There is no such thing as an overall Buddhist tradition. The Indian tradition, and thus the Tibetan tradition, puts Madhyamaka at the top.
Being Zen myself, I'm more inclined toward Chinese/Japanese/Korean/Vietnamese traditions. Remember, Bodhidharma was Indian himself, and the school of Buddhism he brought to China was primarily Yogacara. I'm not big on the Tibetan tradition. It's not my cup of tea.
These are just straw man arguments. I don't see whats so hard to understand that Madhyamaka is definitive out of all the sutra material. Again, this is not my opinion, but the opinion of the Indian masters.
And yet most Mahayana Buddhists believe that the Lotus sutra and Avatamsaka sutra are the chief among all the sutras, not the Prajna paramita class of sutras.
Madyamakha has always been representative of conditioned phenomena, while Yogacara and Tathagatagarbha have always been representative of unconditioned phenomena. Madyamakha speaks to the conditions of samsara, while Yogacara speaks to the ultimate reality of Nirvana, and Tathagatagarbha does the same, calling it Buddha-nature. All Madyamakha does is negate the necessity of two extremes, but doesn't speak to the underlying nature. This is where Yogacara/Tathagatagarbha comes in. They pick up where Madyamakha leaves off.
