I was thinking about this the other day. At what point does badeasternphilosophy become goodeasternphilosophy if philosophy and religion are malleable and ever changing? I am not a scholar of eastern philosophy, only an interested lay person, so my opinion should be taken with a grain of salt. But it seems to me that Buddhism, for example, adapts to the culture of the societies that it moves into. For example, Chinese Buddhism stresses Filial Piety, where my American Zen sangha has never mentioned it. I've never read it in the Pali Canon, but that probably has more to do with my lack of reading than anything else. I am going to guess that Theravada at least touches on something similar since one of the questions that you are asked upon ordaining in a Thai monastery is "Do you have the consent of your parents?" (not the exact question). But I get the impression that it isn't as horribly important as Chinese Buddhism (scholars please correct me on this).

I would actually argue that these tropes like impermanence or interdependence actually are solid pillars, not corrosives. And the reason I say that is because although American, Chinese, and Theravada Buddhisms are very different culturally and in practice, they all draw from these tropes. The thing that makes these Buddhisms seem different is the cultural practices associated with them rather than differences of doctrine associated with these tropes (note: I want to acknowledge that there are doctrinal distinctions between Theravada, Mahayana, Vajrayana, etc I am not suggesting that they are the same, just that they all draw from these tropes). I wouldn't say that anything necessarily stays fixed, just that these tropes survive the migration from one society to the next. Perhaps this is because Buddhism satisfies a certain ideological niche, perhaps it is because no other religion can put these tropes together in the same "package". I don't really know. If Buddhism is a house, and the walls are the tropes which we are discussing, I guess the practices of these groups are like the decorations on the walls. They are all built of the same material, they are all houses, just decorated differently. Does that make sense?

I am really confused by your last paragraph though. For these tropes, they seem kinda self evident. For example, how do I make a philosophical case for impermanence? I am not a philosopher and I think I am beginning to tread into /r/badphilosophy territory, so I am going to stop talking here. I've attempted to relate my jumbled thoughts here, if I've committed any /r/badEasternPhilosophy transgressions, please correct me.

I'm also not sure if I've addressed your prompt.