There is a lot more complexity and nuance to this then your comment may lead one to believe. Here is wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality_in_Buddhism
There's nothing in your link that contradicts my assertion. On top of which, you haven't offered an alternate explanation as to why Buddhism has produced so much more deep contemplation, than practical technology. If it is truly equal to the pragmatism that was elucidated in the article, the technological revolution would have been much further along 2000 years ago.
I was pointing to your assertion that "large factions within Buddhism believe that the reality around us, is mere illusion" is not quite right. The wikipedia page is really good in elaborating the nuances.
The phrase "Reality is mere Illusion" is the worst translated from Sanskrit/Pali into English. In the original texts "Illusion" does not mean "it does not exist" but that "it does not exist independent of a more fundamental substratum". The common analogy given is that of waves in a ocean of water. The waves are dependent on the water for their manifestation and come and go. The other point is that we only "Perceive Reality" and not as it truly is. All together we get a picture of Reality which is very simplistically called a "Illusion".
>you haven't offered an alternate explanation as to why Buddhism has produced so much more deep contemplation, than practical technology. If it is truly equal to the pragmatism that was elucidated in the article, the technological revolution would have been much further along 2000 years ago.
This is easily explained. If by various internal practices we can modulate our understanding of "Reality" (a subjective viewpoint) then the motivation to explain the "workings" of the Universe independent of us becomes no longer important. That is the reason Hindu philosophies (Buddhism/Jainism/Sikhism are all derivatives) focus exclusively on the "Mind" and understanding "our true nature".
You just restated my explanation in more flowery language.
Also relevant:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity
Another good analogy would be how people used to talk about the physical world before science arrived on the scene: crude approximations, that "everyone knows".
Hindu/Buddhist Philosophy is mainly experiential and explicitly says "the true self" (Purusha/Atman etc.) cannot be described in words. It can only be experienced by "dissolving" ("Laya" in Sanskrit) your self-identity (aka Ahamkara) as something different from the "whole" (Brahman etc). Different schools come at this from different angles thus complicating the matter even further.
The illusion (as opposed to mere illusion) in action.