The Validity of Non-Theravada Ordinations Lineages redux

An open and inclusive investigation into Buddhism and spiritual cultivation

Re: The Validity of Non-Theravada Ordinations Lineages redux

Postby tiltbillings » Mon Jan 18, 2010 7:24 pm

chownah wrote: Mostly my post was intended to focus on the concept of "valid". It seems to me that when this term is used it often will elicit a response based on some unmentioned judgemental system unique to the the person responding....and often the judgemental system used by the one responding is not even known to them. The term "valid" often has the effect of hiding the real operative principle by substituting the sweeping and yet undefined principle of "validity". This of course can allow a group of people to calmly discuss some topic while the actual basic core meaning of what they are saying is hidden by the drop cloth of "validity". Unless the term "valid" is very clearly defined for a particular use then it is worse than useless in that it leads people to think they are discussing something when really they are discussing nothing. "Valid" is not only empty in the dhammic sense....it is also (unless clearly defined) empty in the conversational sense.
.....in my view.

If a lineage is valid doesn't this mean that the monk can turn wine and bread into the blood and body of Jesus? If so then just ask the monk to do it and you won't have to worry about it any more. (Explanation:If you want to know if a monks lineage is valid then it must be valid for some purpose...so just get the monk to demonstrate that purpose and you will know the answer.)

chownah
Thanks for sharing your view, as snarky as it is, but really does not answer the question.
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 18983
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Location: Turtle Island

Re: The Validity of Non-Theravada Ordinations Lineages redux

Postby chownah » Wed Jan 20, 2010 2:10 pm

tiltbillings wrote:
chownah wrote: Mostly my post was intended to focus on the concept of "valid". It seems to me that when this term is used it often will elicit a response based on some unmentioned judgemental system unique to the the person responding....and often the judgemental system used by the one responding is not even known to them. The term "valid" often has the effect of hiding the real operative principle by substituting the sweeping and yet undefined principle of "validity". This of course can allow a group of people to calmly discuss some topic while the actual basic core meaning of what they are saying is hidden by the drop cloth of "validity". Unless the term "valid" is very clearly defined for a particular use then it is worse than useless in that it leads people to think they are discussing something when really they are discussing nothing. "Valid" is not only empty in the dhammic sense....it is also (unless clearly defined) empty in the conversational sense.
.....in my view.

If a lineage is valid doesn't this mean that the monk can turn wine and bread into the blood and body of Jesus? If so then just ask the monk to do it and you won't have to worry about it any more. (Explanation:If you want to know if a monks lineage is valid then it must be valid for some purpose...so just get the monk to demonstrate that purpose and you will know the answer.)

chownah
Thanks for sharing your view, as snarky as it is, but really does not answer the question.

You misunderstand me entirely...I'm not being sarcastic nor do I feel contempt for anyone or anything on this issue.....I'm just saying that many times people use the term "valid" as if it has some meaning of its own when really it only has meaning in relation to some value judgement or some functional usefullness. The term "valid" is often used to dress up a stance to make it look more true or believable...I don't feel contempt for those who do this.....I just hope that people examine the logic of their arguements and try to avoid the use of "valid" as empty window dressing....this can be easily done by always using the term "valid" in a construct such as "valid for the purpose of...." or "valid in regard to...." or by defining precisely what the term "valid" is validating before embarking on a discussion of whether something is "valid" or not.

I'm not too concerned about answering the question as I am on finding out really what the question is asking....I think you should uderstand this because in the original post you even ask for the basis of claims of "validity"....I'm hoping that what I have posted helps people to understand how they can think that something is "valid" without really having any idea what this "validity" is or what it means or whether it really has any meaning at all. If someone says that a lineage is valid of it goes back to the Buddha...then what does this mean?....Does it really mean anything other than it goes back to the Buddha? If it does mean something other than that then what is this other meaning?....and if it does not have any meaning other than it goes back to the Buddha then why try to claim more righteousness by adding on the undefined (and in this case meaningless) modifier of "valid"?

Another way to view this: The term "valid" when used properly is a kind of abbreviated way to express a more complicated issue...such as we say "she validated my parking ticket" instead of saying she affixed a stamp in the proper box on the parking ticket to indicate that I had satisfied the requirements so that my claim that I can park here today for free is valid."

So once again I am not answering the question...I'm hoping that someone else does so I can see what this "valid" thing means to them.

chownah
chownah
 
Posts: 2534
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Previous

Return to Open Dhamma

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Sweet_Nothing, VinceField, Yahoo [Bot] and 3 guests