with the ultimate goal of buddhism being the entire loss of individuality and self.

Even among many Buddhists this is a misunderstood concept. Even wikipedia is a mess regarding this idea. The concept at work here is called Anatta which most directly translates to "non-self" or "not-self". The Buddha actually spends alot of time talking about what is not self, and never actually says that a self does not exist.

For example, in the most famous sutra (scriptural record of the buddha's saying) about the nature of self, he has this to say about the self:

"Form, monks, is not self. If form were the self, this form would not lend itself to dis-ease. It would be possible [to say] with regard to form, 'Let this form be thus. Let this form not be thus.' But precisely because form is not self, form lends itself to dis-ease. And it is not possible [to say] with regard to form, 'Let this form be thus. Let this form not be thus.'

"Feeling is not self...

"Perception is not self...

"[Mental] fabrications are not self...

"Consciousness is not self. If consciousness were the self, this consciousness would not lend itself to dis-ease. It would be possible [to say] with regard to consciousness, 'Let my consciousness be thus. Let my consciousness not be thus.' But precisely because consciousness is not self, consciousness lends itself to dis-ease. And it is not possible [to say] with regard to consciousness, 'Let my consciousness be thus. Let my consciousness not be thus.'

(Note: dis-ease here is a translation of "Dukha" which more often translated as suffering).

He goes on explaining how various aspects are not the self.

In a different sutra he refuses to answer if there is a self or not. Here is the entire text of the sutra:

Then the wanderer Vacchagotta went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there he asked the Blessed One: "Now then, Venerable Gotama, is there a self?"

When this was said, the Blessed One was silent.

"Then is there no self?"

A second time, the Blessed One was silent.

Then Vacchagotta the wanderer got up from his seat and left.

Then, not long after Vacchagotta the wanderer had left, Ven. Ananda said to the Blessed One, "Why, lord, did the Blessed One not answer when asked a question by Vacchagotta the wanderer?"

"Ananda, if I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self — were to answer that there is a self, that would be conforming with those brahmans & contemplatives who are exponents of eternalism [the view that there is an eternal, unchanging soul]. If I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self — were to answer that there is no self, that would be conforming with those brahmans & contemplatives who are exponents of annihilationism [the view that death is the annihilation of consciousness]. If I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self — were to answer that there is a self, would that be in keeping with the arising of knowledge that all phenomena are not-self?"

"No, lord."

"And if I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self — were to answer that there is no self, the bewildered Vacchagotta would become even more bewildered: 'Does the self I used to have now not exist?'"

So in early Buddhism, there is no text that is attributed to the Buddha where he claims there is no self.

What can be confusing about this is that many Buddhist practitioners have "enlightenment experiences" where they perceive the phenomenon of (at least momentarily) not having a self that is seperate from the rest of the universe. They come to see what in later forms of Buddhism (Mahayana Buddhism) can be called "Buddha Nature".

Buddha Nature is a common translation of Tathagatagarbha. Tathaga is a synonym for "Buddha" which means "One who is awake". Garbha means "essence" or "nature" or "source". So you could say it means "The essence that is awakened to" or "The Awakened Essence/Nature" or simplified as it usually is as Buddha Nature.

So Mahayana Buddhism sees us seeing through our limited views of a personal self and awakening to our true nature.

A 13th century Japanese Zen Monk named Dogen sums it up like this:

To study the buddha way is to study the self. To study the self is to forget the self. To forget the self is to be awakened by myriad things.

In other texts Buddha Nature is defined as being "non-conditioned" or "unconditioned" in the sense that it does not exist based on the condition of cause and effect phenomena leading to its existence. Buddha Nature is seen as eternal and limitless. By definition, it was not created and can not end. It transcends space and time.

So in short, at the heart of Buddhism there is seen as a fundamental nature that does not begin and not end. It would not be unreasonable to call this a "soul" and there is no widespread view that the goal is permanent ending of self or that this is even possible.

In abrahamic faiths you can actually find very similar views of a limited self blocking perception of God (Ultimate Reality) if you look at the mystical sub-traditions within those faiths.

Meister Eckhart (a medieval Christian Mystic) says:

Make a start with yourself by abandoning yourself. For if you do not begin by taking leave of who you are, everything you do or think you are and all you seek will be an obstacle for you, and you will be like one who has lost her way and in wandering only becomes further lost, so if you wish to find your way, lose yourself!

He says elsewhere:

The more that the soul receives of the Divine Nature, the more it grows like It, and the closer becomes its union with God. It may arrive at such an intimate union that God at last draws it to Himself altogether, so that there is no distinction left, in the soul's consciousness, between itself and God

Rumi, the the Muslim Sufi mystic says in various quotes:

Dance until you shatter yourself.

When you lose all sense of self, the bonds of a thousand chains will vanish

Get yourself out of the way, and let joy have more space

Do you know what you are? You are a manuscript oƒ a divine letter. You are a mirror reflecting a noble face. This universe is not outside of you. Look inside yourself; everything that you want, you are already that.

I looked for God. I went to a temple and I didn't find him there. Then I went to a church and I didn't find him there. The I went to a mosque and I didn't find him there. Then finally I looked in my heart and there he was.

In looking at these quotes and removing the theology lens of the statements, the goals of these mystics does not seem dissimilar to the goal of Buddhists: see past a limited self to see or merge with our true nature.

Contrasted with abrahamic faiths where the self is preserved past death, and one's identity remains intact forever - whether as punishment or reward.

So far we have been looking at the mystical elements of both Buddhism and Abrahamic faiths, but what about the "average" adherent of the faith? By this I mean the common layperson and their relationship to their religions tradition.

Of course it would be no surprise that the average follower of Abrahamic faiths would find their relationship as one of worship and following rules of ethical conduct. The goals of this religious practice would be both divine intervention in this life and a favorable existence after death. It might however be surprising to most westerners that this is the also the most common type of religious experience for Buddhists as well.

By an enormous margine the "average buddhist" in asian cultures is not trying to achieve enlightenment but rather make this life and the next one better by worship and ethical behavior. For example millions of adherents of Pure Land Buddhism pray to the a Buddha named Amitabha to be born into the Heaven realm that he watches over. Buddhists also believe that bad conduct will lead to a rebirth into hell realms. This is obviously not so different than the religious activity of followers of Abrahamic religions.

In both eastern and western cultures the religious experience includes mystical self-transcendence and also more mundane worship oriented practice and they might not be so different from each other as popular writers might want to claim. Does that mean your central thesis is incorrect? Not entirely.

One major difference between eastern and western religious cultures is that in western cultures mystics are sometimes considered heretical and persecuted. In Japan and China the foremost mystical tradition is Chan/Zen Buddhism and this tradition actually gained political ascendancy by the medieval periods in each country. Chan in China and Zen in Japan had the most political and financial support of any other forms of Buddhism.

What would explain this difference? In Christianity it could be that a major early controversy concerned the nature of the Trinity. There was significant conflict between Arian and Gnostic christianity and Nicene Christianity on the divinity of Christ. The Nicene stance was that Christ (along with the holy spirit) was co-Equal with God the Father while the countervailing view was the Christ was not equal to God the Father. Gnostic Christianity was a mystical tradition and it could be that Gnostic antagonism toward the concept of the Trinity baked-in an institutional apathy towards mysticism in general. This is something that I would love to see addressed by a specialist in western mysticism and its persecution.

So in summary, its not true that Western and Eastern religions differ fundamentally in the nature of the self and the role of worship style practice, but it would be fair to say that western religions are more apt to consider mysticism heretical.

EDIT: I see this question was removed while I was typing out the the answer. Oh well.