Hearing vs Listening for receiving transmission (lung)

[karmanyingpo]

Howdy to all Dharma friends.

Wondering if anyone can shed some light, on what necessary conditions need to be there to receive a lung, with sources/ref to teachers/scripture if possible or applicable..

I ask because it seems I have heard conflicting things. Some seem to say that all you need is to HEAR it even if you are distracted or doing other things (eg stories of monks practicing caligraphy while getting transmission) and others seem to say you need to LISTEN undistractedly to receive it. I'm sure that attentavely mindfully listening does not hurt but, is it really necessary to receive the lung at all? Is there any real basis for arguing one side over the other?


Thanks

KN

[GrapeLover]

Not trying to be flippant with respect to this point, but given the classical view that the citta can only hold one object of focus at a time (and simply switches between objects very rapidly like a single core computer processor), you’d need to have pretty great samadhi to actually remain single-pointedly focussed on receiving the transmission

What I mean is, even if you’re distracted briefly by the thought “whoa I’d better pay close attention !!” then that thought has taken up the entirety of your mind’s attention for those instants and you haven’t remained focussed single-pointedly on the transmission

So realistically I don’t think actual single-pointed focus can be a prerequisite, and I don’t think “trying to stay focussed” is materially different from just hearing it with the broad underlying intent to receive the transmission

On a more authoritative level, unfortunately all I can say is that I’ve also had different teachers say different things. One dorje loppon said they’d received lungs while asleep and regarded that as valid, another lama said “as long as you hear the sound of my voice”, another emphasises more active participation in receiving the transmission etc

I don’t think oral transmission has a scriptural basis so don’t think there’s scriptural clarification unfortunately

[ThreeVows]

Not trying to be flippant with respect to this point, but given the classical view that the citta can only hold one object of focus at a time (and simply switches between objects very rapidly like a single core computer processor), you’d need to have pretty great samadhi to actually remain single-pointedly focussed on receiving the transmission

What I mean is, even if you’re distracted briefly by the thought “whoa I’d better pay close attention !!” then that thought has taken up the entirety of your mind’s attention for those instants and you haven’t remained focussed single-pointedly on the transmission

So realistically I don’t think actual single-pointed focus can be a prerequisite, and I don’t think “trying to stay focussed” is materially different from just hearing it with the broad underlying intent to receive the transmission

On a more authoritative level, unfortunately all I can say is that I’ve also had different teachers say different things. One dorje loppon said they’d received lungs while asleep and regarded that as valid, another lama said “as long as you hear the sound of my voice”, another emphasises more active participation in receiving the transmission etc

I don’t think oral transmission has a scriptural basis so don’t think there’s scriptural clarification unfortunately

To just add another account, I've definitely also heard things like, "As long as the sound hits your ears then that's what matters", although often there is a recommendation to try to pay attention, and sometimes one might even visualize things like the syllables going down into your heart, etc.

[Malcolm]

Howdy to all Dharma friends.

Wondering if anyone can shed some light, on what necessary conditions need to be there to receive a lung, with sources/ref to teachers/scripture if possible or applicable..

I ask because it seems I have heard conflicting things. Some seem to say that all you need is to HEAR it even if you are distracted or doing other things (eg stories of monks practicing caligraphy while getting transmission) and others seem to say you need to LISTEN undistractedly to receive it. I'm sure that attentavely mindfully listening does not hurt but, is it really necessary to receive the lung at all? Is there any real basis for arguing one side over the other?

It is better if you are paying attention, but in the case of a long lung, that is a little difficult.

[karmanyingpo]

Howdy to all Dharma friends.

Wondering if anyone can shed some light, on what necessary conditions need to be there to receive a lung, with sources/ref to teachers/scripture if possible or applicable..

I ask because it seems I have heard conflicting things. Some seem to say that all you need is to HEAR it even if you are distracted or doing other things (eg stories of monks practicing caligraphy while getting transmission) and others seem to say you need to LISTEN undistractedly to receive it. I'm sure that attentavely mindfully listening does not hurt but, is it really necessary to receive the lung at all? Is there any real basis for arguing one side over the other?

It is better if you are paying attention, but in the case of a long lung, that is a little difficult.

Thanks Acharya la. So it seems bottom line is, more attention/listening is good but not absolutely necessary to receive a transmission. Is that correct?

KN

[karmanyingpo]

Not trying to be flippant with respect to this point, but given the classical view that the citta can only hold one object of focus at a time (and simply switches between objects very rapidly like a single core computer processor), you’d need to have pretty great samadhi to actually remain single-pointedly focussed on receiving the transmission

What I mean is, even if you’re distracted briefly by the thought “whoa I’d better pay close attention !!” then that thought has taken up the entirety of your mind’s attention for those instants and you haven’t remained focussed single-pointedly on the transmission

So realistically I don’t think actual single-pointed focus can be a prerequisite, and I don’t think “trying to stay focussed” is materially different from just hearing it with the broad underlying intent to receive the transmission

On a more authoritative level, unfortunately all I can say is that I’ve also had different teachers say different things. One dorje loppon said they’d received lungs while asleep and regarded that as valid, another lama said “as long as you hear the sound of my voice”, another emphasises more active participation in receiving the transmission etc

I don’t think oral transmission has a scriptural basis so don’t think there’s scriptural clarification unfortunately

To just add another account, I've definitely also heard things like, "As long as the sound hits your ears then that's what matters", although often there is a recommendation to try to pay attention, and sometimes one might even visualize things like the syllables going down into your heart, etc.

Thanks to both of you

I think I have heard similar but the syllable visualization is new to me

KN

[Malcolm]

Howdy to all Dharma friends.

Wondering if anyone can shed some light, on what necessary conditions need to be there to receive a lung, with sources/ref to teachers/scripture if possible or applicable..

I ask because it seems I have heard conflicting things. Some seem to say that all you need is to HEAR it even if you are distracted or doing other things (eg stories of monks practicing caligraphy while getting transmission) and others seem to say you need to LISTEN undistractedly to receive it. I'm sure that attentavely mindfully listening does not hurt but, is it really necessary to receive the lung at all? Is there any real basis for arguing one side over the other?

It is better if you are paying attention, but in the case of a long lung, that is a little difficult.

Thanks Acharya la. So it seems bottom line is, more attention/listening is good but not absolutely necessary to receive a transmission. Is that correct?

KN

Correct.

[karmanyingpo]

It is better if you are paying attention, but in the case of a long lung, that is a little difficult.

Thanks Acharya la. So it seems bottom line is, more attention/listening is good but not absolutely necessary to receive a transmission. Is that correct?

KN

Correct.

Thank you to all who provided in put here!

KN

[Danny]

There’s a difference between a lung, simply - lama reads and you listen, and a tri lung (tree loong) where the lama reads - you listen but there’s also clarification on certain points, from the lama

[karmanyingpo]

There’s a difference between a lung, simply - lama reads and you listen, and a tri lung (tree loong) where the lama reads - you listen but there’s also clarification on certain points, from the lama

Yes agreed and I was asking purely about receiving lung itself. Not really a way to receive tri or explanation unless you listen of course

KN

[Danny]

There’s a difference between a lung, simply - lama reads and you listen, and a tri lung (tree loong) where the lama reads - you listen but there’s also clarification on certain points, from the lama

Yes agreed and I was asking purely about receiving lung itself. Not really a way to receive tri or explanation unless you listen of course

KN

Ok - language itself is based on fundamental root sounds, mantra is also grouped around primordial key sounds.
The act of listening is part of the transmission. So one should understand this aspect. Sound,
light and rays. Knowledgeable Participation in that process is key for students.

[karmanyingpo]

Ok - language itself is based on fundamental root sounds, mantra is also grouped around primordial key sounds.

Sure thing, .. agreed! Thank you for your replies.

The act of listening is part of the transmission. So one should understand this aspect. Sound,
light and rays. Knowledgeable Participation in that process is key for students.

Yes knowledgeable participation, but I think based on experience (all be it limited) and based on replies here it seems like what that knowledge participation constitutes is subject to interpretation,.. in this case.

Knowledgeable - teacher has to intend to give the transmission and student has to intend to receive it, as I understand it. IE a teacher might recite something but specifically intend for it not to be a lung and conversely a random person walking by who happens to hear something might not be considered to have received the transmission.

Participation - hearing? listening? the gradiants in between? Seems like that part is not universally agreed on. One replier said they knew someone who considered lung received while sleeping to be valid. Then naturally there is a range, a whole spectrum from just hearing and really mindfully listening. As someone pointed out to really concentrate 100% the whole time takes immense concentration which I doubt many listeners have. The degree of contamination from the listener's mental events and fabrications differs, some may just have occasional "Oh I need to listen now!" and .. others may distractedly day dream for seconds or even minutes before snapping back out of it.. to listen more attentively. Capacities differ, so the intentional effort that someone puts into this is related to, but, not the same as the level of concentration that results. So how to draw the line between hearing and listening, or what level of effort is considered enough, seems hazey here. It seems some teachers put more or less emphasis on a higher degree of active listening.

After all it can be argued that merely hearing, having the sound hit one's ears, is a form of Knowledgeable Participation if there is intent to receive

KN

[Danny]

Sorry, didn’t really read your reply. I could have walked faster to the end than go over the mental
Fabrication
...

But if that’s your idea
Then ok. No problem.

[karmanyingpo]

Sorry, didn’t really read your reply. I could have walked faster to the end than go over the mental
Fabrication
...

But if that’s your idea
Then ok. No problem.

Oh no need to be rude. I thanked you for your reply and was not intending any of that to have a negative effect on your mind. I was just responding according to my understanding.

KN

[Danny]

Sorry, didn’t really read your reply. I could have walked faster to the end than go over the mental
Fabrication
...

But if that’s your idea
Then ok. No problem.

Oh no need to be rude. I thanked you for your reply and was not intending any of that to have a negative effect on your mind. I was just responding according to my understanding.

KN

I never took it as rude, just at a certain point , one has to break the habitable tendency to over “ think” dharma.
And be right.

It’s boring.

I’m more interested in why girls want
To be hooters waitress than dharma practitioners.

[Danny]

Sorry, didn’t really read your reply. I could have walked faster to the end than go over the mental
Fabrication
...

But if that’s your idea
Then ok. No problem.

Oh no need to be rude. I thanked you for your reply and was not intending any of that to have a negative effect on your mind. I was just responding according to my understanding.

KN

I never took it as rude, just at a certain point , one has to break the habitable tendency to over “ think” dharma.
And be right.

It’s boring.

I’m more interested in why girls want
To be hooters waitresses, than intellectual dharma practitioners waxing on about how they feel...

Like this site...
Really boring

[Malcolm]

I’m more interested in why girls want
To be hooters waitress than dharma practitioners.

Generally they don’t even know they have a choice.



Mod note 2024: The topic is being locked, becaus it has been necroed.