Talk:Chöd

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Untitled

message: 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.  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 vow), 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. In like Australia, you might go to local springs.  Certainly Western Chod-pas can and do go to practice in springs and cemeteries.  Not only C hod-pas!  Students doing other practices that help Beings also go to cemeteries and springs, dodging the authorities and kipping down for the night on a gravestone.
There is actually a lot of sorta Goth in Buddhism, if you watch Chinese films you can see how rich that approach is.
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.
If you are a really committed and developed Chod-pa who practices every day, you may not choose to live close to humans and animals.  Why?  Because the place will be filled with deadly spirits.  It is as if you were a tiger-feeder.  All the tigers come and eat and hang around.  They may not eat people, because they are satiated.  They are on their best behavior.  All the same, I wouldn't go tread on their feet.
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.  Chod means to sever.  What is being severed?  Fictitious Being.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.151.157.235 (talk) 14:04, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  What levels of material/physical danger are involved in Chod? 

message: *Chod - Cutting Through the Ego Are there different opinions within Chod practice on the Ego?
:Austerlitz -- 88.75.210.202 (talk) 18:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ego 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Sprache 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Clean up of Key elements of Sadhana?! 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Re-writing 

message: *Himalayan Dialogue - Tibetan Lamas and Gurung Shamans in Nepal Stan Royal Mumford
see for example , 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)
thread_title:  bdud 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Some minor changes 

message: 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)
thread_title: Humph

message: Under "Indian Antecedents, we have:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Bon influences?

message: 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)
thread_title: ''kusulu''

message: 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)
thread_title: ''kartika''

message: 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)
thread_title: Cleanups and foreign terms

message: 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)
replies: text: I made this move of the section today. AD64 (talk) 19:34, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move "key elements" to near the top? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Any objections delete ref to Anila Rinchen Palmo?