FYI Thanissaro Bhikkhu wrote a book about the subject. ‘Buddhist Romanticism’.
This is the link
Here are a couple short exerpts from the introduction that give a good summary.
“Many Westerners, when new to Buddhism, are struck by the
uncanny familiarity of what seem to be its central concepts:
interconnectedness, wholeness, spontaneity, ego-transcendence,
non-judgmentalism, and integration of the personality. They tend not
to realize that the concepts sound familiar because they are familiar.
To a large extent, they come not from the Buddha’s teachings but
from their hidden roots in Western culture: the thought of the early
German Romantics.”
…
“If the influence of early Romanticism on modern Buddhism went
no further than a few isolated concepts, it would not be much of a
problem—simply a matter of mapping familiar Western terms onto
unfamiliar Buddhist terms so that Buddhist concepts would make
intuitive sense to people with a Western background. The only issue
would be determining whether the terms were properly applied, and
tweaking any that were off the mark. And it might be argued that
fitting Romantic concepts into a Buddhist framework automatically
changes those concepts in a Buddhist direction. But the situation is
the other way around. The influence of Romanticism on modern
Buddhism has penetrated through the surface and into the bone,
shaping not only isolated concepts but also the underlying structures
of thought from which those concepts take their meaning. In other
words, Romanticism has provided the framework into which
Buddhist concepts have been placed, reshaping those concepts
toward Romantic ends.”
…
“When we compare the Dhamma—the teachings of the Buddha—to
the religious thought of the early Romantics, we see that they differ
radically on a structural level in how they define all the important
questions concerning the purpose of religion, the nature of the basic
spiritual problem, the cure to that problem, how the cure can be
effected, and the effect of that cure on the person cured.
• For the Romantics, religion is concerned with establishing a right
relationship between human beings and the universe. For the
Dhamma, religion is concerned with gaining total freedom from
suffering and stress, beyond “human being,” “universe,” or any
relationship at all.
• For the Romantics, the basic spiritual problem is ignorance of
human identity—that each person is an integral part of the infinite
organic unity of the cosmos. This ignorance, in turn, leads to an
alienating sense of separation: within oneself, between oneself and
other human beings, and between oneself and nature at large. For the
Dhamma, the basic spiritual problem is ignorance of what suffering
is, how it’s caused, and how it can be ended. In fact, the Dhamma lists
among the causes of suffering the attempt even to define what a
human being is or a human being’s place within the universe.
• For the Romantics, the basic spiritual cure lies in gaining an
immediate felt sense of unity within oneself and between oneself and
the universe. For the Dhamma, a felt sense of unified awareness is
part of the path to a cure, but the ultimate cure involves going beyond
feelings—and everything else with which one builds a sense of
identity—to a direct realization of nibbāna (nirvāṇa): a dimension
beyond Oneness and multiplicity, beyond the universe, beyond causal
relationships, and beyond the dimensions of time and space.
• For the Romantics, there are many ways to induce a spiritual cure,
but they all involve inducing a sense of receptivity to all things as they
are. For the Dhamma, there is only one way to nibbāna—the path of
skills called the noble eightfold path—against which all mental states
are judged as skillful and unskillful, with skillful states to be fostered
and unskillful ones to be abandoned in whatever way is effective.”
…
"When we examine the way Buddhism is currently being taught in
the West—and, in some cases, in Asia to people with a Western
education—we find that it often sides with the Romantic position and
against the Dhamma on all five of these questions. And because questions shape the structures that give concepts their meaning and
purpose, the result is that modern Buddhism is Romantic in its body,
and Buddhist only in its outer garb. Or to use another analogy,
modern Buddhism is like a building whose structure is fully
Romantic, with Buddhist elements used as decorations, reshaped to
fit into the confines of that structure. This is why this trend in modern
Buddhism is best referred to as Buddhist Romanticism, rather than
Romantic Buddhism.
From a Romantic point of view, even a structural change in the
Dhamma is no serious problem, for such a change would simply fall
in line with the Romantic notion that all paths of open receptivity lead
to the goal, so that replacing one path with another would make no
practical difference. But from the point of view of the Dhamma, the
Romantic goal offers only a limited possibility of freedom. If the
Romantic goal is regarded as the one and only aim of spiritual life, it
stands in the way of the further goal of total freedom."
Just some food for thought