But might the point be something like: both
(i.e. the Buddhist and non-Buddhist dharma teacher) are bus drivers, but maybe the kind of bus is different?
This is not erase
the particular - and ways of judging it/them - but to recognise that on this matter at least, there is some kind of interesting relation between the particular and the universal.
Maybe it's more accurate to assume it may be two bus drivers: but the buses are headed to
different destinations. Unless someone has strictly followed each method to its completion and compared
the results: there is no definitive proof that the result is identical. Unless we hear as much
from someone we know to be omniscient. But then, we'd have to be omniscient to know they
were omniscient! So, another catch 22.
That's why it's safest not to presume two paths lead to the same result. If there are different methods : even
if superficially the language chosen to describe aspects is similar (as in the too oft compared Advaita and Dzogchen because of the shared non-dual approach) we should first presume that the unique methods lead to unique results, and follow
one chosen course devotedly to its end. Otherwise we may just get stuck in the middle, like someone trying to sit down in between two chairs: inevitably they'll just fall on their bum.
Well, there's no proof is there, in either case? I mean, not even close.
I suppose I'm increasingly wary of Buddhist sectarianism, both within (i.e. Buddhist tradition A defining itself dialectically against Buddhist tradition B) and without (i.e. Buddhism per se defining itself dialectically against any other kind of ism).
This is not to say that Buddhists (or Dzogchenpa's) can't or shouldn't make necessary distinctions. But rather that there are a lot of deeply polemical/ideological/cultural reasons which have produced and continue to produce a rather crass sectarian logic.
I don't have any idea who this fellow is, or what he is trying to do; If his version of Buddhism/Dzogchen/Vedanta/New agey shonk doesn't appeal, then...well.....what's the big deal? Another unappealing teacher? So be it. What's to be gained by hanging him via the path of sectarian distinction?
How in the world did you get "two different paths most likely don't lead to the same result = sectarianism"?
On the one hand, an extreme example would be the New Age idea that any spiritual path or religion will lead to the same result: be it devotional worship of a creator God, or sacrificing animals to local deities, any kind of newly arisen cult (Scientology, Heaven's Gate, et. al) Wicca, Free Masonry, etc. This is similar to the idea that paths developed via the Indian subcontinent must lead to the same result: Jainism, Vedism, various offshoots of modern Hinduism, Advaita Vedanta, Buddhism, etc.
If it is sectarian to believe they don't lead to the same result then Shakyamuni Buddha himself was one of the great Sectarians of all time!
How you are interpreting this as corresponding to sectarianism within the Buddhadharma itself is beyond me. That's an entirely different conversation which needs to be discussed within the proper context of Buddhist hermeneutics, lineage politics, and many other factors. It's not at all what I was talking about or alluding to.