I think it would be more accurate to say that the path of the Buddha is about seeing the truth. It’s a truth you find out for yourself. Buddha just pointed in a direction. That’s what the analogy of the finger and the Moon is about. If you think what Buddha taught was the truth, an intellectual truth that you need to learn, that’s mistaking the finger for the Moon.

His starting point though are truths that we can all share, and see to be true from our own experience. We all know what suffering is from our own experience, we know that things change. Buddha taught a path that continues from that starting point, to see the truth for ourselves, whatever it is. Walpola Rahula put it like this in his summary of the The First Noble Truth

“First of all, Buddhism is neither pessimistic nor optimistic. If anything at all, it is realistic, for it takes a realistic view of life and the world. It looks at things objectively (yathābhūtam). It does not falsely lull you into living in a fool's paradise, nor does it frighten and agonize you with all kinds of imaginary fears and sins. It tells you exactly and objectively what you are and what the world around you is, and shows you the way to perfect freedom, peace, tranquility and happiness.”

Another quote from him: The Third Noble Truth

"It is incorrect to think that Nirvana is the natural result of the extinction of craving. Nirvana is not the result of anything. If it would be a result, then it would be an effect produced by a cause. It would be sankhata ‘produced’ and ‘conditioned’. Nirvana is neither cause nor effect. It is beyond cause and effect. Truth is not a result nor an effect. It is not produced like a mystic, spiritual, mental state, such as dhyana or samadhi. TRUTH IS. NIRVANA IS. The only thing you can do is to see it, to realize it. There is a path leading to the realization of Nirvana. But Nirvana is not the result of this path.You may get to the mountain along a path, but the mountain is not the result, not an effect of the path. You may see a light, but the light is not the result of your eyesight.

...

In almost all religions the summum bonum can be attained only after death. But Nirvana can be realized in this very life; it is not necessary to wait till you die to ‘attain’ it."

CONNECTION WITH THE TRUTHS OF SCIENCE

This approach has a lot in common with science, but in scientific research, all that matters is to have a good intellectual understanding. Which of course is very important, but is that all there is to it?

It's the difference between knowing intellectually what suffering is and actually experiencing suffering. Or knowing intellectually that some people experience wonder when they look at the stars, or a flower, or whatever it is, and actually experiencing that wonder, and letting it really hit you. It’s the same also with philosophy, academic philosophy is a bit like Buddhism in some ways but without this idea that it makes any difference to see the truths directly.

So for instance, to really understand that things change, let it soak into your very being, then there are many understandings come from that. Actually New Year is a great time to think about impermanence, because it is all about the start of a new year, fresh starts. Every moment can be a fresh start. Just intellectually understanding that things change is not like that.

Much of the Buddhist path consists of taking truths that we can all see quite easily, such as those ones, and then really and truly internalizing them. Wisdom comes from that. Then finally - according to the teachings anyway - they say that there are truths that you can see directly in the same way that are impossible to understand intellectually, your intellectual understanding is such a pale shadow of them, it's like the finger pointing at the Moon.

Science is very open to change. Even a single experiment (e.g. a single observation of changed positions of stars when close to the Sun) can overturn a theory that has been held for centuries. That's something it has in common with Buddhism. So science also has this connection with truth and you can let it soak in and learn a lot in that way through the truths of science just as for Buddhism. Some scientists like Richard Feynmann make science an open path of discovery and truth, that they engage in with all their being rather than just intellectually, and when they do that, it’s not unlike the Buddhist path.

So, it's more that it's so often not treated as an important thing to understand the truths of science in that way. There are lots of connections and parallels and similarities there. It’s more to do with how science is used and taught.

The main thing about the Buddhist path is that all the way through, it is based on things you can see directly for yourself. You don’t need to put your ideas on what suffering is through a scientific peer review to understand it. You know yourself what it is, an understanding that no amount of explanations in scientific papers could give you.

It is in this sense that the Buddhist path is based on truths that you can see for yourself. Others also see these truths directly. They don't have to be Buddhists, as they are truths that are there for everyone to see, directly. And - it is possible to share that understanding. It's not only done by intellectual arguments although sometimes intellectual discussions are used to point in that direction. It's sometimes done through symbols, actions, just doing things, and in many ways. When a Zen Buddhist shares a koan, it’s to do with communicating truths in this way.

Another thing that’s like this, which we can probably all connect to. Someone may show through a simple act of compassion, in seconds, some inspiration of compassion, which they could never do with even hours or weeks of lectures on compassion. Whether scientific truth can ever explain what is going on there, I don’t know. But it’s truths like that, seeing directly the truth of suffering, the truth of compassion, the truth of the changing nature of everything, the fresh start in every moment, in a way that really hits home - that’s what the Buddhist path is all about.

THE BUDDHIST PATH

Buddhists follow a path along which questions like whether there is a God just don’t apply, for instance. We are “non theists”. Not theists, atheists or agnostics either. It just is not relevant to the Buddhist path.

But that doesn’t mean that we know better than theists how to conduct our lives or what path to follow. Or better than atheists or agnostics either. Or better than polytheists or Taoists, or those who follow ancestor worship or shamanistic religions or …

It is just the path we are following. So I think it is really important for a Buddhist practitioner not to think of the Buddhist path as if it is somehow based on a truth that we somehow know or have an inkling of, and that other religions are unaware of and are ignorant of. All you need as a practitioner is a faith that this is the direction for you. You don’t need to reform the world and get everyone else to follow this path. Luckily :).

For the historical background to this approach in Tibetan Buddhism,s see Ringu Tulku's introduction "What is Rime" in his book "The Rime Philosophy of Jamgong Kongtrul the Greats.

Ringu Tulku is a teacher who doesn't put on airs and is very modest and humble but also counts amongst the more learned of the Tibetan teachers, a professor of Tibetology who has also mastered the teachings and practices of all the four schools of Tibetan Buddhism.