[Dilangfh]

It is not necessary to make doctrinal positions about being a Buddhist.

The Buddha himself laid out his own doctrine.

Buddhism is about seeing and understanding the natural laws that we all live by; the way things are and this isn't bound by cultural limitations and different approaches/ vehicles or conventions ( Theravada, Mahayana, TB etc ). Actually, it is about the teachings of the Buddha. Various conventions have sprung up that claim to add on to, or to contain "teachings" that were obviously not his, but all claim to trace back to the Buddha. There are plenty of other disciplines that concern themselves with seeing and understanding "natural laws", but few of them are "Buddhism.

Whatever term is used it is best seen as functional and used to describe rather than a position to take, something to attach to and become. The Buddha's teachings were not about "becoming attached to a position". But they weren't a matter of New-Age "just whatever you like".

Didactical posts on a discussion forum which purpote to have the one true understanding go against all that I know - "Didactical" is in the eyes of the beholder.

...the freedom to receive in our hearts that which resonates can be the final decider of what is useful and the onus is on each of us to practice in ways which will allow ourselves to be changed, to expand and grow So take whatever you like and call it "Budhdism".

- so blaming others doesn't get a look in - lol. The blaming comes in when one makes excuses: "he is 'asserting factual superiority' (whatever that is), so I will ignore the facts!"