>That's the "really existing Buddhism" - the kind that matters, and the only kind with roots in a millenia old tradition. First, even if this "pseudo-Buddhism"

>That's the "really existing Buddhism" - the kind that matters, and the only kind with roots in a millenia old tradition. First, even if this "pseudo-Buddhism" is a lame imitation by Westerners, the fact that it's an imitation means that it shares the same roots with "proper Buddhism". Second, why is proper Buddhism "the only one that matters"? I would say none of it matters, you would say only one of them matters, and there's probably some people who say both of them matter. By what criterion does one opinion take precedence?