And there are some considerable gulfs of differences between the various schools of buddhism - at what point does the difference become ‘not buddhism’? Especially with it on the table that the Dali Lama and some other buddhists (yourself included?) see these faiths as essentially valid paths.
When a school of Buddhism does not teach the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path or distorts those teaching, then it is not Buddhist. Other faiths are valid moral paths but do not lead to the ending of samsara, to Nibbana.
But as a Catholic, I still recognize that non-Catholic Christians are Christians. Whereas you’re alternately saying that buddhism is not for everyone, and in fact some people better achieve the goals of buddhism in their own (non-buddhist) faiths - but at the same time, those faiths are not buddhism from your perspective because they’re so different, but the differences between the other branches of buddhism don’t matter as much.
The goal of Buddhism is Nibbana. I am unaware of any other religion that has this as a goal. Since Buddhism is unique among the major religions in not worshipping a Creator God, I stand by my statement that it is not for everyone.
It’s murky. A lot within buddhism is murky. Once we throw out everything that most buddhists will dismiss as irrelevant or inconsequential, we’re typically left with such a small core of understandings that they can be entirely absorbed within most existing faiths without so much as a blink. Even the four noble truths and eightfold path don’t stand as a good comparison to the nicene creed - particularly because how to regard them is a subject with quite some latitude, and the creed has more to do with belief of metaphysical reality rather than concepts of proper conduct.
A great deal of the concepts of Buddhism take effort and study to understand and realize. The concept of dukkha is one such concept. Even if there is an intellectual understanding one still needs to realize it, feel it in ones very core.
The Eightfold Path is more than concepts of proper conduct. It is actually grouped into three sections: virtue, concentration and discernment.
"And what is the virtue of one who is in training? There is the case where a monk is virtuous. He dwells restrained in accordance with the Patimokkha, consummate in his behavior & sphere of activity. He trains himself, having undertaken the training rules, seeing danger in the slightest fault. This is called the virtue of one who is in training.
"And what is the concentration of one who is in training? There is the case where a monk — quite withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful [mental] qualities — enters & remains in the first jhana: rapture & pleasure born from withdrawal, accompanied by directed thought & evaluation. With the stilling of directed thoughts & evaluations, he enters & remains in the second jhana: rapture & pleasure born of composure, unification of awareness free from directed thought & evaluation — internal assurance. With the fading of rapture, he remains in equanimity, is mindful & alert, and senses pleasure with the body. He enters & remains in the third jhana, of which the Noble Ones declare, ‘Equanimous & mindful, he has a pleasant abiding.’ With the abandoning of pleasure & pain — as with the earlier disappearance of elation & distress — he enters & remains in the fourth jhana: purity of equanimity & mindfulness, neither pleasure nor pain. This is called the concentration of one who is in training.
"And what is the discernment of one who is in training? There is the case where a monk discerns as it actually is that ‘This is stress… This is the origination of stress… This is the cessation of stress… This is the path of practice leading to the cessation of stress.’ This is called the discernment of one who is in training.
"Then there is the disciple of the noble ones — thus consummate in virtue, thus consummate in concentration, thus consummate in discernment — who, through the ending of the mental fermentations, enters & remains in the fermentation-free awareness-release & discernment-release, having known & made them manifest for himself right in the here & now. – AN 3.73
Except now we even have materialist buddhists who reject the heavenly realm, or any concept of reincarnation. Are they not real buddhists? And again we’re down to the question of just how valid ‘Well, these guys all say they attained nirvana, you should trust them - pay no attention to the considerable disagreements between them’ is as a means of justification.
I realized there are people who say that one can be a Buddhist while rejecting heavenly realms and reincarnation, etc. There are Catholics who regularly go to Mass and Communion who practice birth control, say there should be women priests, and believe that homosexuality is not a sin. Are these Catholics not really Catholic? Maybe they are not. However they do tell others that they are Catholic. This is how statistics such as 70% of Catholics use birth control come about.
Enlightened people do not go around advertising it. I don’t know of anyone in my tradition who has declared they have reached the goal nor do I know of anyone in any other tradition who has said so. It is not because no one has attained Nibbana, but rather that anyone who talks about doing so should be looked at with suspicion. It would be as though someone in your faith declared themselves to be a saint. This does not mean that others cannot see the saintliness in a holy person or see the attainments of an enlightened one.
