I have heard that certain Hindu traditions regard meditation as a secondary, supportive practice, whereas intellectual study and debate of sacred texts are regarded as the superior practice. Have you any opinion on this?

SHIH-FU:

There are also Buddhist traditions like this. When Hsuan-tsang (600-664) went to India in the seventh century to retrieve sutras and sastras, he discovered two major Buddhist traditions: Yogacara and Madhyamika. Masters and disciples of these traditions constantly engaged in Dharma debates. In fact, they spent all their time in detailed intellectual analyses of Buddhist philosophy, using the ancient Buddhist logical system as the tool of their investigations. The more they engaged in their studies and debates, the more lucid their minds became, until they clearly and fully understood all Buddhist concepts and principles. Quite naturally, through such rigorous training their vexations lessened as well.

This type of practice, however, is in a sense elitist. Engaging in debates and study is easier if you live where you can do it all the time. A monastery is conducive to such practice. There is plenty of time, many fellow practitioners with similar aspirations, and few disturbances and temptations. Lay practitioners, however, cannot do this. They have other responsibilities. Only scholars and academics would have the facilities, desire and time for such practice. It is not suitable for the ordinary person.

I know a master in Taiwan who never meditates. Once I asked him, "Do you have any method of practice?"