Articles by alphabetic order
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
 Ā Ī Ñ Ś Ū Ö Ō
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0


The Real Chöd Practice

From Tibetan Buddhist Encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
1 228 n.jpg



The Tibetan wordchöd” means “to cut off” or “to slay.” The traditional practice of Chöd cuts off self-cherishing and grasping at a truly existent “I.” It creates the conditions under which one can develop the mind of conventional bodhichitta, which holds others as more dear than oneself, and the mind of ultimate bodhichitta, which sees reality as it truly is. Attributed to the great Tibetan yogini Machig Labdron, and the only practice that made its way back to India from Tibet, it is an extremely effective and quick tantric method for attaining realizations of the path to enlightenment.

In this teaching, Lama Zopa Rinpoche explains the essence of Chöd, the “real Chöd” that everyone can practice in everyday life.

When somebody tells you something that really hurts your mind, that is the most beneficial thing for your mind because it goes straight in your heart and touches your ego.

This is what shows you, like a mirror, like a teaching from the Buddha, one’s own mistaken thoughts, especially the ego; it shows that there is ego, and because there is ego, it hurts.

If there is no ego, then it would never hurt. When people say what your mistakes are, or say words which hurt you, that is the real Chöd practice. This is what makes you see your “I,” the emotional “I” – in Western psychological terms – the object of ignorance, the root of samsara, which is holding this “I” as truly existent.

Normally one is not aware of this, but by doing the practice of Chöd, inviting the spirits, they create violence and it makes you see the “I,” the object of ignorance, the object to be refuted – the truly existent “I” – clearly. They show the “I” to you very clearly and then you are able to recognize that it is false, an object of ignorance; you are able to use your reasoning, logical reasoning, that the “I” doesn’t exist because it is a dependant arising, or merely imputed. It is merely imputed relating to the aggregates, the base, etc. There are so many other reasonings you can use. You recognize the object to be refuted at that minute. That it is what doesn’t exist at all; it is totally non-existent.


Source