Jump to content

Talk:Chöd

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 122.151.157.235 (talk) at 00:57, 19 January 2018 (→What levels of material/physical danger are involved in Chod?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Untitled

We need to say which traditions do this. E sangha says Nyingma, Kagyu and Gelug. We need a better source than that though. Secretlondon 23:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chöd was always part of Gelug Tantra practice, but in the 20th century Pabongkhapa Rinpoche even made it part of the ordinary practice of Gelug monks (at least of those over whom he had control) during their studies. There is a distinct Chöd lineage in the Gelug tradition, so Gelug should certainly be mentioned along with Nyingma and Kagyu, for accuracy. If you need a reliable reference, here's a book on the specific lineage of Chöd from the Gelug school (also known as the Ganden tradition): Chöd In The Ganden Tradition: The Oral Instructions of Kyabje Zong Rinpoche, translated by David Molk [Snow Lion Press, 2006] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.101.81.51 (talk) 23:20, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chöd is actually practiced in all of the schools/traditions. How about changing the lede to reflect this. Would a reference for chöd in each of the schools/traditions be supportive? Best, AD64 (talk) 05:48, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Answer by Tom Kent, Melbourne) It's found everywhere, but it is mainly in Nyingma and Kagyu. Some Gelug accepts it, but some Gelug is horrified by it. Some Sakyas do it too. Please remember that Pabongka Rinpoche is TOTALLY REJECTED by the three Red Hat schools and much of Gelugpa.

It's not really correct to say that Chod is Anuttaratantra. This is due to the error that conflates Anuttaratanta with Atiyoga. Even now many Gelugpa that haven't had specific instruction in Nyingmapa do this. Actually Anuttaratantra corresponds to Mahayoga. Chod is Anuyoga so Chod does not correspond to Anuttaratantra. It is higher. In one sense you could not get Chod in a New Translation tradition as they do not have Anuyoga. Sources - personal training by Lama Norbu, Chagdud Tulku, many others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.151.157.235 (talk) 13:51, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What levels of material/physical danger are involved in Chod?

To what level and extent will a Chod practioner put themselves in danger physically? For example would they go and live in the wilderness and be at the mercy of nature and wild animals? And what happens if the Chod practioner is attacked physically by a wild animal? Are they allowed to defend themselves? And to what level of fearlessness does the aspirant need to achieve non-duality?

(Answer by Tom Kent, Melbourne) You don't have to. Traditionally you might,yes, as directed by your teacher. You would live in the ...er...I forget the number...it is something like 31 charnel grounds and the 17 springs, something like that. Only for a while, like a year, going to each for a few days, to test and develop your practice. In like Australia, you might go to local springs. Certainly Western Chod-pas can an do go to practice in springs and cemeteries. There are a lot of beings in such places that need help. There is a tradition that developing chod-pas go to each of these places for a few days to practice. These are quite dangerous places. Not so much physically dangerous - bad humans would stay away, most bad animals would also be too scared - but spiritually dangerous, full of cannibal demons. If you are unable to help the Beings there with your practice (such is your bow), they might whack you. Certainly at the mercy of nature, yes. You could find or make a shelter. This is not Tumo.

Modern Western students are discouraged from doing this, although some have. This is because just by being prepared to seriously practice Chod, a Western student has already made a huge commitment by moving away from their cultural predispositions. And their time is very limited. So they may be taught high practice before having real stability. They are not ready for such places. Whereas an Eastern student is reinforcing their culture, maybe even doing something their community sees as high-status and prestigious.

You would have to make that choice. In moral terms, you may always defend yourself if attacked. Even if you are in their home. If your practice was good you would not be attacked. Not only with Chod! You could be studying Meta-Bhavana meditation in Theravada and be sent into the tiger jungles. Anywhere in any school of Buddhism. General principles, you must understand the general principles before asking the specific questions. There is a general principle in Buddhism that any ascetic practice is voluntary.

You are not at their mercy. They are at your mercy.

This is a very naive question that makes me regret answering your other questions. The question does not make sense. It is not about fearlessnesses or non-duality. Those are head trips. It is about non-ego. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.151.157.235 (talk) 14:04, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ego

Austerlitz -- 88.75.210.202 (talk) 18:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(answer by Tom Kent, Melbourne). I suppose you could say that in a way. But your question doesn't really make any sense in Buddhist terms. Ego is a term from Freudian psychology or somewhere. There isn't really any Buddhist term that corresponds to Ego. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.151.157.235 (talk) 14:20, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sprache

hallo Wissling, weißt du, was DAS hier tib.: rdo rje bdud 'dul chen mo) heißt?

Grüsse, Austerlitz -- 88.72.28.29 (talk) 12:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Clean up of Key elements of Sadhana?!

The opening paragraph needs serious clean up. No lay person can understand it. Its gobbledygook. It looks like it has been written by someone who doesnt practice and have just plagirised it out of a badly written book. Less use of technical terminology that obfuscates and confuses the meaning would be a good start.--Redblossom (talk) 20:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re-writing

I'm doing a fair bit of re-writing on this article for clarity for novice readers. I intend to retain all information though so if you find anything's accidentally gone missing please do feel free to re-instate it. --Dakinijones (talk) 18:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

bdud

see for example [1], no, not right. Please go to Inhalt and there go to Chapter Seven: Rites of Exorcism: Expelling the Demons (bdud)

Who/what was bdud in the eyes of Chöd was bön, for example. Since the situation in Tibet has been changed (see wikisite bön) "Tenzin Gyatso, the fourteenth Dalai Lama, has recently recognized the Bön tradition as the fifth principal spiritual school of Tibet, along with the Nyingma, Sakya, Kagyu, and Gelug schools of Buddhism, despite the long historical competition of influences between the Bon tradition and Buddhism in Tibet." the former bduds must have changed status.

Austerlitz -- 88.75.203.240 (talk) 11:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some minor changes

Minor syntactical edit of the ritual objects section. Redirected 'Bodymind' link to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodymind_%28in_meditation_traditions%29 rather than: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodymind

Origins section: Misuse of 'nomenclature.' Cut out some repetition, edited punctuation.

Hope this is helpful Awbery (talk) 00:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Humph

An editor has made the wonderful iteration of making a number of citations fall to one reference, Edou 1997 in particular, but in so doing this wonderful, nay magnificent feat has annihilated all the page numbers I so clearly placed. How very tedious. Hopefully, someone in the future will repair this by recovering them from old versions of the article. I don't do citations this way because it is fiddly but wish that the editors that do it, take care and precision to maintain the integrity of the citation. This has not happened in these cases. B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) 15:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bon influences?

Under "Indian Antecedents, we have:

A form of Chöd was practised in India by Buddhist mahāsiddhas, prior to the 10th Century.[3] However, Chöd as practised today developed from the entwined traditions of the early Indian Tantric practices transmitted to Tibet and the Bonpo[citation needed] and Tibetan Buddhist Vajrayana lineages.

What is the source of Bon influence on Chöd? What evidence do we have to doubt that all the ingredients of Chod were present when it was imported from India to Tibet? Moonsell (talk) 02:28, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about any Bon influences but we do know that Chod didn't come from India complete as practiced today since the Machig Labdron lineage of Chod was founded in Tibet by the woman of that name. Her lineage is known as Mahamudra Chod.--Dakinijones (talk) 11:55, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Answer by Tom Kent, Melbourne: I'm not aware that we have any evidence that Chod came from the Mahasiddhas in India. I am not aware of any texts or archaeological evidence.

Although there is supposed to be male Chod from Padampa Sangye and Female Chod from Marchig Labdron, if I remember and understand Lama Norbu correctly, this male lineage was a back-invention that the Gelugpas invented so the lineage would not come from a woman. My memory may be at fault, but I seem to remember other teachers, such as the Gelugpa Geshe Ngawang Dhargyey, also saying this. Padampa Sangye had some kinda practice he taught, yes, but if I understand correctly, not really a Chod. He got the Chod from his student Marchig Labdron. Definitely Lama Norbu said "There is no male and female Chod. There is only the lineage from the female, that is the one Chod.' His perspective was that this practice was invented by Marchig Labdron. Of course it incorporated influence from previous things, but it was in itself a new thing. I am not aware of anyone really regarded as an expert that disagrees with this. 

As for Bon things, whenever we are talking really developed teachings, the Buddhist stuff is always earlier and the iconography can be shown to be descended from Buddhist iconography.  Anyway Bon is said to refer to at least three completely distinct things, and personally I think far more!  Bon is just a catch-all term.  Also there were far more than 4 schools of Buddhism - not only Jonang, but many others.  I don't believe any of this stuff originated in Bon.  Before, people were always talking about Tibetan Buddhism being full of local stuff, or Tantra in Japan being full of local stuff etc, but when we look at this, it always disappears.  It was a mere supposition of the early - mostly English - scholars and they never seemed to have any evidence whatsoever for that.  They just assumed it because they couldn't at that stage find this stuff in the very limited resources they had in  India.

The only local stuff is the local deities, and even that is Buddhist insofar as Buddhists are supposed to pick up the local deities wherever they go, that is Buddhist teaching. Now if we are talking about things like Garuda, Namkha, stuff like that, I think this is Bon. But the deities come first. The Bon or the Buddhism or whatever comes after. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.151.157.235 (talk) 14:43, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

kusulu

Under "Chodpa as Avadhuta", we have:

Chandra et al. (1902: p.20) equate the 'chodpa' (Tibetan: གཅོད་པ; Wylie: chod pa) with avadhūta:

"ཀུ་སུ་ལུ་པ ku-su-lu-pa ¿ is a word of Tantrik mysticism, its proper Tibetan equivalent being གཅོད་པ gcod-pa, the art of exorcism. The mystic Tantrik rites of the Avadhauts, called Avadhūtipa in Tibet, exist in India."[4]

NB: ¿ = kusulu or kusulupa (Sanskrit; Tibetan loanword) that is studying texts rarely whilst focusing on meditation and praxis. Often used disparagingly by pandits.

The editor has added an upside down question mark to the quote and an "NB". Can anyone understand these things? If so, please explain. Moonsell (talk) 02:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

kartika

Under "Iconography" - "Ritual objects", we have:

Key to the iconography of Chöd is the hooked knife or skin flail (kartika). A flail is an agricultural tool used for threshing to separate grains from their husks. Similarly, the kartika symbollically separates the bodymind from the mindstream.[9]

Shouldn't this read: "separates the body from the mind"?

By the way, note [9] mentioned here is http://www.keithdowman.net/essays/guide.htm, which seems irrelevant. Moonsell (talk) 11:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanups and foreign terms

I've done extensive copy edits on the article to regularise formatting and minor things without affecting the substance of the text. In the process, I've relegated inessential Sanskrit and Tibetan terms to footnotes. I know how important terminology is in understanding Buddhist practices and so have bent over backwards to preserve it, but the article had terms so in-your-face that an uninformed reader would have seen it as a jargon jungle. Where terms needed to be kept in the body of the text, I've tried to give the English equivalent *first* and the term afterwards in brackets, even in places where the term takes over in subsequent sentences and the English equivalent in dumped. I know that there are drawbacks too to having terms as footnotes, but hope everyone agrees the text is more readable this way. Moonsell (talk) 12:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC) P.S. I've also put foreign terms into italics. Moonsell (talk) 12:41, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move "key elements" to near the top?

I think there should be a more accessible introduction, briefly explaining the practice for those unfamiliar with it and putting it in context. The key practices section should be closer to the top. Starting off with antecedents, history and iconography makes it harder to get a sense for what it actually is. ★NealMcB★ (talk) 19:20, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I made this move of the section today. AD64 (talk) 19:34, 21 August 2017 (UTC)AD64[reply]

Any objections delete ref to Anila Rinchen Palmo?

There's a cite req on her mention under Western Commentary on Chod dated 2010. Looking the book up in google books it seems that she was in fact the translator and not an author at all. See http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=kgk2AAAACAAJ&dq=cutting+through+ego+clinging&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Q8YtUp-JI-nQ7Abl-IG4Cw&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA. If that's true makes no sense for her to be mentioned. Anyone object to me deleting her? --Dakinijones (talk) 13:10, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chöd&oldid=821208198"