Huifeng wrote:Huseng wrote:
I once explained these sentiments to a Tibetan Bhiksuni who remarked, "It is all well to be a scholar, but you need to stick to one tradition."
Some good posts, above, but coming back to this point from the bhiksuni, I kind of find it rather ironic. After all, there is basically one teaching from the Buddha, how did it end up as various "traditions" in the first place? How many "traditions" around nowadays can be point to, and say that they are a continuous "one tradition"? Probably very few, if any at all. Which means that the very people who set these traditions in motion, themselves never confined themselves to a single "tradition". Rather, most "traditions" are attempts at hermeneutics on a range of other "traditions". So, I find the bhiksunis comments rather ironic, well meaning, but in some ways, a bit naive even.
Your wisdom always hits the nail on the head.
I imagine one might reply that a certain tradition, like for example one in Tibet, has been refined and established by enlightened masters so the food has been "prepared" and we have only to eat it.
I think that approach might work well for a lot of people. The lot of people are busy with their lives, children, jobs and so on. They don't have time to investigate the various developments of Madhyamaka thought in India and then in Tibet. I don't even think most Buddhists would want to get into broad studies even if their teachers asked them to.
I guess it comes down to the division between dharma-nusarin (wisdom follower) and sroddha-nusarin (faith follower).
If you're the former, you'll probably always want to dig into the details no matter what the later have to say about it.