The written accounts. The oral accounts?
Yes, I know this is speculative.
The written accounts. The oral accounts?
To add to this, I am not sure if Dowman's book mentions this, but the context of the history composed by Abhayadatta, as described in the empowerment text and the commentary on the vajra songs (vajraḡiti), is that these 84 mahāsiddha gathered together for a grand ganacakra and the songs described therein are their realization declarations uttered during the feast.
Is Achi Chokyi Drolma yidam practice taught in a tantra? Or, for that matter, our Gomadevi?
Gomadevi, like Mandarava and Yeshe Tsogyal, is a realized historical personage. In her case, she is a realized Dzogchen master who attained the highest realization. Therefore, there can be no questioning the validity of her practice, especially given her association with Guhyajñāna.treehuggingoctopus wrote: ↑Sat Jan 19, 2019 11:23 pmIs Achi Chokyi Drolma yidam practice taught in a tantra? Or, for that matter, our Gomadevi?
How does this work? Do you mean that if one has any HYT initiation, one can do self-generation on kriya tantra practices?Malcolm wrote: ↑Sat Jan 19, 2019 11:48 pm There is no tantra, per se, that recommends Śakyamuni Buddha as a yidam or Bhaisajyaguru as a Yidam, but indeed, we have kriya tantra practices of these figures, which can be practiced as self-generations by those who have received HYT initiations. The procedures for this are very clearly explained in the tantras.
Well... Buddhas are deathless and Bodhisattvas live immeasurable lives over countless kalpa so I cannot see how a bunch of Mahasiddhas ignoring the constraints of time and space to get together for a ganachakra could be a problem. Unless you are saying that Abhayadatta was lying?Malcolm wrote: ↑Sat Jan 19, 2019 7:13 pmTo add to this, I am not sure if Dowman's book mentions this, but the context of the history composed by Abhayadatta, as described in the empowerment text and the commentary on the vajra songs (vajraḡiti), is that these 84 mahāsiddha gathered together for a grand ganacakra and the songs described therein are their realization declarations uttered during the feast.
Thanks. LOTR, the teacher some of us have received the two "controversial" yidam practices from (and, correct me if I am wrong, the elephant in the room here), also clarified in detail the relation of the practices to the canon. I am no specialist, naturally, but I found the extended explanation I received to be as persuasive as your account above -- so persuasive indeed that I had, and still have, no doubt that they were fully legit *Buddhist* [Vajrayana, Mahayana] practices.Malcolm wrote: ↑Sat Jan 19, 2019 11:48 pmGomadevi, like Mandarava and Yeshe Tsogyal, is a realized historical personage. In her case, she is a realized Dzogchen master who attained the highest realization. Therefore, there can be no questioning the validity of her practice, especially given her association with Guhyajñāna.treehuggingoctopus wrote: ↑Sat Jan 19, 2019 11:23 pmIs Achi Chokyi Drolma yidam practice taught in a tantra? Or, for that matter, our Gomadevi?
Achi Chokyi Drolma, Sakya Pandita, Lonchenpa, Marpa, Mila, Gampopa, Karma Pakshi, etc. are realized historical personages, they all have guru sadhanas, etc.. There is no tantra, per se, that recommends Śakyamuni Buddha as a yidam or Bhaisajyaguru as a Yidam, but indeed, we have kriya tantra practices of these figures, which can be practiced as self-generations by those who have received HYT initiations. The procedures for this are very clearly explained in the tantras.
For all of these practices, precedent can be found in the tantras for the elaboration of their practices. For those practices like Krodhakālī, one, she is a form of Vajravārāhi, whose practice is fully explained in mother tantras; 2) her sadhana was received from a ḍākinī in Oddiyāna by Mahāsiddha Virupa and transmitted to Tibet by Padampa Sangye, and so on.
But there are no practices involving mundane protectors like Indra, Vaiśravana, and so on, as yidams. And we know what HH Dalai Lama says about relying on mundane protectors as enlightened. He could not have been more clear.
Converting the: Goddess Cults and Tantras of the Yoginis between Buddhism and Saivism
Introduction
The corpus of Mahāyāna scripture known as Yoginītantras (“Tantras of the Yoginīs”) or
Yoganiruttaratantras (“Highest Yoga Tantras”), according to some classification
schemas,2 represents the last major wave of Buddhist literary production in India, along
with its exegetical traditions. The pantheons and practices of the Yoginītantras assumed
considerable prominence in the latter centuries of Indian Buddhism, and characterize the
religion as it took root in Tibet. Some texts of this corpus, as Alexis Sanderson has
delineated in a pioneering, if somewhat controversial series of articles (1994, 2001,
2009), also have remarkable parallels in another body of tantric literature: scriptures of
the vidyāpīṭha division of the Śaiva tantras. Much as texts of the vidyāpīṭha (“Wisdom
Mantra Corpus”) mark a shift from the pacific deity Sadāśiva to the skull-bearing
Bhairava and his wild female companions, maṇḍalas of the Buddhist Yoginītantras (and
some precursors) center not upon Mahāvairocana, the radiant supreme Buddha of the
Yogatantras, but upon divinities of the vajra clan (kula) presided over by the Buddha
Akṣobhya. Their iconography is frequently mortuary (kāpālika), while their maṇḍalas
exhibit increasing emphasis on goddesses, including consorts of the Buddhas. It is within
the scriptures and practice systems centered upon divinities of Akṣobhya’s clan, especially
erotic, kāpālika deities such as Cakrasaṃvara and Hevajra, that the goddesses known
as yoginīs or ḍākinīs rise into prominence, parallel to the cult of yoginīs evidenced in
Śaiva tantras of the vidyāpīṭha.
Sanderson’s contention that the Yoginītantra corpse drew heavily upon Śaiva models
has generated fresh debate on the nature of Buddhist–Hindu interaction in early medieval
India. Undoubtedly some of the most fascinating historiographic issues surrounding
Indian tantric traditions lie in the dynamics of this interaction, and the formation of
parallel ritual systems across sectarian boundaries focused, to a surprising degree, upon
the figure of the yoginī. For while there is much that is similar in older forms of Tantric
Śaivism and Buddhism, it is with the cult of yoginīs represented by the Śaiva vidyāpīṭha
and Buddhist Yoginītantras that parallels in ritual, text, and iconography reach their most
remarkable levels. Assessment of the enormous body of comparative evidence and its
interpretation in light of the social and historical contexts of early medieval India shall
require sustained scholarly engagement, admirably begun in the works of Sanderson
(1994, 2001, 2009), Davidson (2002), and others (Sferra 2003; Gray 2007, 7–11; Ruegg
2008). Recent scholarship (Davidson 2002; Sanderson 2009) has extended the earlier
focus on systemic influences and textual appropriation (cf. Sanderson 1994, 2001) to
historical processes and contexts, thereby navigating some of the problems inherent to
historiography focused upon origins and influences. For while such analysis seems in
some measure integral to historical inquiry, the attendant problems are considerable:
excessive focus on the sources and influences involved in complex cultural phenomena
risks obscuring both the actual phenomena and the agency of the historical persons
involved. Such analysis may also inadvertently depend upon essentialist constructions of
religion (e.g. ‘Original Buddhism’ and ‘syncretism’). Particularly vexing is the problem
of implicitly positioning what is under scrutiny in a hierarchy of authenticity. As Carl
Ernst (2005, 15) poses the problem, “once influence has been established, it is felt, one
has said something of immense significance; the phenomenon has been explained—or
rather, explained away... ‘Sources’ are ‘original’ while those ‘influenced’ by them are
‘derivative’.” With this predicament in mind, I should like to clarify from the beginning
that while this essay seeks to highlight ways in which certain Vajrayāna Buddhists may
have creatively adapted aspects of a competing tradition—one itself having remarkably
hybrid roots, including a long history of exchange with Buddhism—I certainly do not
intend to contribute to a perception of Buddhist Yoginītantra traditions as ‘derivative’,
but rather to explore some of the ways in which they are historically situated.