Let us first consider these dimensions separately. When we speak of the developmental dimension or aspect of Buddhism, we are focusing on the transformational intent of the tradition, on the Buddha-Dharma as a practical means of spiritual growth and development. Buddhism, in all of its forms, sees the spiritual life as the transformation of delusion and suffering into Enlightenment and liberation. Even the so-called 'non-dual' forms of Buddhism-Zen and Dzog-chen, for example-acknowledge an experiential distinction between delusion and Enlightenment, and certainly neither would trivialise the existential reality of suffering.2 The second crucial aspect of basic Buddhism-what I have called the relational dimension of the tradition-comes to the fore, by contrast, whenever we note the distinctly Buddhist conception of the interrelatedness of all things. And 'things' here may be taken to encompass not just all sentient beings but every aspect of the ecosystems in which they participate, ultimately the ecosphere in its totality.3

Looking at Buddhism historically, we will quickly note that these two dimensions are rarely given equal stress in any given expression of the tradition. My argument here rests only on the assertion that both will always be present to some degree-that indeed there is a necessary complementarity between the two-even when one appears more prominent than the other. The fact that one dimension or the other will, within the context of a particular form of Buddhism, frequently receive relatively more or less emphasis thus raises no problem, since the basic complementarity is not thereby negated. Indeed by noting in different schools of Buddhism the relative difference in emphasis given to the developmental or the relational dimensions, we have one useful way of charting the complex and fascinating permutations that the basic Dharma manifested as the tradition made its way through the various cultural encounters of its 2,500-year history.

To clarify the variable relationship between these two dimensions of basic Buddhism, we might think of the two axes of a graph, with the vertical axis indicating the developmental dimension of the tradition and the horizontal axis indicating the relational dimension (see Fig. 1). We have then a useful heuristic tool we can use to explore the rich elaboration of different Buddhist schools and teachings, plotting each in reference to the others by noting the relative degree of emphasis given to the developmental and relational dimensions respectively. While this approach is helpful in highlighting and understanding the diversity within Buddhism, the tool I am suggesting here will also help us recognise how the differences revealed indicate not so much a fundamental divergence among the forms of Buddhism but rather differences in approach and emphasis, 'expedient means' (upaaya) that reflect the ability of the tradition to adapt to the needs and dispositions of different historical and cultural settings. One could, no doubt, even write a history of Buddhism by charting the various permutations of emphasis revealed by this simple x-y graph, but that would go well beyond the task at hand.

For our present purposes a few basic generalisations should suffice, both to illustrate the basic distinction between 'vertical' and 'horizontal' or 'developmental' and 'relational' within the tradition and also to demonstrate the usefulness of this interpretative approach. Considering the two major divisions that arose within the history of Buddhism, Theravaada Buddhism (often called 'Hiinayaana') on the one hand and the Mahaayaana (including later the developments of Vajrayaana, Zen, etc.) on the other, we could, for example, note that the former places relatively more emphasis on the developmental dimension, while in the latter the relational aspect often comes more to the fore. Similarly it would not be too rash to observe that, on the whole, the South Asian Indo-Tibetan forms of Buddhism tend to plot out higher on the developmental (i.e. the vertical axis), whereas East Asian forms on the whole tend to move further out on the horizontal or relational axis. As with all such generalisations, the exceptions are often all the more significant and more interesting than the instances that conform. And even more importantly, we must remember that what we are noting here is simply a matter of the relative degree of emphasis given each of these aspects, which does not assume any mutual exclusion between the two. Instances of a totally one-dimensional form of Buddhism would in fact be very difficult to find in the historical record, so much so that we would be justified in asking whether such a case was still legitimately Buddhism even if it referred to itself as such.