Well, what is a Bhuddist anyway? To have a Bhuddist, there has to be a self, and there is no self, therefore there is no Bhuddist..but this mind that sends these words, has absorbed the instructions that we understand to have come from the canonical Bhudda. Other bodies with other minds, would look to this body and actions and say that there is some me, and that me is Bhuddist.
"I" came to learn the teachings of the Bhudda during a difficult time in "my" so-called life. So, the clarity that "he" had, this informed me in "my" so-called life. It doesn't seem clear, whether there is any difference between being "Bhuddist" and something else, or whether the Bhudda existed as a person or not is really important. The eyes see the words of the canonical Bhudda in the printed nikayas and this comes through mind and is maybe beneficial. Or the ears hear talks on the dhamma and the mind takes this and maybe it is beneficial if the mind finds utility in it, and it calms the mind. But, Bhuddist, the concept of being "Bhuddist" is contrary to the instructions that "we" understand to have come from the Bhudda. In the profundity of it, to even conceive of Bhuddism as a fixed thing is maybe wrong view.