user151: 
According to the suttas 

Are human beings capable of discerning what dhamma is outside of the suttas?
Is it possible to know enough from the suttas and then make use of the Abhidhamma?
What about the mere possibility that a dhamma practitioner could make use of Jesus's teachings, Hindu teachings, Sufi teachings or sutras outside the the official Theravada context?
When is it appropriate to be more closed minded?
When is it appropriate to be more open minded?

user2282: Actually, even by going with the suttas, that's not enough. The Buddha was more of a hands-on kind of teacher, and He always advocate one to put the money where the mouth is and hold off on jumping to conclusion on any teaching, be it Hindu, Sufi, Christian,... or even Buddhist. And say if 2 guys were brought in front of the Buddha: one was a "Buddhist" who commits killing, stealing, adultery, lying, taking intoxicants, while the other was a follower of an "outside" sect but abstains from all of those unwholesome conducts. Guess who'd be considered a better "Buddhist" in the Buddha's eye?

"Gotami, the qualities of which you may know, 'These qualities lead to passion, not to dispassion; to being fettered, not to being unfettered; to accumulating, not to shedding; to self-aggrandizement, not to modesty; to discontent, not to contentment; to entanglement, not to seclusion; to laziness, not to aroused persistence; to being burdensome, not to being unburdensome': You may categorically hold, 'This is not the Dhamma, this is not the Vinaya, this is not the Teacher's instruction.'
"As for the qualities of which you may know, 'These qualities lead to dispassion, not to passion; to being unfettered, not to being fettered; to shedding, not to accumulating; to modesty, not to self-aggrandizement; to contentment, not to discontent; to seclusion, not to entanglement; to aroused persistence, not to laziness; to being unburdensome, not to being burdensome': You may categorically hold, 'This is the Dhamma, this is the Vinaya, this is the Teacher's instruction.'" ~~ AN 8.53 ~~


user14789: It is a wide spread idea that ''all religions'' talk about the same thing, or that all religions are more or less compatible or that the dhamma is compatible with some doctrine invented by some puthujjanas. For instance some people say that Jesus was an arahant, or an Anagamin. Some people say that because the buddha does not say explicitly that there is no god, judaism, christianity and so on are not false,
And then outside explicit religion, some  puthujjanas try to build their societies on the dhamma (which is weird since samma sankappa is the opposite of the goal of a society, which is to fulfill their cravings and ideas for comfort and work and duties, responsibilities, honor, praise, material rewards, medals,  and so on) like the humanists keep saying that the dhamma is compatible with  liberalism, libertarianism, socialism, communism and the idea that humans are happy when they have a salary and buy the goods they crave, when they ''have meaning'', ''a sense of purpose'' and that when the desires of all the humans are fulfilled, humans will be nice to each other and live in harmony, like the christian says when they talk about their heaven.
This is a cute idea but does not go well with the dhamma. So any ''explanation'' which is the dhamma is this one

"I will teach you the penetrative explanation that is a Dhamma explanation. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak."
"As you say, lord," the monks responded.
The Blessed One said: "And which penetrative explanation is a Dhamma explanation?
"Sensuality should be known. The cause by which sensuality comes into play should be known. The diversity in sensuality should be known. The result of sensuality should be known. The cessation of sensuality should be known. The path of practice for the cessation of sensuality should be known.
"Feeling should be known. The cause by which feeling comes into play
should be known. The diversity in feeling should be known. The result
of feeling should be known. The cessation of feeling should be known.
The path of practice for the cessation of feeling should be known.
"Perception should be known. The cause by which perception comes into
play should be known. The diversity in perception should be known. The
result of perception should be known. The cessation of perception
should be known. The path of practice for the cessation of perception
should be known.
"Fermentations[1] should be known. The cause by which fermentations
come into play should be known. The diversity in fermentations should
be known. The result of fermentations should be known. The cessation
of fermentations should be known. The path of practice for the
cessation of fermentations should be known
"Kamma should be known. The cause by which kamma comes into play
should be known. The diversity in kamma should be known. The result of
kamma should be known. The cessation of kamma should be known. The
path of practice for the cessation of kamma should be known.
"Stress should be known. The cause by which stress comes into play
should be known. The diversity in stress should be known. The result
of stress should be known. The cessation of stress should be known.
The path of practice for the cessation of stress should be known.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an06/an06.063.than.html
as long as some poeple claim to ''explain'' something and it is exactly what is mentioned  in the sutta, you can say the explanation is the dhamma. But is the explanation is different or  less or more than this, then it is not the dhamma.
What is true is that plenty of the wrong views created by puthujjanas allow them to do meritorious activities and they have plenty of deva realms to go to. You do not need to cultivate right view, even less cultivate wisdom to do activities with good karma.
The buddha even says that the non returners cannot even go to the highest realms, only puhutjjanas can die and be reborn here as some devas. just like only puthujjanas can go to bad realm (because non-puthujjanas are said to not do activities from bad karma (because those people do not have bad intention)).
you can cultivate metta and dana, and some weird samadhi created by puthujjanas, and those are still meritorious activities, but as long as they are not seen from wisdom, right view, right investigation, sati and   whatever the buddha praises, it will not lead to nibanna.

user-1: Other teachers do not teach all four types of clinging;


Clinging to sensuality
Clinging to rites and rituals
Clinging to views
Clinging to a doctrine of self


https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nanamoli/wheel390.html
Only Buddhadhamma is for the abandonment of all four. Other teachings in as far as they include abandonment of a type of clinging are to that extent wise.
Brahmajala sutta explains various wrong views and speculative doctrines about the world which are basis for other religions.
Also when hearing or reading teachings it should be compared to teachings known to be true, to see if they align and if they do they align they then ought to be accepted. I think this is in the great references sutta.
Making use of Abhidhamma depends on what you want with it. It's quite useful for improving expression and understanding of the Dhamma as it breaks down many teachings word for word, it will improve understanding of terms like jhana, factors of enlightenment etc. In this sense it is very useful imo.

Are human beings capable of discerning what dhamma is outside of the suttas?

That's a mark of a Sotapanna in this sense; In the Sarakaani Sutta Buddha says that if trees could discern what is rightly spoken he would proclaim them a Sotapanna how much more so his son Sarakaani who took to drink https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn55/sn55.024.wlsh.html

151: <blockquote>
  <p>According to the suttas </p>
</blockquote>

<p>Are human beings capable of discerning what dhamma is outside of the suttas?</p>

<p>Is it possible to know enough from the suttas and then make use of the Abhidhamma?</p>

<p>What about the mere possibility that a dhamma practitioner could make use of Jesus's teachings, Hindu teachings, Sufi teachings or sutras outside the the official Theravada context?</p>

<p>When is it appropriate to be more closed minded?</p>

<p>When is it appropriate to be more open minded?</p>
 2282: <p>Actually, even by going with the suttas, that's not enough. The Buddha was more of a hands-on kind of teacher, and He always advocate one to put the money where the mouth is and hold off on jumping to conclusion on any teaching, be it Hindu, Sufi, Christian,... or even Buddhist. And say if 2 guys were brought in front of the Buddha: one was a &quot;Buddhist&quot; who commits killing, stealing, adultery, lying, taking intoxicants, while the other was a follower of an &quot;outside&quot; sect but abstains from all of those unwholesome conducts. Guess who'd be considered a better &quot;Buddhist&quot; in the Buddha's eye?</p>
<blockquote>
<p>&quot;Gotami, the qualities of which you may know, 'These qualities lead to passion, not to dispassion; to being fettered, not to being unfettered; to accumulating, not to shedding; to self-aggrandizement, not to modesty; to discontent, not to contentment; to entanglement, not to seclusion; to laziness, not to aroused persistence; to being burdensome, not to being unburdensome': You may categorically hold, 'This is not the Dhamma, this is not the Vinaya, this is not the Teacher's instruction.'</p>
<p>&quot;As for the qualities of which you may know, 'These qualities lead to dispassion, not to passion; to being unfettered, not to being fettered; to shedding, not to accumulating; to modesty, not to self-aggrandizement; to contentment, not to discontent; to seclusion, not to entanglement; to aroused persistence, not to laziness; to being unburdensome, not to being burdensome': You may categorically hold, 'This is the Dhamma, this is the Vinaya, this is the Teacher's instruction.'&quot; ~~ <a href="https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an08/an08.053.than.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">AN 8.53</a> ~~</p>
</blockquote>
 14789: <p>It is a wide spread idea that ''all religions'' talk about the same thing, or that all religions are more or less compatible or that the dhamma is compatible with some doctrine invented by some puthujjanas. For instance some people say that Jesus was an arahant, or an Anagamin. Some people say that because the buddha does not say explicitly that there is no god, judaism, christianity and so on are not false,</p>
<p>And then outside explicit religion, some  puthujjanas try to build their societies on the dhamma (which is weird since samma sankappa is the opposite of the goal of a society, which is to fulfill their cravings and ideas for comfort and work and duties, responsibilities, honor, praise, material rewards, medals,  and so on) like the humanists keep saying that the dhamma is compatible with  liberalism, libertarianism, socialism, communism and the idea that humans are happy when they have a salary and buy the goods they crave, when they ''have meaning'', ''a sense of purpose'' and that when the desires of all the humans are fulfilled, humans will be nice to each other and live in harmony, like the christian says when they talk about their heaven.</p>
<p>This is a cute idea but does not go well with the dhamma. So any ''explanation'' which is the dhamma is this one</p>
<blockquote>
<p>&quot;I will teach you the penetrative explanation that is a Dhamma explanation. Listen &amp; pay close attention. I will speak.&quot;</p>
<p>&quot;As you say, lord,&quot; the monks responded.</p>
<p>The Blessed One said: &quot;And which penetrative explanation is a Dhamma explanation?</p>
<p>&quot;Sensuality should be known. The cause by which sensuality comes into play should be known. The diversity in sensuality should be known. The result of sensuality should be known. The cessation of sensuality should be known. The path of practice for the cessation of sensuality should be known.</p>
<p>&quot;Feeling should be known. The cause by which feeling comes into play
should be known. The diversity in feeling should be known. The result
of feeling should be known. The cessation of feeling should be known.
The path of practice for the cessation of feeling should be known.</p>
<p>&quot;Perception should be known. The cause by which perception comes into
play should be known. The diversity in perception should be known. The
result of perception should be known. The cessation of perception
should be known. The path of practice for the cessation of perception
should be known.</p>
<p>&quot;Fermentations[1] should be known. The cause by which fermentations
come into play should be known. The diversity in fermentations should
be known. The result of fermentations should be known. The cessation
of fermentations should be known. The path of practice for the
cessation of fermentations should be known</p>
<p>&quot;Kamma should be known. The cause by which kamma comes into play
should be known. The diversity in kamma should be known. The result of
kamma should be known. The cessation of kamma should be known. The
path of practice for the cessation of kamma should be known.</p>
<p>&quot;Stress should be known. The cause by which stress comes into play
should be known. The diversity in stress should be known. The result
of stress should be known. The cessation of stress should be known.
The path of practice for the cessation of stress should be known.</p>
</blockquote>
<p><a href="https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an06/an06.063.than.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an06/an06.063.than.html</a></p>
<p>as long as some poeple claim to ''explain'' something and it is exactly what is mentioned  in the sutta, you can say the explanation is the dhamma. But is the explanation is different or  less or more than this, then it is not the dhamma.</p>
<p>What is true is that plenty of the wrong views created by puthujjanas allow them to do meritorious activities and they have plenty of deva realms to go to. You do not need to cultivate right view, even less cultivate wisdom to do activities with good karma.
The buddha even says that the non returners cannot even go to the highest realms, only puhutjjanas can die and be reborn here as some devas. just like only puthujjanas can go to bad realm (because non-puthujjanas are said to not do activities from bad karma (because those people do not have bad intention)).</p>
<p>you can cultivate metta and dana, and some weird samadhi created by puthujjanas, and those are still meritorious activities, but as long as they are not seen from wisdom, right view, right investigation, sati and   whatever the buddha praises, it will not lead to nibanna.</p>
 -1: <p>Other teachers do not teach all four types of clinging;</p>

<blockquote>
  <ol>
  <li>Clinging to sensuality</li>
  <li>Clinging to rites and rituals</li>
  <li>Clinging to views</li>
  <li>Clinging to a doctrine of self</li>
  </ol>
</blockquote>

<p><a href="https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nanamoli/wheel390.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nanamoli/wheel390.html</a></p>

<p>Only Buddhadhamma is for the abandonment of all four. Other teachings in as far as they include abandonment of a type of clinging are to that extent wise.</p>

<p>Brahmajala sutta explains various wrong views and speculative doctrines about the world which are basis for other religions.</p>

<p>Also when hearing or reading teachings it should be compared to teachings known to be true, to see if they align and if they do they align they then ought to be accepted. I think this is in the great references sutta.</p>

<p>Making use of Abhidhamma depends on what you want with it. It's quite useful for improving expression and understanding of the Dhamma as it breaks down many teachings word for word, it will improve understanding of terms like jhana, factors of enlightenment etc. In this sense it is very useful imo.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Are human beings capable of discerning what dhamma is outside of the suttas?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>That's a mark of a Sotapanna in this sense; In the Sarakaani Sutta Buddha says that if trees could discern what is rightly spoken he would proclaim them a Sotapanna how much more so his son Sarakaani who took to drink <a href="https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn55/sn55.024.wlsh.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn55/sn55.024.wlsh.html</a></p>
