[xk_id]

This isn’t the place to go into detail, but the author mainly argues against a Western conceptualisation of Buddhism, which is sadly divorced from the original meaning. If you want to study Buddhism, don’t rely on people reinterpreting it for a Western audience; go right to the source and try to understand what the old masters and the sutras are talking about.

[ewzimm]

What you're saying is true, and every paragraph in this is wrong, but I would like to offer a tangential argument in favor of studying the Western conceptualization of Buddhism.

The first sentence here is no coincidence, that "Buddhism seems remarkably compatible with our scientifically oriented culture." This is because early Western science developed with a strong influence of secular Buddhism in the form of Pyrrhonism, which informed and merged over time with the Empirical school that led to the modern scientific method.

Western audiences should understand how secular Buddhism is not a new aspect of their civilization but a fundamental pillar of it. This does not mean that understanding the secular aspects will inform someone on the religious aspects, but it is a cultural starting point.

Beyond that, I would only consider sources like the author of this piece as a good source of common misunderstandings to investigate.