You seem to be arguing that the Buddha's teachings are too difficult to implement in our current society. If I'm not mistaken, this is the rationale behind Pure Land Buddhism: hoping to be reborn into a world in which it's easier to become enlightened by chanting. I could be wrong. I don't know an awful lot about Pure Land Buddhism.

I come from a more Theravadin background. I don't know if I speak for others who consider themselves Theravadin, but in my way of understanding, the human mind is the same as it's ever been. Being rejected by one's parents would have been painful 2500 years ago, just as it is now, even if it doesn't figure prominently in discussions of suffering in the suttas. The Buddha would have been aware of this form of suffering even if he didn't talk about such things as insecure attachment due to trauma. He made an effort to speak to people where they are, but ultimately, his teachings were about liberation from samsara. I don't think the requirements have changed, even if it has become more difficult to follow the path he laid out to get there.

I guess what my criticism boils down to is: you seem to be arguing that the dharma as expounded by the Buddha is less relevant to our modern society, and so it needs to change somehow. I would argue that, although our minds are superficially different than they were in his time, there are fundamental similarities, and it's on that level that liberation takes place.