On the Backlash Against Buddhist Modernism

Someone recently posted in a Buddhist group the following comments:

Older scholarship, which is rejected by modern Buddhist scholars, is that Buddhism is, essentially, a skeptical system of mind science. That view went out of fashion after neo-Orientalist and Buddhism-as-secular discourse fell apart in academia around 1990.

The following is my reply to such an opinion. I dispute that there is a consensus among Buddhists in regard to the future direction of Buddhism. The following is my rationale:

1. Variability and Diversity in Buddhist Thought: The long history of Buddhism is marked by internal diversity, and it’s natural to see differences of opinion within it. Over time, numerous schools have emerged — Theravada, Mahayana, and Vajrayana, each with sub-schools that hold differing views on doctrine and practice. The notion of a consensus within Buddhism is somewhat simplistic, as this diversity reflects the adaptability and interpretative richness of the tradition itself.
2. Buddhism as a Living Tradition: When Buddhism moved from India to China, Tibet, and later to the West, it adapted to each new culture, showing how Buddhism evolves in response to local influences and needs. This is consistent with Dependent Origination (pratītyasamutpāda), which explains that all things arise in dependence on…