Each to their lineage?

One of the most important principles in Buddhism is for teachers to leave the meaning of Buddhist teachings unchanged for future generations. The presentation can be altered for students' karma as exemplified by Atisha's creation of the Lamrim, but you must keep it Buddhism. However, there is great disagreement over the meaning of the higher teachings on emptiness. The Buddha's approach to teaching is confusing, as he gave multiple and seemingly contradictory explanations of the nature of reality. These are widely understood to have been directed to the karma of his audience and to lead disciples on a graduated path of understanding which takes the student closer and closer to ultimate truth. I have posted previously about the disagreement between Je Tsongkhapa and Gorampa and there is general public rejection of Hashang Mahayana's concept-less meditation style amongst the four schools of Buddhism from Tibet. However, because the schools are different, there is inevitably some tension and criticism between them for example, the historic origin's of Dzogchen practice are elusive and its often criticised as being Hashang's Chan Dharma in disguise.

"Again, the emphasis is on non-conceptualization and the uselessness of any practice based on striving toward a goal."

Tension between these different approaches to attaining wisdom understanding reality appears to have been inherited from India and China.

"By the late 8th century tension developed between the different groups of foreign teachers and their Tibetan disciples, particularly between the Indians and the Chinese. While the Indian teachers taught a graduated path in which the tantric and sutric teachings were carefully laid out as steps to enlightenment, the Chinese taught a method they called Chan (their pronunciation of the Sanskrit dhyāna, meaning “contemplation”). Chan, the forerunner of Japanese Zen, emphasized the result rather than the path, and a straightforward concept-free meditation rather than the multitude of methods offered by the Indian teachers.

When the tension between the Indian and Chinese camps threatened to erupt into violence (in fact, some of the Chan disciples actually wounded themselves in protest and threatened suicide), the Tibetan emperor Trisong Detsen called for the situation to be resolved in a formal debate."

The war of ideas must rage on.

So we have a situation where students of Tibetan Buddhism are taught and practise different methods and inherit different views. Within the gradualist path sorting through these views and attaining the correct generic image of emptiness is of paramount importance. Inevitably as part of this investigation, one must be able to dismiss incorrect paths or views. Indeed, three or more views that Buddha himself presented must be rejected! Not to mention understandings presented in other traditions. For the gradualist, at some point it can be rightly said that they will reject, for themselves, teachings that many other people involved in Buddhism are fervently and sincerely practising. In the situation, how does one avoid tension and dischord? Furthermore, as Stephan Batchelor pointed out, Bodhisattvas are concerned with the liberation of all living beings. It is very simple to understand what it might mean to someone with this concern when they feel they have recognised a false path.

All of these concerns can seemingly be dismissed when one contemplates the differing karma of disciples, however, in Tibet this is not what happened. Upon the loss of the Great debate to Kamalashila, Hashang was kicked out of Tibet!

Kongtrul's Rimé movement has gone someway to establishing a good deal of cooperation and sharing of teachings between the various traditions of Tibet. Dorje Shugden practitioners have commitments to follow one tradition purely which can seem on the surface to be sectarian and cult-like. However, it is actually a sentiment echoed throughout all lineages and teachings including within the Rimé tradition itself. You can find similar instructions in Jack Kornfield's teachings in A Path with Heart.

"taking the one seat describes two related aspects of spiritual work. Outwardly, it means selecting one practice and teacher among all of the possibilities, and inwardly, it means having the determination to stick with that practice through whatever difficulties and doubts arise until you have come to true clarity and understanding...

If we do a little of one kind of practice and a little of another, the work we have done in one often doesn't continue to build as we change to the next. It is as if we were to dig many shallow wells instead of one deep one. In continually moving from one approach to another, we are never forced to face our own boredom, impatience, and fears. We are never brought face to face with ourselves. So we need to choose a way of practice that is deep and ancient and connected with our hearts, and then make a commitment to follow it as long as it takes to transform ourselves. This is the outward aspect of taking the one seat."

The NKT emphasises avoiding pick and mix Buddhism and a issues a challenge to "get out of Samsara" as quickly as possible, both of which seem to oppose the idea of studying the ideas of other traditions - as what is the intention behind doing this? If you want to help others get enlightened a quickly as you can, then you will be able to help all beings in accordance with their karma.