No I don't think you get the point. Any person of any creed can be a Buddhist. Those who are Buddhists may share certain beliefs but they may not. To a mind obsessed with definitions then you will only see the Buddhists as those living in monasteries and wearing robes or generally blabbing about reincarnation and how everything is connected and about all these fables and stories that make no sense - the people who are not labeled by other things - but those people may be just going through the motions and rituals like so many other religious people do. Them being [i]called[/i] a Buddhist has nothing to do with it. I will concede that Buddhism has a 'brand' in the way it is seen and sold, just like Christianity or Islam or any major belief system, and if you want to use that as how you define them then so be it. I am making a distinction which in my opinion is beyond this branding and if you don't accept that then so be it as well. However, I must insist that 'stopping from trying to reach nirvana' is not a rule to reach nirvana, because by explicitly following it you are trying to reach nirvana and therefore won't. A rule implies you can follow it to reach an intended outcome. This is not something you follow, nor is it something you don't follow. How many people in the world haven't even heard it, who have therefore implicitly followed it, and not reached nirvana? Reaching nirvana is something that happens pretty much by accident. You don't work towards it as a Christian works towards being favoured by God; it's more akin to accidentally tripping over in the street. There may be things you can do to make it more likely, like not tying your shoelaces and letting them flap about your feet, but you may not trip over that way at all, or you may trip over without untying them. It can happen to anyone, regardless of their intentions or inclinations. You can't specifically engineer an accident, else it isn't an accident. It is therefore more of an observation than a rule.