相So… I meant to join in on this conversation almost two weeks ago but then life happened or something and I kept postponing it. And now I’ve apparently missed quite a bit (haven’t read anything that’s deleted) but I’m glad y’all got it sorted out. May the informative discussions continue in peace. 
Naturally, I don’t mean to immediately start a new heated debate. It’s just that…
…the urge to say “but [some of] Buddhism is doctrinal. You can’t tell people what their religions are supposed to be.” is very strong. I’m sure you know already and there’s no malice in my remark - just really felt like mentioning it in case someone who isn’t aware of that scrolls by.
“Buddhism” (as an ~ism) is not just a philosophy or lifestyle, it’s also definitely a Religion; all kinds of questionable content, internal strife and schisms, discrimination, [re]interpretations, dogma, revivals, reboots, etc. included. It’s got heavens and hells, angels and demons, saints and sinners, all of that gory story stuff too. Like a very thick layer of mud over the Lotus of the “original teaching” (if there can be said to have been such a thing). Just like the monotheist religions, Buddhism is not a monolith: there’s great diversity to its systems, as developed by a great number of geographically and culturally diverse people over a very long period of time.
Buddhism - even when just limited to Japan - is 波瀾万丈 (and with that I leap to:)
Yes, please! 
Those are fantastic. I remember this other thread that was all about WK yojijukugo, and just found another. Would always welcome more.
This made of think of a similar concept (or thought experiment) in western philosophy, in the form of Theseus’ Ship. In a way this is true of the human form as well. We’re constantly shifting, being replaced bit by bit but still considered to be the same person by most others. And that too is found in Buddhism, of course: self vs no-self discourse.