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.)
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.
There is freedom from birth, freedom from becoming, freedom from making, freedom from conditioning. If there were not this freedom from birth, freedom from becoming, freedom from making, freedom from conditioning, then escape from that which is birth, becoming, making, conditioning, would not be known here. -- Ud 80
Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.
dheamhan a fhios agam
Damned if I know.