There is a certain irony in rejecting religion and faith and labelling them dogmatic, while at the same time promoting oneself with fashion labels such as "enlightenment" and "awakening". The video above (first one) is a sales video, it works with attributes like "gold standard" and "effectiveness" and "living the most powerful life", just like you do for products or services in an ad.
The gentleman states the obvious, for example that you would not meet a guru in the Himalayan mountains who would put his finger on the centre of your forehead and you would be enlightened forever.
He tries hard to keep God out of his language. The thing is, if you close yourself off to any religious language and your own Christian imprint that you grew up with as a Westerner by wanting to be a non-Christian, you will not succeed in becoming a Buddhist or a Hindu or a Muslim. You will remain a non-Buddhist and non-Hindu etc. for as long as you are a non-Christian.
Converting to another faith can work, probably all the easier if you have a faith of your own in the first place. However, a Christian who is at peace with his faith and the religion he accepts is basically not that bothered about converting as he realises that he recognises a Muslim, Jew etc. within himself.
Claiming Christians recognize every other religion within there's seems a little strange to me. Why the duality of religious or non-religious only? Why not abandon the labels and have your own direct experience?
And yes, it is a sales video and the product being sold applies to everyone without religious language like god. It's a fantastic product I recommend for everyone.
How will you have your own direct experience when it's not embedded in some tradition and custom in the first place?
Say, that you attend a funeral. The habit and structure within Christian heritage provides the order within which a human who died will be buried, what kind of ceremony will be held, etc.
People like, want and need something already experienced by many other human beings in order to feel the coherence of doing the right thing in such a circumstance, do they not?
Imagine, that nothing of that kind would exist already. You'd have to invent all the rituals, sayings, prayers, songs and other related things to arrive at the point where you find a proper tradition to treat your loved ones.
How are you going to agree on anything if you abandon labels? If you believe that the categorisation of differences is unimportant, debate with someone who can't be grasped. No matter what you say, his counterargument can always take the back door of "that's relative".
Without correct labelling and categorisation, you will get the response that things are "subjective". In fact, as soon as you deem labels unnecessary, you can disregard or defend all sorts of things like a flag in the wind, because it doesn't mean anything anyway. Even in Buddhism, from which the sellers get their labels, there is still dogma. It must be dogmatic otherwise its just a commodity.
Every religion has its dogma and could not do without it. Dogma follows a logic within thousands of years of experience, each of which differed from the others and therefore formed their own names such as "Christians", "Hindus", "Muslims", "Buddhists", etc. The dogmas are quite remarkable and worth studying.
Once you have recognised in your own religion the coherence of its historical development within its basic set of rules, it is not difficult to recognise the same for other religions. Hence my statement that a Christian recognises himself in a Muslim or Hindu, because why shouldn't he?
Nevertheless, it is one thing to recognise this in theory, but to prefer to see oneself as a Christian in practice, because the practical differences are there. As well as the difference of language.
Why are you against taking religious language into something which lends its advertisement from a religion, if I may ask?