Because it was basically invented by white folks in the last 150 years and designed to appeal to those with scientific mindset. I'm not saying that's bad, but it's a little propagandistic not to acknowledge it.
IANAHistorian, and am likely well out of my depth here, but I'd venture a guess that the influence worked in both directions, due to overlap in philosophical positions. For example, from the Dalai Lama:
Both Buddhism and science prefer to account for the evolution and emergence of the cosmos and life in terms of the complex interrelations of the natural laws of cause and effect. From the methodological perspective, both traditions emphasize the role of empiricism. For example, in the Buddhist investigative tradition, between the three recognized sources of knowledge - experience, reason and testimony - it is the evidence of the experience that takes precedence, with reason coming second and testimony last.[1]
[0]http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/10/how-davi... [1]http://www.dalailama.com/messages/buddhism/science-at-the-cr...
Here's a good book on the subject:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0195183274/
> This sweeping and sophisticated analysis of the ways in which westerners and Asians alike have constructed new forms of Buddhism under the pressures of modernity is thoroughly disillusioning, in the best sense of the word. McMahan shows that much of what has been written and said about Buddhism in the modern era only can be understood against the background of dominant western discourses.
This is astonishing. Can you let us know which buddhist principles were invented by white folks (and by whom) in the past 150 years.
I don't know to what extent individual principles or beliefs were created. Rather, the argument is that the religion as a whole was created by removing the parts that didn't fit the narrative. Think of it like the Jefferson Bible, but if pretty much the entire living tradition of Christianity was also removed from the religion instead of just redacting and rearranging the text.
Invented by white folks? What? Did you perhaps mean they made it mainstream for white people by giving it a western flavor?
I haven't really spent any time reading up on it, but they talk about it all the time on the Buddhist Geeks podcast, and presumably they'd be in the know since they are/were students at Naropa.
I'm afraid I can't believe this commentator at all, because it's committing No True Scotsman fallacies left and right about non-Abrahamic religions being "not a real religion" and conflating decentralized, non-textual religions with "demon-worship."
The underlying book that inspired the post [1] does look like a much more interesting connection between the Enlightenment and deist interpretations, but Buddhism with all its warts have existed in various forms for thousands of years. At best you can say that Buddhism has been dramatically impacted by interactions with Enlightenment philosophy, but its roots definitely stretch back further than the 1800's.
[1] http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0058C6FGS/?tag=meaningness...
from the article: "There was a problem. Buddhism, as actually found in Asia, was much more like the European idea of “paganism” than a “great world religion.”"
The site relates to current academic discussion of "Real Buddhism", but the field has been investigating primary sources (Sanskrit, Pali, Tibetan, Chinese) for such a long time at this point as to make this article primarily a rant about "Western Buddhism" versus the more legitimate "Buddhisms".
Here are three things you need to explain just for starters: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borobudur https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wat_Arun https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journey_to_the_West
