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
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.
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