I fail to see the irony. It seems entirely appropriate to me. I'm admittedly no proper scholar of the subject, just a former armchair enthusiast, but when I r

I fail to see the irony. It seems entirely appropriate to me. I'm admittedly no proper scholar of the subject, just a former armchair enthusiast, but when I read texts from the Pali canon it seems clear to me that from the earliest recorded times Buddhism has considered itself a living tradition. In the stories it tells, Gautama Buddha often refuses to weigh in on those sorts of matters. Fast forward a couple thousand years and you've got things like a letter in which a major Zen patriarch explicitly refuses to offer any opinion on a point of "theological" disagreement between Pure Land Buddhism and his own sect. And in between, plenty more stories of leaders encouraging flexible thinking on these kinds of matters. It's really not like Abrahamic religious traditions where there's this tendency toward obsessing over orthodoxy.