A.K. Coomaraswamy said it best as regards modern corrupt “Buddhism”: “Buddhism is most famous today for everything it originally was not.”

“He is free”, is not a statement spoken of anyone in sutta who has done other than won emancipation (vimutta) except by wisdom and by Jhanic samadhi’s perfection.

“He is free”, is not a statement made as regards anyone’s deeds or the level of compassion they do or do not exhibit to others.

If you're never Self then your always other. What is other is always other and never Self, for otherness is a compound of unlike elements making another which cannot be Self-sustaining for it has no inherent nature of itself which could be deemed “Self”. And if you’re always other and never Self, then what is concurrent with the present is the Absolute and the notion of following a path is unrequired. Hence modern “Buddhism” is manifold stupidity in following a false path which they claim does not culminate in a Self or an incorporeal freedom except as “voidness” (vibhava), which is a heresy according to Buddhism.

Something the modern “Buddhists” have never read: "The Tathagata is still the Tathagata even if he does not instruct others. How so? Because he is supremely free" Majjhima Nikaya.

Buddhism does not teach, technically, the end of suffering (1st noble truth), but the subjugation of suffering through the end of its source, that being tanha and avijja (desire, ignorance). The third noble truth states succinctly the subjugation of the 2nd noble truth, that being tanha, not the end of corporeality itself.

     Contrary to popular ignorant belief, dukkha does not mean “suffering” but ‘work’ wherein one attempts  to maintain (in ignorance) a stasis (fixation, majjha) which is unobtainable except thru perpetual maintenance (work) which is composite and ultimately without fixation. The only stasis which requires no work (dukkha) is that of Selfhood wherein Self continuously posits and feeds off itself in sheer luminosity, or Self-perfection. This is deemed cittavimutta or sammavimutta (inflexured mind).
     Just as the body requires perpetual food, cleaning, and attention (i.e. work), all identification with non-Self (anatta) and its contact is dukkha, wherein work and effort is put forth endlessly, even through transmigration, for the fool to maintain what is ultimately unmaintainable, for all composite matter is without stasis regardless of work or effort put into it. The only immortal realm (amatadhatu) is the citta (mind) which is Self-same within itself as its own foundation and effortless stasis.

Perverse “Buddhism” is an inversion of the teachings, for they claim that not only did Gotama point out the path for the subjugation of suffering, but ultimately he denied the sufferer as well, therein creating a self-negation paradox of inactive seizure, and denying that Gotama  was “the great Physician”, but something more akin to Kevorkian that helped people commit suicide.

If you bought into modern "Buddhism", Gotama was a gay guy passing out lollipops and saying "be nice to each other”.

A “Buddhist” (non-Buddhist) today is a nihilistic Atheist that was too smart for Christianity but too repulsed to appear “faithless” to his friends and himself.

Anyone who uses the words “focus on the breath”, “meditation”, or “mindfulness” is not a Buddhist nor is he familiar with what Buddhism advocates in methodology. Anybody that engages in “breath meditation” is to be shown nothing but contempt, for the very word Atman itself means breath, not literal breath but the Animus which "breathes" life into this dead body. The notion Gotama found immortality (amata) by observing the literal air passing in and out of his lungs is the highest absurdity. The metaphor of the "breath" in sutta is as regards the animus or the soul, not the literal air passing in and out of ones lungs. Atman (pali: Attan): (root an, to breathe, cf. atmos, atmo-sphere, is primarily Spiritus, the luminous and pneumatic principle).

Devoid of a creator God (Vedas/Upanishads/Buddhism), the notion that modern evil “Buddhism” takes in emphasizing non-existent morality is truly both laughable and sick, for who is there to be moral for in answer to? One should as one wishes to obtain; however the Christian “aught” of secular morality does not exist in Buddhism. Karma is merely the continuity between cause and effect, and the true Buddhist does what is conducive (conduct, virtue) to his emancipation. This holy virtue is other than secular morality which is both superficial and purposeless.

If modern “Buddhism” really practiced what they preached in both denying the Soul and praising emptiness, then they would swiftly commit suicide and prove the sincerity of their own evil convictions.

Western and Asian (evil Theravada) never understood Indian neti-neti (not this not that) negation methodology so simply comprehended by any and all true Vedantists and ancient Buddhists of long ago.

The notion that a “Buddhist” takes refuge “in the Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha”, is technically incorrect, for only initiates and laypersons took such allegiances; whereas the Aryans (Buddhists) took “refuge in the Soul alone” [DN 2.100]. The much older meaning of Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha was: Mind, Matter, and Fusion.

The Christian motto is: “Thou shalt not!”, whereas the Vedas and Buddhism proclaim: “Thou are That (Brahman)!” Sadly, modern “Buddhism” has adopted the former as their motto rather than the later.

“Compassion” (secular) is the cornerstone of both Atheism and Humanism, not Buddhism. The very basis of presectarian Buddhism is emancipation alone through wisdom and Jhanas. Any person that defines Buddhism by “compassion” either alone or wholly is genuinely a fool who is utterly unfamiliar with the teachings themselves.

“But he is a monk.” Anyone that says this as regards to debating or questioning another’s authenticity is to be immediately marked a fool, for they have forwarded their own view that the superficial trappings of robe and bald head has bearing on being a Buddhist by definition. KN 2.260 “Know you! Even though he has gray hair that old monk, this in no way makes him a teacher of either the sweet law Dharma, nor it make him a senior monk! Quite decrepit in wasted years and greatly lacking in wisdom, “foolish old bastard” are such as him called.”

The inversion of the teachings, as currently espoused, is the denial of the sufferer ultimately, not suffering itself. Modern evil “Buddhism” advocates tossing out the baby with the bathwater. This is the very “inversion of the teachings” which Gotama himself prognosticated long ago.

When often one talks with a so-called “Buddhist”, it is good to keep in mind the words or Dr. Nakamura the Buddhologist who said: “I’m frankly more interested in what Buddhism taught than what it didn’t teach.”

A "Buddhist", in technicality, is an Aryasavaka possessed of Sammaditthi (envisionment of Perfection [Bodhi-mind]) who wishes after Vimutta (emancipation) from transmigration (Samsara). Any other definition or claim by anyone to the contrary of this is both baseless and without justification.

Modern “Buddhists” are often very racist, for when the topic of the Soul is brought up; inevitably the insult of “Hindu” is thrown around like the KKK uses the word “nigger”. Firstly, no such thing as “Hinduism” existed at the time of the historical Buddha, nor do the Vedas and Upanishads mention any such entity as “Hinduism”. Both the Buddha and Vedantists referred to themselves as “Brahmans” and praised only the “true Brahman” rather than one who was deemed falsely “a Brahman by birth rather than by attainments”.

Like an old man with a vasectomy, modern “Buddhism” is shooting blanks if it presumes that an evil doctrine of Selflessness would lure any but the vilest, moralistic, atheistic, and pathetic types of individuals the earth can bear.

Compassion (secular), although wise, does not beget wisdom nor emancipation. All desire for compassion itself is an evil lust for worldly gain and merit making. For Samsara is not defined by rebirth or pain alone, but by merit making and seeking better rebirth. Both the quest for betterment in the world and the seeking of merit are borne of one whose mind is tainted with lust for life and being, rather than emancipation from Samsara altogether.

There are but these four kinds of people: #1. Ignorant man questing after wisdom. #2. Ignorant man who at least knows he is ignorant #3. Ignorant man. #4. Ignorant man who both knows he is ignorant but continues to will his ignorance in spite of hearing what he knows to be the truth. From 1-4, from best to worst, its sad but true to say that often the wise encounter those in #4. more often than the other 3 in modern “Buddhism”.

Completely contrary to scriptural Buddhism, Gotama was neither a peacenik nor did he flinch upon seeing the torture of others, and explicitly rejected political and social engagement of his closest followers.

Modern “Buddhism”, in its vast stupidity and lack of philosophical insight, fails to comprehend that when it is said “he is free in this very life”, does not mean that that which is free is either “here” or made up a corporal composite. For ‘here’ is a designation of spacio-temporality which only phenomena occupy, and “this very life” means regardless of the when death comes, his mind is truly freed (suvimuttacitta).

Infinite stupidity is owned by modern “Buddhism” which fails to differentiate self (khandhas, corporeality, phenomena, anicca, dukkha, anatta) from Self (attan, Soul). Half the teachings are in fact that Buddhism (exactly like the Upanishads) denied all phenomena as being just self, and “not-the-Self” (anatta). What the ignorant “Buddhists” and evil Theravada never comprehended is that negation of A-Z as being “not the Soul”, is not a negation of the Soul itself, for that would be a fallacy of composition.

Modern “Buddhism” could best be explained as Christianity without God or a soul; which would be technically a form of secular Humanism or a nobler form of perverse Atheism, or anti-foundationalism.

Modern “Buddhism”, in its nihilistic and aphilosophical approach to explaining foundations of very being, is somewhat akin to “a sock puppet inside another sock puppet which is in turn being animated by another sock puppet”, exactly like the little old lady who said that a giant turtle was holding up the world, who was then in turn asked “well, what is holding up the turtle?”, wherein she replied “its just turtles all the way down!”

All wisefolk agree that the corporeal and finite body is not our true nature (sabhava/Self/Soul); for it lies elsewhere other than this psycho-physical body (kaya). This very “what is it” question is what modern “Buddhism” fails to address or answer in any way other than that which any philosopher worth his salt would not laugh for days upon hearing the answer.

Why is modern “Buddhism” evil?
     Evil is an indifference to emancipation, to illumination. Modern examples of evil in what is called “Buddhism” would be common views like these found amongst folks calling themselves “Buddhists”: “What can Buddhism do for my daily life (false presumption that Buddhism’s ends are worldly or ephemeral)?” “Buddhism is just being compassionate to others (humanistic leveling of a trans-corporeal methodology).” “Yes, but that is old Buddhism, which evolved with time. Times have changed and Buddhism must change to fit with modern views and beliefs (historicism fallacy).” “My teacher is nice and kind to others, so I feel he is really a good Buddhist (irrelevant unconnected co-relationship).” “There are many paths and many forms of Buddhism, and all are just as good as another, so there really is no ‘one way’ (i.e. the path to hell also leads to the gates of bliss).” “The Dalai Lama is very nice to other peoples and is compassionate; he is what Buddhism represents (evil view based upon superficial humanistic externality).” “But I experienced Buddhism myself, so it must be true (heresy of making a consubstantial experience an absolute or presuming it was Buddhism in any way).” “I’m not interested in dusty scriptures, but rather experiencing things, for that is Buddhism (anti-intellectualism, heretical simplification).” “We don’t know what the original Buddha actually said, so the teachings are only a guideline and we ourselves are the final judge (a fool makes his council himself).” “Gotama just sat (Zen heresy, ritualization of a formless methodology for inverting avijja to vijja).” “My teacher is a lineage holder (Tibetan and Zen heresy of a non-existent lineage in Buddhism).” “We chant ‘namo-myoho-renghe-kyo’ [Pure-land cult] (very perverse oriental ritualism with no connection to Buddhism).”
     All these beliefs are evil and common in modernity. Buddhism [Buddhasasana] are the teachings of the historical Buddha, not the commentary, views, books, opinions, speculations, conjectures, beliefs of either the Dalai Lama, Zen master, monk, nun, guru, Rimpoche, Geshe, or any other individual claiming to speak for Buddhism while in fact reinventing and or diluting its teachings past recognition of what would consistently be deemed Buddhism in fact. There are very few neutral scholars and experts in both the doctrine of Buddhism and its history that are under any delusion that what is conventionally called “Buddhism” today is in fact far, far removed indeed from what Buddhism was two and a half millennia ago.  A.K. Coomaraswamy said it best: “Buddhism is most famous today for everything it originally was not.”

“Buddhism” is the latest chic thing to “be”. Americans love calling themselves “Buddhists” even though they haven’t a clue as to what it is.

Unless you have a hell-bent lust for wisdom and emancipation, not a 10000 Buddhas will help the fool in Samsara calling himself a “Buddhist”.

Opinions being like assholes (everyone has one, and each is unique) everyone in “Buddhism” has one, but when investigated against the teachings, almost all are proven wrong and unjustified.

The most famous and richest “gurus” of modern “Buddhism” are spiritual used-car salesmen, they tell their students what they want to hear, they give them overtly simplistic things to do or believe. They smile often and appear compassionate, however their shield is superficial morality and wisdom is void in their being; which they guard others from seeing by use of as much superficial kindness as they can bear.

A true Buddhist is a truth seeker and should not seek after another fool to agree with his misunderstandings of either Buddhism or the path to emancipation.

Ask a so-called “Buddhist” how ethical humanistic secular morality is required to attain “amata” (immortality) which is said to be gained “by wisdom alone” in Sutta.

The quickest way to irritate a so-called “Buddhist” is to ask him for a citation instead of his worthless opinions.

A quick way to tell what someone knows about Buddhism, if anything, is what book they recommend reading. Trash comprehension comes from reading trash.

You can have "compassion" without a jot of wisdom...although, yes, it is "wise" to have compassion, but compassion itself is not wisdom nor confers it as such.

Compassion is the hot-word in modernity as per “Buddhism” in concerned, largely due to Western exposure to Lamaism (Vajrayana), however there is no secular-compassion in original Buddhism, for its adepts were “forest dwellers” who were scolded for sympathizing with locals.

Equanimity is what is mistaken as compassion. For the true muni (sage) had equi-animus for others in that he knew and saw in others, even the most wretched, that which animated him was equal (equal, equa) to his own animus (Soul). This virtuous equanimity for others given deep-seated wisdom is wholly unlike unto secular-humanistic endeavors advocated by modern fake “Buddhists” who praise feeding the sick and homeless like a Christian missionary which is adverse to Buddhism and its very basis and core.

For who can say the truly wise are devoid of compassion/virtue? But indeed many are found of those who have much compassion/virtue but lack much if not all the wisdom needed to escape Samsara.

A "Buddha" is never deemed to be one who also "teaches other", but who is "suvimutta" or "ultimately free".

Him who is freed is not contingently freed by either compassion or morality nor anything but wisdom alone.

Mara (the evil one) talking to Gotama Buddha: “Seek meritorious deeds Gotama! Make merit, be compassionate in your mission to others, do good deeds! What need is there for seeking escape from Samsara?!” Sagathavaggapali. Modern “Buddhists” are following Mara’s request to Gotama, hence they are following the evil ones doctrine, not the Buddha’s.

What if Buddhism, technically, was so deeply seated in Vedic metaphor, that ignorant fools like modern “Buddhists” could never grasp it? In fact, this is the case beyond doubt.

A short list of illogical beliefs held by modern “Buddhism”
Illogical: SN book 4 “stands on the Other-Shore in emancipation”, but there is nobody standing there.

Illogical: “bliss of emancipation”, but nobody who undergoes this bliss.

Illogical: crossing the shore, but no-self is crossed.

Illogical: There is clinging (tan.ha) but nothing that is clinging (self).

Illogical: There is a path but nothing that reaps its attainment.

Illogical: There is religion but no fruit of following it (selflessness).

Illogical: There is a Buddha, but he is only composed up of what is evil by nature (Khandhas).

Illogical: There is perfection, but nothing perfect (Selfhood).

Illogical: There is an ultimate, but no-self reaps its attainment.

Illogical: There is escape from Samsara, but no element that escapes it ultimately.

Illogical:  There are Khandhas (aggregates/phenomena) but nothing that liberates from them, i.e. oblivion-dogma.

Illogical: Since there is always other (khandhas), and never Self/Soul (atta’), then perfection is always being other and never Self.

Illogical: The goal of Buddhism is to emancipation from Samsara, but this does not designate there is emancipation of anything on the ultimate level.

Illogical: There is grasping [i.e. 2nd noble truth of source of suffering], (tanha), but nothing that is grasping of its own accord apart from the absence of the attribute of grasping.

Illogical: Buddhism became popular amongst Brahmins who believed in a Soul, by spreading a Nihilistic dogma that ultimately, in every way, you never exist in any true sense.

Illogical: There is suffering, but nothing ultimately that reaps the rewards of living the holy life, i.e. absence is absolute.

Illogical: Gotama taught not only absence of suffering (dukkha) and its root (tanha), but also the absence of that which is undergoing suffering and clinging.

Illogical: Gotama is called the “great doctor” in Sutta, but he isn’t interested in curing you, but in destroying you ultimately (nihilism).

Illogical: Gotama states succinctly that ultimate bliss is to uproot all defilements, but that truly there is nobody that ultimately uproots it.

Illogical: Gotama says that not only is suffering to be negated, but also him who negates it, creating a self-negation paradox.

Illogical: “Buddhists” know that nihilism is a heresy in Sutta, and yet cannot escape the fact that their viewpoint is inseparable from nihilism in every respect and vehemently deny this obvious fact when confronted with it.

The paraphrasable core of Buddhism vs. modern heretical “Buddhism”.
#1. The paraphrasable core of Buddhism: Ones mind (citta) in agnosis (avijja) perpetuates suffering indefinitely within transmigration (Samsara) and relinking from one transitory corporeal body to the next such that it sees itself (Soul/attan) within phenomena (namo-rupa) which is not itself (anatta). Through fruition of wisdom and perfection of the Jhanas, there is liberation of ones mind (cittavimutti) in retraction of false identification (avijja) of Self with what is not Self.

#2. The paraphrasable core of false modern “Buddhism”. Be nice to others and compassionate. Be mindful of your daily life. Buddhism is whatever you want it to be or think it is. Chant and do rituals. Don’t seek for anything, for ignorance and wisdom are one and the same thing just seen from different views (Taoist heresy).