The assertion that modern Buddhism was created by Europeans is based on a simplified and distorted representation of Buddhism's historical development, which renders it pseudoscientific.

Rethinking Buddhist Origins: Natural Evolution vs. External Influence

The assertion that modern Buddhism was created by Europeans is based on a simplified and distorted representation of Buddhism's historical development, which renders it pseudoscientific. In reality, the origin and evolution of Buddhism are the result of complex internal processes and the transition from the Buddha’s original teachings to its later, significantly altered forms. As noted in one source, “Buddhism is a very complex doctrine in which the historical path and historical theology have merged. And the original Buddhism is fundamentally different from modern Buddhism. Modern Buddhism is as different from the original as the heavens are from the earth. The original, true teaching of the Buddha was atheist by its very nature…” (source: link txt). This indicates that the true teachings of the Buddha had a radically different content than what later emerged—the changes occurred naturally through internal processes rather than through the external influence of European ideas.

Additionally, another excerpt emphasizes that the natural development of religious ideas in humans leads to the fact that even an attempt to forcibly impose philosophical atheism ends up turning the great teacher into an object of worship: “The subsequent departure from the original variant of Buddhism shows that human beings are inherently religious; any attempt to forcibly instill atheism ends with the revival of the same religion, only many centuries later: the great teacher became a god, his disciples became bodhisattvas, i.e., minor deities. Modern Buddhism is a revival in the form of a mixture, a mush of paganism with elements of the Buddha’s teachings…” (source: link txt). This clearly shows that the accumulated changes are the result of a long and natural process of rethinking and adaptation of the teachings—they cannot be reduced to an artificial creation by some external force, even if it tried to “renew” the concept of Buddhism.

Thus, the pseudoscientific nature of the assertion lies in ignoring the complex historical and contextual development of the Buddhist tradition and in the unjustified attempt to attribute its creation to European intervention. The European translations, adaptations, and propaganda mentioned in other sources do not indicate the creation of the religion itself, but only efforts to popularize and interpret an already existing doctrine in the context of local peculiarities (see information on Buddhist catechisms and social movements, source: link txt). Such oversimplified judgments lack scientific support and contradict the extensive, proven historical picture.