The Validity of Non-Theravada Ordinations Lineages redux

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 12429
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
Contact:

Re: The Validity of Non-Theravada Ordinations Lineages redux

Post by DNS » Sat Jan 09, 2010 5:35 pm

If all lineages trace back to the Buddha (and it appears that they do), then in regard to bhikkhuni ordinations, the lineage or 'yana' should be moot.

There are probably not any two people on earth who agree on everything on every single issue; not husbands & wives, best friends, etc. The monastics on the chain of any lineage cannot be expected to all think alike and therefore any lineage tracing back to the Buddha is valid, certainly for acting as a preceptor.

Being called Theravada might be one thing, but for simply acting as a preceptor, such as using some Mahayana nuns in some cases to ordain a Theravada bhikkhuni? I see nothing wrong with that, in my opinion.

chownah
Posts: 8101
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: The Validity of Non-Theravada Ordinations Lineages redux

Post by chownah » Mon Jan 11, 2010 1:56 pm

tiltbillings wrote:
chownah wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:Is the Theravada ordination lineage THE only valid lineage extant? If, yes, based upon what?

What basis do non-Theravadion ordination lineages claim validity?
We only have the six sense bases from which to make this "validity" determination......and since I guess we can't see, smell, hear, taste, or touch "validity" then I guess it must be one of those "thought" things.......so whatever one comes up with it is just an idea that has popped into someone's head......I guess you could say that "validity" is empty.....except perhaps when they validate my free parking sticker when I make a purchase at one of the stores in town....except for THAT the concept of "validity" is empty....I guess.
chownah
Really does not answer the question, does it?
Really does not respond to the post it quotes, does it?
....or does it?

chownah
Posts: 8101
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: The Validity of Non-Theravada Ordinations Lineages redux

Post by chownah » Mon Jan 11, 2010 3:50 pm

This definitely does not answer the question but I just stumbled into this and thought it might be appropriate anyway.....since this is the dhammic free for all....titled "Validation":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cbk980jV7Ao" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23045
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: The Validity of Non-Theravada Ordinations Lineages redux

Post by tiltbillings » Mon Jan 11, 2010 4:28 pm

tiltbillings wrote:
chownah wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:Is the Theravada ordination lineage THE only valid lineage extant? If, yes, based upon what?

What basis do non-Theravadion ordination lineages claim validity?
We only have the six sense bases from which to make this "validity" determination......and since I guess we can't see, smell, hear, taste, or touch "validity" then I guess it must be one of those "thought" things.......so whatever one comes up with it is just an idea that has popped into someone's head......I guess you could say that "validity" is empty.....except perhaps when they validate my free parking sticker when I make a purchase at one of the stores in town....except for THAT the concept of "validity" is empty....I guess.
chownah
Really does not answer the question, does it?
chownah wrote: Really does not respond to the post it quotes, does it?
....or does it?
Does your msg answer the question? who knows, given that what you are saying here is a bit of a mystery. except for THAT the concept of "validity" is empty What conclusion are we to draw from that? Validity really does not mean anything because it is empty? Then certainly murder does not meanything because IT is empty. So, what are you trying to say here?
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

chownah
Posts: 8101
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: The Validity of Non-Theravada Ordinations Lineages redux

Post by chownah » Wed Jan 13, 2010 2:47 pm

tiltbillings wrote:
chownah wrote:
tiltbillings wrote: We only have the six sense bases from which to make this "validity" determination......and since I guess we can't see, smell, hear, taste, or touch "validity" then I guess it must be one of those "thought" things.......so whatever one comes up with it is just an idea that has popped into someone's head......I guess you could say that "validity" is empty.....except perhaps when they validate my free parking sticker when I make a purchase at one of the stores in town....except for THAT the concept of "validity" is empty....I guess.
chownah
Really does not answer the question, does it?
chownah wrote: Really does not respond to the post it quotes, does it?
....or does it?
Does your msg answer the question? who knows, given that what you are saying here is a bit of a mystery. except for THAT the concept of "validity" is empty What conclusion are we to draw from that? Validity really does not mean anything because it is empty? Then certainly murder does not meanything because IT is empty. So, what are you trying to say here?
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

User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23045
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: The Validity of Non-Theravada Ordinations Lineages redux

Post by 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.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

chownah
Posts: 8101
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: The Validity of Non-Theravada Ordinations Lineages redux

Post by 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

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 89 guests