice with the former if not already very advanced with the latter? I know that some dharmapalas are said to be not completely enlightened. With these, I understand that this could be potentially misleading at very subtle levels of mind. And there seem to be very worldly protectors or even demons. Yet other protectors are said to be completely enlightened. So, what would be the qualitative difference then to a yidam?

A dharmapāla is generally a bodhisattva in a wrathful, and usually non-human form, who has taken an oath to protect the Dharma.

A yidam on the other hand is a method of practicing the path based on a sambhogakāya manifestation of a buddha.

Some dharmapālas, such as Mahākāla also double as yidams, that is, they can be practiced as both depending on context and need.

Wisdom dharmapālas are considered dharmapālas who are on the pure bodhisattva stages. Worldly dharmapālās are those who are not on the bodhisattva stages at all. The latter are generally powerful beings of the preta class who have been bound to the Dharma as losers in a conflict with a mahāsiddha such as Padmasambhāva. They frequently need to be reminded of their vows.

Correct me if I'm wrong...but some Wisdom Dharmapalas are considered completely enlightened, i.e., Buddhas. These are often "reflex" emanations of yidams like Samvara, Kalacakra, etc.

[Malcolm]

Can anyone knowledgeable explain me what the difference is between a dharmapala and a (don't know how to call it correctly: "full blown") yidam like, let's say, dorje drollo or hevajra? What's the qualitative difference, in other words why is it generally hold that one should not start a practice with the former if not already very advanced with the latter? I know that some dharmapalas are said to be not completely enlightened. With these, I understand that this could be potentially misleading at very subtle levels of mind. And there seem to be very worldly protectors or even demons. Yet other protectors are said to be completely enlightened. So, what would be the qualitative difference then to a yidam?

A dharmapāla is generally a bodhisattva in a wrathful, and usually non-human form, who has taken an oath to protect the Dharma.

A yidam on the other hand is a method of practicing the path based on a sambhogakāya manifestation of a buddha.

Some dharmapālas, such as Mahākāla also double as yidams, that is, they can be practiced as both depending on context and need.

Wisdom dharmapālas are considered dharmapālas who are on the pure bodhisattva stages. Worldly dharmapālās are those who are not on the bodhisattva stages at all. The latter are generally powerful beings of the preta class who have been bound to the Dharma as losers in a conflict with a mahāsiddha such as Padmasambhāva. They frequently need to be reminded of their vows.

Correct me if I'm wrong...but some Wisdom Dharmapalas are considered completely enlightened, i.e., Buddhas. These are often "reflex" emanations of yidams like Samvara, Kalacakra, etc.

Yes, Mahākala is one such.

[fckw]

So, in general it should be safe to practice with a dharmapala as a yidam that is considered fully enlightened (like Mahakala), a little less safe with those that are considered "only" high boddhisattvas und potentially unsafe with those that are not enlightened at all, right?

[conebeckham]

So, in general it should be safe to practice with a dharmapala as a yidam that is considered fully enlightened (like Mahakala), a little less safe with those that are considered "only" high boddhisattvas und potentially unsafe with those that are not enlightened at all, right?

At least in my tradition (So-called "Dak-Shang Kagyu") it is not the case that one practices Mahakala as a yidam until one receives the special empowerments and permissions. In general, one self-generates as an appropriate yidam, and the "In front" generation of the protector occurs from within that framework.

In Nyingma, as I understand things, it's often Phurba that is the self-generation, and the Dharmapalas are subsequently generated in front.....sometimes Tamdrin is the self-generation, as an alternative. In Geluk lineage it's usually Vajrabhairava as self-generation.

Again, the reason one doesn't take Mahakala, for instance, as a yidam initially is because "Activity" can only be performed on the basis of "accomplishment."

[fckw]

Again, the reason one doesn't take Mahakala, for instance, as a yidam initially is because "Activity" can only be performed on the basis of "accomplishment."

Yeah, this makes sense. I guess my question arose because the boundaries between activity and accomplishment are a little blurry. Look at a yidam like hevajra or dorje drollo for example or Vajrakilaya. But if we interpret activity as the fruit of the practice and accomplishment as the path, then the yidam's activity is simply the spontaneous result of dedicated practice.