I think you're trivializing a whole list of things here.

The Dalai Lama may think that he is defending his culture in the face of modern science, but reducing Buddhism to a branch of psychoanalysis is not an effective way to do so in the long run.

By the same token, reducing psychoanalysis to a modern manifestation of Buddhism isn't doing psychoanalysis any favors, either.

In cross-disciplinary studies, it's important to resist the urge to reduce the strange to the familiar, as it is only in doing so that one is able to fully appreciate the richness of the traditions being compared.

In other words: analogies are useful, when starting out, to help one get a vague impression of a new territory, but (unconsciously) clinging to these analogies serves only to mask one from actually expanding one's mind.

Asking "what's the point?" may have the unintended side-effect of making me sound like a conceited ass, but the intention was more philosophical.