Yes, that was part of my point -- but also that in studying Tibetan medicine, I realized that the way we are receiving Tibetan Buddhism is very static and taxonomic, and in more dynamic Dharma systems like Dzogchen and mahāmudra, the desiccated approach of tenet systems is very bad for explaining process and transformations. Meditation is actually a transformative process. Not a tenet.
I agree with the basic thrust of your position: but I think the problem lies not in particular Dharma systems, but in how they are conceived and interpreted. So I think the issue you are pointing to is a methodological problem within Tibetan Buddhism. Not necessarily, a methodological problem with specific Buddhist Dharma's.
The moment any form or Dharma of Buddhism becomes static, it contravenes the very metaphysical logic it purports to demonstrate.....and the soteriological movement it is designed to engender.
The Abhidharma is a very good example here. It can of course be interpreted as a dry, taxonomic, unevolving, scholastic system. Or it could be interpreted as system which is extremely dynamic in character; a system rooted in the fluidity, change and potential which defines the Buddhist account of subjectivity, and therefore, of subjective transformation. Not only can the Abhidharma be interpreted as a dynamic system, the fact that it is designed to provide insights into living
processes means that it should be manifest in the immanence of contemporary times: new insights should
arise out of it.
So the point here is hermeneutical: an open and dynamic interpretative approach will naturally yield the kinds of transformative and evolving standpoints you advocate.
The question is, what resists this?
To which I would reply, a lack of genuine
philosophical engagement. A spirit of inquiry, intellectual honesty (inclusive of critique) and openness. Is it really a wise approach to just memorise texts?
Buddhism, in all of its forms, demands more than simply learning the axioms which somebody else uttered.