> There are many varieties of Buddhism. It is a mixture of eastern culture and knowledge in general, including many generations of empirical psychotherapy, religion, philosophy, etc. Some varieties of Buddhism, like some schools of Zen, do focus heavily (or entirely) on meditation practice.
Zen does not traditionally focus heavily nor entirely on meditation practise, for example it has a heavy amount of ritual and chanting. The idea of a return to Zen being just meditation is a modern resistance in the early 20th century by certain Japanese teachers (many of whom brought Zen to the west) who thought that the spiritual aspects of the tradition had been lost entirely to public service rituals (basically becoming "the people who do funerals" in Japanese society). I agree with those modern teachers, but it isn't representative of Japanese Zen in general, and certainly not of Chan, Seon, or Thien.
Overall there is no Buddhist lineage over a century old that I'm aware of that has its primary focus on meditation.
> Scientific research suggests that meditation has a real effect on the brain.
I don't see how that's relevant to the rest of your comment. It seems kind of like a subtle materialism insert.
> To me it seems completely rational and expected that the west would be drawn to the varieties that don't carry as much religious dogma because that is more incompatible with western thought. Of course we can take some aspects from it which we find useful. So I don't find it weird at all.
That's not really true, since all forms of Buddhism require some kind of "blind faith". For example, in Zen we have the three pillars of Zen practise: great faith, great doubt, and great endurance. Great faith means that we should have faith in our practise and Buddha-nature, even if we have not yet realised it directly. Letting go is an act of faith after all. There are purely faith-based sects of Buddhism, like Pure Land, or like Tibetan Buddhism (not well in my realm of knowledge) which generally has more faith required than Zen, and I think you'll be surprised how popular those traditions are in the west. I don't personally see western thought as being incompatible with dogma or faith at all
> Despite this, I still absolutely think that 'mindfulness' is often becoming bastardised and a lot of the value is being lost in the process of translation. People will of course try to take advantage of it and try to profit from it.
I agree, there is a lack of good teachers and instructions, but I want to point the finger more at the students than at the teachers. They don't want to learn, they don't want to practise. They want a quick release or an easy way out. If a doctor prescribes a mindfulness program to a patient struggling with anxiety, it's an absolute miracle if they stick at it for even 10 minutes a day for more than a year. Doubly so for the ethical principles, which are even harder to stick to (as I know from personal experience). The problem isn't so much that Buddhist principles are bastardised, it's more that very few people have a strong intent to follow them. That's why the faith based practises above are generally so useful for the laity: Pure Land Buddhism can be done by anyone at any time, you simply recite the nembutsu (namo amida butsu) whenever you remember. It isn't clear to me what an equivalently easy and straightforward practise would look like for someone who can't handle the faithful aspects
> Your comment also makes me imagine picking a random barely religious American that never goes to church and using them as a model for 'real Christianity'
I think the idea of equating a Buddhist who doesn't meditate to a Christian who doesn't go to church is a bit strange, since likely you think that it is somewhat essential for the latter to go to church, and therefore do you think that meditation is essential for Buddhism? I don't quite get this point