i don't follow.... from a merely analytic point of view, if even those that teach that there is no path don't practice as if there were none, then they are working with both.Astus wrote:it is possible to work only with one or the other, or create a hierarchical structure of them. Also, views emphasising a narrow path are usually more rhetoric than practical
more generally, the rhetoric of there being no path i thought was found in all chan. and if it is rhetoric for those that teach the most stringent sudden enlightenment [that's what we're talking about - right] then how can they be differentiated from the other camp. or, even, why would it be necessary to work with only one approach and not the other?
i may have lost the thread of what i was trying to say a bit there >_< i guess i was being over rhetorical