What is Transmission?

[adinatha]

There has been instances of empowerment in dream, meditation or waking experience. Why's that?

So?

Empowerment can come from blessings and devotion. This limited understanding of transmission is not the whole story.

[Pero]

There has been instances of empowerment in dream, meditation or waking experience. Why's that?

So?

Empowerment can come from blessings and devotion. This limited understanding of transmission is not the whole story.

Your example is something very rare, something that's not going to happen for the majority of the people, so I think it really has nothing to do with the current discussion.

[gregkavarnos]

Say person A is knew person B is looking for a thing Y. Person A intends to give person B the thing Y and left it in a place X. Person B went to place X and saw thing Y and took thing Y. In this instance, is there no offering of thing Y by person A to person B? Is there no receiving of thing Y by person B from person A?

Sounds like you are talking about termas.

[Malcolm]

If a teacher intends to transmit via a recording and acts on that intention and make the recording, then according to you there can be no transmission despite the intention of the teacher to transmit and the intention of the student to receive, if the student listens to the recording made by the teacher since "the act of speaking and the act of listening happening together at the same time .. constitutes a transmission".

Correct. There has never been an instance of an empowerment delivered via a recording. Why is that?

N

Say person A is knew person B is looking for a thing Y. Person A intends to give person B the thing Y and left it in a place X. Person B went to place X and saw thing Y and took thing Y. In this instance, is there no offering of thing Y by person A to person B? Is there no receiving of thing Y by person B from person A?

Your example is irrelevant to empowerments and transmissions.

[Sherab]

Say person A is knew person B is looking for a thing Y. Person A intends to give person B the thing Y and left it in a place X. Person B went to place X and saw thing Y and took thing Y. In this instance, is there no offering of thing Y by person A to person B? Is there no receiving of thing Y by person B from person A?

Your example is irrelevant to empowerments and transmissions.

My post is not meant to be an example but an attempt to strip down the argument to the essentials to see where, if any, the problem of any definition of transmission lies.

Back to my "example": If it is agreed that there is a giving by A and a receiving by B, then it that a "transmission"?

If you impose the condition that the teacher must be present for the transmission to take place, then what you are essentially saying is that "thing Y" is something that can only be transmitted personally by the teacher. If so, then what is this "thing Y" that is being "transmitted" in an empowerment? Certainly not the words of the vajra master during an empowerment because words can be transmitted via a recorder too. If you say it is to establish a "connection", then reasons should be provided as to why the "connection" cannot be established via a third object like a recorder.

[Malcolm]

Say person A is knew person B is looking for a thing Y. Person A intends to give person B the thing Y and left it in a place X. Person B went to place X and saw thing Y and took thing Y. In this instance, is there no offering of thing Y by person A to person B? Is there no receiving of thing Y by person B from person A?

Your example is irrelevant to empowerments and transmissions.

My post is not meant to be an example but an attempt to strip down the argument to the essentials to see where, if any, the problem of any definition of transmission lies.

Back to my "example": If it is agreed that there is a giving by A and a receiving by B, then it that a "transmission"?

If you impose the condition that the teacher must be present for the transmission to take place, then what you are essentially saying is that "thing Y" is something that can only be transmitted personally by the teacher. If so, then what is this "thing Y" that is being "transmitted" in an empowerment? Certainly not the words of the vajra master during an empowerment because words can be transmitted via a recorder too. If you say it is to establish a "connection", then reasons should be provided as to why the "connection" cannot be established via a third object like a recorder.

I have explained this ad nauseaum.

[Sherab]

Your example is irrelevant to empowerments and transmissions.

My post is not meant to be an example but an attempt to strip down the argument to the essentials to see where, if any, the problem of any definition of transmission lies.

Back to my "example": If it is agreed that there is a giving by A and a receiving by B, then it that a "transmission"?

If you impose the condition that the teacher must be present for the transmission to take place, then what you are essentially saying is that "thing Y" is something that can only be transmitted personally by the teacher. If so, then what is this "thing Y" that is being "transmitted" in an empowerment? Certainly not the words of the vajra master during an empowerment because words can be transmitted via a recorder too. If you say it is to establish a "connection", then reasons should be provided as to why the "connection" cannot be established via a third object like a recorder.

I have explained this ad nauseaum.

Really? My apologies then. I'll search through the thread when I have more time.

[Astus]

Sherab,

What I've found as the answer to the question is that transmission is defined as a live connection between teacher and student. It is like saying that swimming is moving in the water by the movement of one's body. It is a matter of definition and that's all, nothing more.

[Sherab]

Sherab,

What I've found as the answer to the question is that transmission is defined as a live connection between teacher and student. It is like saying that swimming is moving in the water by the movement of one's body. It is a matter of definition and that's all, nothing more.

Thanks Astus. Namdrol's definition of transmission is similar to that of a hug, it can only be given directly without any intervening media. As to why it has to be direct, he seemed to imply that no karmic connection can take place if it is indirect. I would agree with this only if the transmission involved a change in the mind of the recipient, the change being directly and personally caused by the teacher doing the so-called "transmission". Otherwise, as far as I am concerned, indirect connection is still possible. For example, if my memory serves me correctly, Gampopa and Longchenpa had stated in certain of their works that reading that particular work would be the same as getting the teaching directly from them, or something like that.

[Astus]

Sherab,

The Platform Sutra has an answer, "Those who grasp at emptiness slander the Sutras by maintaining that written words have no use. Since they maintain they have no need of written words, they should not speak either, because written words are merely the marks of spoken language. They also maintain that the direct way cannot be established by written words, and yet these two words, 'not established' are themselves written."

[PadmaVonSamba]

If we assert that phenomena are ultimately empty of intrinsic existence due to the analysis of breaking down an object into its components, then words, since they are also phenomena, also have no intrinsic existence.

Just as the parts of a carriage do not contain anything which can be called any sort of essence of 'carriage" If I say "transmission" this spoken word can be broken down etymologically (trans + mission) or by syllables, or by letters. None of the letters in the word "transmission" means transmission, nor does the spoken sound "miss" or any other parts. This holds true for any spoken word.

Further, words do not travel through the air. If I think "transmission" and emit vocal chord vibrations, those vibrations merely create a chain reaction of air molecules, the last one on the chain beating your eardrum. Only when you hear it does it become a sound, and only when that vibration is processed by the mind does it once again take on the characteristics of the word "transmission". This holds true for any spoken word.

Likewise, the words you are reading now are merely pixels.

I don't know if that means anything here or not.

[Sherab]

Sherab,

The Platform Sutra has an answer, "Those who grasp at emptiness slander the Sutras by maintaining that written words have no use. Since they maintain they have no need of written words, they should not speak either, because written words are merely the marks of spoken language. They also maintain that the direct way cannot be established by written words, and yet these two words, 'not established' are themselves written."

Thanks Astus.
What I was trying to say was that transmission can be both direct and via a medium. Certain transmission has to be direct. Others can be via a media which need not be restricted to an inanimate object.

[ground]

There are quite some posts in this thread that are related to metaphysics which necessarily implies meta-ontology.

Kind regards

[Enochian]

Another reason one cannot receive transmission from a recording, is the fact that the guru is not there to verify the students realization, look after the student, care for the student etc.

Isn't that right?