Talk:Vajrayogini

Keeping modern ideological distortions at bay

I removed a section claiming, via Miranda Shaw, that Vajrayogini is the supreme figure in Tibetan Buddhism, above and beyond male buddhas. This is a total distortion by someone who has a vested interest in their own genitalia. It is to entirely miss the point. Vajrayogini is male and female. Insofar as she, the supreme and absolute, projects the manifestation of femininity as this supreme, so s/he does also with the male. Yes, she is the mother of the buddhas, even the 'mother of all the mothers of the buddhas' as has been said in scripture, but this does not mean that the father, Heruka, is less either in theory, or in practice. This has never been said - indeed, quite the opposite. To promote one over the other is to miss the entire point.

Let's try to keep this kind of intrusion from modern ideologies and ideologues out of the picture.

179.31.240.253 (talk) 04:56, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Can you give me the original reference to Miranda Shaw? I'd like to double-check what she says. I think you might both be right and it's a matter of nuance. In some of the Vajrayana lineages and sadhana cycles, Vajrayogini is the supreme figure without reference to Heruka at all. AND yes, she is the Mother of the Buddhas, etc. In other lineages, Vajrayogini and Heruka are co-equal. Thanks. AD64 (talk) 14:09, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

External reference removed as "controversial": Guide to Dakini Land, Gyatso, Geshe Kelsang

On 13 March 2007 196.44.16.10 removed an external reference with the note "Removed controversial reference".

I'm archiving it here in case we decide that it should be restored. -- Writtenonsand 15:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• Gyatso, Geshe Kelsang (1996). Guide to Dakini Land.

Tharpa Publications. ISBN 0-948006-39-0

Please insert

Hi, it should be restored, Writtenonsand, in section Further reading It's about Buddha Vajrayogini.

Austerlitz -- 88.72.5.43 (talk) 11:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

And what about this [1]? Can it be added, too? and where best?

Austerlitz -- 88.72.5.43 (talk) 11:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've inserted them.

Austerlitz -- 88.75.76.245 (talk) 18:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Kalika

• Shri Kalika Devi

I've never heard her to be buddhist, too.

Austerlitz -- 88.72.5.43 (talk) 16:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

"khros ma nag mo", as far as I have read, this is the (a) black form of Vajrayogini.

Austerlitz -- 88.72.5.43 (talk) 21:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Tröma Nagmo TROMA NAGMO.Skt (KRODIKALI.Tib) Austerlitz -- 88.75.206.74 (talk) 09:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

It's sourced from Edou's "Machig Labdron and the Foundations of Chöd" Dakinijones (talk) 17:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The text within the above link?

Krodikali: is she Kalika? :Austerlitz -- 88.75.80.91 (talk) 08:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Color black

• Rainbow Dharma
• [2]
• Five Dhyani Buddhas

Austerlitz -- 88.75.206.74 (talk) 10:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• www.nitartha.org search page

the meaning of khros ma nag mo according to this search page

• khros

angry [JV]

• khros nag - khros ma nag mo [ry]
• khros nag - black wrathful one [fierce black goddess (aspect of vajra yogini] [IW]
• khros nag - black wrathful 1 [IW]
• nag

{nag po}, {nag mo} black [ry] .Austerlitz -- 88.72.4.156 (talk) 13:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

"Tröma Nagmo (The Extremely Wrathful Black Mother)

These practices, associated with the Dakini Troma Nagmo, were propagated by the great Machig Labdron, who became the most famous female practitioner in Tibet, and attained complete enlightenment by this method." [3]

Austerlitz -- 88.72.4.156 (talk) 13:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

• [4]

Austerlitz -- 88.75.205.190 (talk) 12:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Forms of Vajrayogini

• [5]

Austerlitz -- 88.75.200.81 (talk) 12:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Sarva-buddha-dakini

• [6]
• [7] According to the listing here there is

"Mother Tantras.

Buddha Family.

Sarva-Buddha-Samayoga."

Austerlitz -- 88.75.222.144 (talk) 10:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

see also Narodakini

Austerlitz -- 88.75.222.144 (talk) 14:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Austerlitz, would you consider getting an account? Primarily, since your IP address isn't static, it would allow other editors to reliably contact you on your talk page. --Gimme danger (talk) 19:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Gimme danger, sorry for not answering. Austerlitz -- 88.75.196.36 (talk) 10:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Teaching by vision

there are several teachings claimed to have been given directly by Vajrayogini, that one to Tsembupa, for example [8]. Shouldn't we mention this fact, too?

Austerlitz -- 88.75.196.36 (talk) 10:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

@Austerlitz: What do you by mean by "teaching by vision"? Are you referring to the way that some advanced practitioners, especially tertons, might receive teachings, commentaries and sadhana cycles directly from deities, in a kind of visionary state? Or do you mean that deities and gurus are teaching disciples via a visionary state? This might help clarify this particular topic. Thanks. AD64 (talk) 14:30, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Section "Vajravarahi" removed

I removed the section "Vajravarahi", which contained no description of Vajravarahi whatsoever. Instead, the section hosted a commentary on some esoteric function of Guru Padmasambhava's consorts. The content was irrelevant to the topic. I decided not to move it to the Padmasambhava article, because the source is likely either some specific terma or commentary of some specific Guru Yoga practice. The information is relevant and comprehensible only to those doing practices related to or originating from Padmasambhava. It has extremely little relevance to the topic. I suggest that new material be written, if there is to be a section discussing Vajravarahi. Please don't fail to take notice that the material is copied from a source that is itself but a collection of information, possibly gathered from all around the internet: yoniversum.nl/Dakini Yogini Central. (See reference.) The picture of Cakrasamvara was removed with the section. I suggest a link to the Cakrasamvara article at a relevant point, if someone decides to mention him in the article. However there are no references to Cakrasamvara, so I find the picture a little irrelevant.

Tritonist -- (talk) 10 February 2011