On the other hand, Buddhism has a rich tradition of interacting and fusing with local beliefs and creating totally new interpretaions, which then go on to fight with each other about who's right and who's got it backwards. I once saw a lecture by the Dalai Lama and where he spent an hour defending the purity of his lineage!
Take for example the Zen koan: "Why did Bodhidharma come to China?" "The cypress in the courtyard." (referring to the tree growing in the center of their monastery.)
Zen is a very Japanese version of Chen Buddhism, which was in turn a very Taoist free wheeling version of Buddhism from India, which used existing Indian mythology. Zen Buddhists is very formal and ritual focused, and their koans mostly being about a Chen Buddhist monk who spent his little money on alcohol in the nearby town rather than food.
The Tibetan monk Chögyam Trungpa famously said Buddhism would come to the West as psychology.
Who cares who's right and who's wrong, as long as it helps you see the cypress in the courtyard?
There was never a transmission of Buddhism that rejected all of the core teachings and doctrine. Why would you even want to call yourself a Buddhist if you reject Buddhism? It is just fashion to these people. It’s like being a communist who thinks private ownership of the means of production is good, it makes no sense.
Also, your idea of what Chan is like is very ahistorical and orientalist. It has always been steeped in tradition, why do you think so many massive monasteries were built in the mountains? Not only that but each monastery was even themed around a specific sutra. If you think it is “free wheeling” you should read the reports in the Platform sutra. It’s clearly just as formalised and rigid as other Buddhist traditions.
Chögyam Trungpa was literally a sexual abuser and an alcoholic by the way.
I know that about Trungpa - the drinking I don't mind but it's unforgivable to take advantage of people. That doesn't make his lectures or teachings any less valid. Shambhala was very important to me as a teenager so that influences my outlook.
"Free wheeling" was me trying to be light-hearted. Many of the Zen stories of Chan involve a lot of confrontation which wouldn't be allowed in a Zen temple, less about what Chan is than the way Zen stories viewed them. To be honest I don't know much about Chan Buddhism except via Zen. I lived in China for 7 years and almost everyone I knew who was lay Buddhist was more into the iconography and didn't practice (I never visited any Buddhist temple). This attitude is pretty universal, most lay Christians I've met also don't practice compassion. I'd rather people practiced and didn't care about the iconography, if I had a choice. It's hard to unravel what about the core teachings was talking to the audience and which are tools for transmission. I expect you and I draw the line at different places.
One thing I really agree with you on is stripping away the role of death in modern western buddhism. I've come to see Buddhism as preparation for death. Though honestly it's better to not to be preoccupied with it to be ready for it, and it will be far different than any story.
I imagine Chinese lay Buddhists are often Pure Land rather than Chan no? I used to practise Soto zen with a teacher but now I’m Pure Land, but I don’t know which tradition yet. Pure Land doesn’t need a teacher or temple to be safe and effective though: you just recite Amitabha Buddhas name.
I think modern western Buddhists seem to reject anything that they don’t perceive right at this moment. Really they should at least be agnostic. Regardless the Buddha did teach too extensively about such things for it to make sense to ignore them. People try and say he was talking metaphorically, or that it was his shallower teaching for stupid people (even Thich Nhat Hanh says this! Imo to appeal to the western ego, because he does not say similar things in his Vietnamese teachings). I just think people need to step back for a minute and really think about why they want to identify as a Buddhist and what their relationship to the Buddhas teachings is
Take for example the Zen koan: "Why did Bodhidharma come to China?" "The cypress in the courtyard." (referring to the tree growing in the center of their monastery.) Zen is a very Japanese version of Chen Buddhism, which was in turn a very Taoist free wheeling version of Buddhism from India, which used existing Indian mythology. Zen Buddhists is very formal and ritual focused, and their koans mostly being about a Chen Buddhist monk who spent his little money on alcohol in the nearby town rather than food.
The Tibetan monk Chögyam Trungpa famously said Buddhism would come to the West as psychology. Who cares who's right and who's wrong, as long as it helps you see the cypress in the courtyard?