Are we following a tradition?
Or a particular teacher?
Or trying to belong to a group that identifies with a lineage or label?
It isn’t always easy to face our real motivations. But if we take seriously the claim that the Buddha presented a path to liberation, then the work is ours to do. Liberation is not inherited by affiliation.
Non-self, impermanence, dependent arising, suffering arising from grasping, morality as lived practice—these are attributed to the Buddha by all traditions that call themselves “Buddhist”.
Either:
These insights describe reality accurately — in which case they are valuable regardless of who first articulated them; or
They do not describe reality accurately — in which case it makes no difference that a Buddha is said to have taught them.
Buddhism should be judged by whether it works, not by whether it has impeccable documentation. If anicca, dukkha, and anatta illuminate experience—if they reduce suffering, clarify confusion, and enable wisdom—then they succeed on their own terms.
This is hardly a radical position. The Kalama Sutta already advises us not to accept teachings on the basis of tradition, scripture, or authority alone, but through direct understanding.
Traditions often claim superiority on one ground or another. But no tradition is “better” simply by virtue of its name. If you find that others—no different from yourself—are entitled to the same consideration you expect, then the bodhisattva path may be worth exploring.
Or not.
The choice is yours.