One of the areas of most varied opinion, or even downright confusion, is the realtionship between this practice and the that of shamanism. The term shaman itself is used in various and shifting ways, both by academics and new age practitioners. Moreover, it brings up the whole issue of the difference between the tradition of tantra, as it developed in both India and Tibet and shamanic practrices and traditions. Certianly, to an outside observer, tantric and shamanic practices can identical, and early Tibetologists description of Vajrayana as a whole was highly ehtonocentric and prejudiced, if not frankly racist. Waddel, in his 1895 book, "Tibetan Buddhism", still in print, describes chod practioners as "necromancers." The pioneering researcher, Evens-Wentz, produced the first English translation of the chod sahdana, the "Laughter of the Dakinis," makes an unintelligible mish mash with not even a vague understanding of either the language or the concepts of chod. Tucci, considered to be the father of modern Tibetan studies is completely biased . An article on the internet desribes chod as "an advanced form of shamanism." This does justice to neither shamanism, chod, or tantric Buddhism as a whole.

their context, approah, methods and ultimate goals are quite different.

The most one can say, is that chod has shamanic elements within its totally. To say it based on shamnism or an "advanced form of shamanism," as one writer puts it, fully misses the mark.

While the common people, and Western Buddhists, may find inspiration and devotion towards wandering yogis or yoginis, they were marginal members of Tibetan culture. The monastic institutions and the hierarchy of tulkus, rinpoches and lamas with seniority or scholarly degrees, were more likely to look down on itinerant yogis. Then, as now, you will find such individuals seated at the back of a large assembly hall of lamas, monks and even nuns. Clerical Buddhism, as today, with its largely Karma Orientation, had the institutions, administration and financial means to support sometimes quite large community of monks or nuns.

Gregory Samuels makes an important distinction in terms of the basic philosophical and . He described three distinct approaches in the context of Tibetan Buddhism:

Bodhi Orientation. Karma Orientation. Pragmatic Orientation.

that are shared, but also that ar

In his extroardianary and in depth approach, .

He see three different models as operating within the Tibetan spiritual context, and naturally these all apply to chod as well.

1. Clerical

2. Buddic

3. Tantric.

However, a much more conducive approach is to

Shamanic Elements Absent in Chöd