kirtu wrote:As you know Vajrayana is the pinnacle of the Mahayana lineages and Indo-Tibetan-Himalayan Vajrayana has some differences with Japanese Vajrayana. Furthermore as you know there are distinct lineages within Indo-Tibetan-Himalayan Vajrayana so I don't think we will see a western ecumenical Buddhism distinct from the Buddhist lineages that currently exist.
Huseng wrote:I mean, for example, do you take Śākyamuni's teachings as more critical than a terma text?
The two teachings have entirely different purposes (although not ultimately) and audiences. The audience for the terma text is small and restricted. The audience for almost any of Shakyamuni Buddha's teachings is larger (although this was not always the case - see the Anthill Sutta for example - the Pali canon clearly records teachings originally intended for one person and does it in more than one place) and is unrestricted.
Another view is that most of Shakyamuni Buddha's teachings were for beings on the Shravaka path and secondarily on the Bodhisattva path. The Vajrayana is intended for beings on the higher Bodhisattva path and the Vidyadhara path.
Huseng wrote:Right, but much of the rest of the Mahāyāna world is taking an interest in classical Śrāvakayāna,
Tibetan Buddhism also has an interest in the classical Sravakayana. It's just that people in the past didn't make that their main focus and still don't.
Huseng wrote:If you understand the academic side of Buddhism especially (and this is more and more a critical aspect of how western Buddhism collectively perceives and values things), then the teachings of the historical Śākyamuni Buddha hold great precedence.
The teachings of the historical Shakyamuni Buddha are also of great interest in Tibetan Buddhism. However in this view this of course includes the Bodhisattvayana.
I think the lineage forms will continue for quite a while.