ronnewmexico wrote:Geeze Louise I can't believe it..
You make reference to schools in this context...."I have seen title holders (evidently monastics) disparaging and/or ridiculing the views of other buddhist schools"
And then when it is responded to in that context reference some other context.....???
Do you assume that there has been different meanings referred to by my applying the term "school"? If yes, why? If I try to clarify how the term is defined that is just a try to make the meaning clear for further communication and it is a matter of conventional convenience. What is your problem if any?
ronnewmexico wrote:What the fork??
I won't respond to most of that nonsense,
With that you are showing me that you are not really interested in communication. So be it.
ronnewmexico wrote:what I will say is every school of Buddhism has a means to convey transmission of belief/teachings of what that school believes in. This is called generally within Buddhism as the lineage, or lineage of transmission, though other terms are used depending upon school.
So obviously you are applying the term "school" distinct from lineage. You seem to refer to the institutionalized traditions which may host several lineages (at least the tibetan ones definitely do so). You see ... if not defined and not agreed upon a definition that is convenient of course. You are free to do so.
ronnewmexico wrote:Peoples cannot generally start their own versions of Buddhist belief wihout having such transmission being present.
"Own version" in terms of combining different lineages does not preclude having received transmissions via the lineage.
We are talking about buddhism not instutionalized traditions.
ronnewmexico wrote:If a school of Buddhism is valid it will have a identifyable lineage which traces back the particular school of Buddhist belief to eventually the Buddha.
Actually "school" meaning tradition like e.g. "Nyingma" has several lineages.
ronnewmexico wrote:The Buddha or teacher Buddha in some traditions. If no lineage is available to be seen.....it is not considered valid as Buddhism.
This is not valid since it is not the existence of a lineage that proves buddhism but it is the presence of buddhist core principles in a lineage that makes it a buddhist lineage.
ronnewmexico wrote:Personal belief and what a person expresses in a personal manner is not in this frame of reference or context.
Actually the context I mentioned was personal practice which cannot be equated with "schools" or "traditions" since the understanding of any teaching is individual anyway in all individual minds.
ronnewmexico wrote:If they however on their own without receiving some sort of transmission from a teacher (called most commonly a lineage holder), start a school of Buddhism with no lineage or transmission...it is not considered a Buddhist school.
Flat plain and simple....that is the way it is.
That is right since the Buddha died long ago. However one may start combining different lineages. But since it is a start it cannot be called "tradition" but it may become one in the future.
ronnewmexico wrote:See any new schools of Buddhism around lately?
new "School" in the sense of "lineage" would be a contradiction in terms. but "School" in the sense of "group that may become a tradition", yes there are such "groups".
ronnewmexico wrote:will find they trace their teaching through some established school.
if you mean "lineage" here then we agree.
ronnewmexico wrote:That is the way it is. Bernie Glassman and others, those who participate in these new american forms of Buddhism as teachers/leaders, they are new strange and different, but they, the teachers hold lineage.
See "lineage" ... that is what I say. This allows also a potential combination of different lineages which is valid.
ronnewmexico wrote:Now I fully suspect you will bring some other context such a particular semantically oriented interpretation of school tradition, lineage or perhaps entertain some notion of ultimate understanding to "win" a argument.
Feel free to do so but be advised it is a nonsense way to discuss things.
You appear to be biased.