Buddhism is a form of therapy; there's no doubt about that. Of course we need to clarify the scope of the healing involved, which is "spiritual". Yet, most of the time we aren't sure about the usage of this word. Understanding of unsatisfactoriness and at least an intellectual foreshadowing of luminous-emptiness is required to understand the goal of such therapy and therefore its nature.

Even thought it is a therapy, it is not a "feel good" or "success" kind of therapy. When we shun self-help as abhorrent mediocrity, we are mostly having a very much accurate nausea about the superficiality of the whole thing. The Dalai Lama becomes an even greater asset when we understand the deep ocean of shit he is happly navigating, disguised as a teacher-of-the-mediocre to teach the mediocre — that's compassion.

Many people would maybe find these considerations a bit over the top. Actually, when we think of compassion, we really need to understand the flexibility of the simulacrum which Tibetans call nirmanakaya. Dzongsar Khyentse says the nirmanakaya's main characteristic is that it is undetermined. That is, it arises mainly from the merits of dream-beings (us) from a completely flexible master of disguise which we call guru. The peculiar form which us beings to be tamed perceive depends solely on our merits and peculiarities.

Anyways, the actual teaching of Buddhism is not pleasant, and doesn't even need to be. It is common to hear claims for a simpler teaching, an adaptation for modern times and culture — but most people, including many teachers, seem to lack creativity about exactly which form would it have to take. It seems always to be goody-wooly, low voice, peace and love hippie new agy and, oh bollocks, "don't confuse people" pasteurized blabber¹. As a matter of fact, some people need confusion. And although I agree general teachings should be made easy and smooth, I rather go with those who enjoy the ride of profound wrathful mind-bogglingly zany compassion.

Did Buddha live in 17th century B.C? I'm used to think of the Buddha as living more or less at the time of the great greek Philosophers. I am also habituated to think historians are mostly right, big mistake.

Maybe the article mentioned on the linked news is pure horse manure, but at least it serves our sense of skepticism about history. I have always been discouraged from thinking buddhism in terms of history (or any science, by the way). They simply cannot phantom interdependence (which actually cannot be phantomed at all, since it is also interdependent, but can only be experienced²).

The narrow-mindedness of most conventional epistemic endeavours is pure madness. The dharma is to be integrated, not known. Integration means acquiring a centerless epistemic relationship with things. It is a kind of skepticism, but of a playfull nature, easily confused with sophistry (and, some would say, Socratic Irony). In fact the only difference (at least with the current use of "sophistry") is pure motivation. Since our goal is not knowledge but liberation, we don't have any compromise with language and its limits.

Having no compromise with epistemology, how could we compromise with any science? Much less then with pseudo or proto-sciences such as "humanities".