Dharma Wheel

Adamantine wrote:Hi, wondering if anyone is familiar with the cross-pollinating deities of Nepal, and specifically with the various statues and shrines devoted to Bhairava and how / if they fit into the context of tantric Buddhism. I wonder because I find some of the statues beautiful and powerful, but I am not familiar with the link.. some appear almost identical to the protector Mahakala... but unlike Siva I have not heard that Bhairvava specifically corresponds to a Nyingma protector ---->although Bhairava is supposedly another manifestation of Siva -- so would I then consider Bhairava as Mahadeva?

I know that this deity was particularly important to Newars, but I also understand Newars are primarily Buddhist. . . if anyone has any in-depth insight I'd love to hear it.

Namdrol wrote:Hindu Bhairava = Mahākala

Karinos wrote:

Namdrol wrote:Hindu Bhairava = Mahākala

Mahakala and Bhairava are not the same.

Namdrol wrote: I know that Bhairava and Mahākala are not the same.

However, Bhairava shrines in Nepal are considered Mahākala shrines by Tibetans.

It is the same principle with Vajrayogini statures being considered to be emanations of Kali.

N

Outwardly, it is the blissful play of Shiva and Umadevi. Inwardly, it is the palace of Chakrasamvara. Secretly, it is the celestial mansion of the deities of immortal life. And most secretly it is the Pureland of Great Bliss, the absolute realm of Akanishta..

For Newar Buddhists, Pashupati is the bodhisattva Avalokiteshvara. Both Avalokiteshvara and Shiva are known as Lokeshvara, Lord of the World, and this identity in Tantric consciousness is easy to sustain. But Newar Buddhists believe that the original form of Pashupati is a Buddhist deity. While this belief may relate to an atemporal metaphysical reality, it may also have historical roots. Buddhist priests had rights at Pashupati into the 16th century, and still, once a year, Buddhists place a Bodhisattva crown upon the Pashupati lingam and worship it as Avalokiteshvara or as the 5 Buddhas. In recent centuries.....Tibetan pilgrims have found no easy access to the inner shrine of Pashupati. However, it has been a major destination in their guides ever since they began pilgrimage to Nepal. They know Pashupati well, from their Tantric texts on sacred geography, as an Upachandoha power place, counted among the 24 pithasthanas of the principle mandala of sacred Tantric sites of the subcontinent. The primordial symbols of father and mother principles of Tantric metaphysics are recognized as Shamvara and Nairatmya and also as other Tantric deities and their yogini consorts.
However, the lingam of Pashupatinath is also recognized as a representation of Mahadeva Ishvara, and Pashupatinath is known as the power place of Lhachen Wongchuk. Mahadeva is an important protector of the buddhadharma in the Red Hat school's mandala. As one of the four major protectors of the Sakya school, he is frequently painted on the rear walls of Sakya gompas, and as a Nyingma protector he is depicted standing naked with his consort Uma, or Parvati, his phallus erect as in Yogeshvara, Lord of Yoga.
The Tibetan's recall the legend of the siddha Jalandharipa (Gorakhnath's Guru), who with his psychic energy burst the Pashupati lingam apart. It is said that long ago the siddha's curse destroyed it and the fragments were enshrined in a wooden Buddhist stupa to preserve it.

pemachophel wrote:Adamantine, In terms of Tibetan Buddhism (as opposed to Newar Buddhism), the Tibetans made their own ascriptions to what they saw already in place in Nepal. These ascriptions may not make sense when looked at from a Hindu perspective, a Newar perspective, or even when compared to other "facts" within "Tibetan" Buddhism. Buddhists (Newar and Tibetan) go to Buddha Nilkantha and see Avalokiteshwara. Hindus see Narayan (Vishnu).

I once visited St. Catherine's shrine in Montreal with a family of Nyingma Lamas. One went up the scala sancta on her knees to see Tara at the top. Of course, to the Roman Catholics there, it was the Virgin Mary at the top. Personally, I find this flexible and fluid way of viewing things very helpful. Good not to be too attached to our own ideas, or any ideas for that matter.

If you take the Great Stupa for yet another example, there is a Hindu story of its creation, a Newar Buddhist story of its creation, and Tibetan Buddhist story of its creation. And then there's the "historical record" which suggests something else yet again. Ha! How wonderful!

Adamantine wrote:
But how do we relate to this flexibility without falling into the tendency of a Joseph-Campbell or Mircea Eliade type of comparative-mythology mindset, -or for that matter a Jungian archetype view?

Pema Rigdzin wrote:

Adamantine wrote:
But how do we relate to this flexibility without falling into the tendency of a Joseph-Campbell or Mircea Eliade type of comparative-mythology mindset, -or for that matter a Jungian archetype view?

Since there's no objective essence to any appearances, we can be free to relate to what we see in the world according to our tantric worldview. From our POV, with everything seen as ultimately being an embodiment of the guru or yidam and his/her display as a retinue of male and female deities, no differing historical accounts or differing religious accounts of things and places can survive our consideration of what their essence truly is. That way, privately in our own minds, all the contradictory views and accounts are reconciled for us.

Lhug-Pa wrote:Rangjung Yeshe Wiki: Mahakali

Namdrol wrote:

Adamantine wrote:
That said, Krodakali, aka Troma, as practiced in the Nyingma lineage, is equivalent to Kali.

No it isn't. There is no relationship between the two. Krodhakali is a form of Vajrayogini. Vajrayogini is not Kali.

gad rgyangs wrote:Chinamasta/Chinnamunda, who is a form of Vajrayogini (her attendants are named "Vajravarnaniye" and "Vajravairochaniye" after all), is sort of a cousin of Kali, so maybe thats where the confusion comes from.

Pema Rigdzin wrote:

Adamantine wrote:
But how do we relate to this flexibility without falling into the tendency of a Joseph-Campbell or Mircea Eliade type of comparative-mythology mindset, -or for that matter a Jungian archetype view?

Since there's no objective essence to any appearances, we can be free to relate to what we see in the world according to our tantric worldview. From our POV, with everything seen as ultimately being an embodiment of the guru or yidam and his/her display as a retinue of male and female deities, no differing historical accounts or differing religious accounts of things and places can survive our consideration of what their essence truly is. That way, privately in our own minds, all the contradictory views and accounts are reconciled for us.