Is There Such a Thing as Secular Buddhism?

I have heard it said that there is no such thing as Secular Buddhism, in particular that "so-called Secular Buddhism" is devoid of Buddhist ethics and as such cannot properly be considered a type of Buddhism.

We should begin by noting that there are Buddhist-inspired programs such as the modern, thoroughly Western mindfulness movement that are indebted to Buddhism, but are not a part of Buddhism, and don't claim to be. In fact, they actively distance themselves from Buddhism to ensure they are accessible to non-Buddhists. These are secular programs that borrow from Buddhism. They are not what Secular Buddhism means, and should not be conflated with it.

On its face, one might think that secular-any-religion is an oxymoron, and quite impossible. Humanistic Judaism and Secular Buddhism are two modern traditions that beg to differ. Humanistic Judaism preserves Jewish cultural continuity in many ways while putting ethics on a humanistic foundation rather than a theological one. Similarly, Secular Buddhism embraces Buddhist teachings other than its metaphysical assertions (such as karma and reincarnation).

That's a gigantic stretch for Judaism, but not for Buddhism. In polytheistic religions, the reason for anything is because the god of it made it so, or these gods were in contention over it and this one won. In Judaism and other monotheistic religions, this is condensed. The reason for anything is that the One True God made it so. In either of these theistic models, human life revolves around our relationship with God / gods, pleasing or displeasing them, petitioning them, and receiving their wrath or protection and blessings. Take away God / gods, and these systems collapse.

In Buddhism, the reason for anything is the ceaseless and unfathomable interactions of everything with every other thing – you know, like science says. In Buddhism, human life revolves around human agency and responsibility – like Humanism says. Such divine beings as Buddhism imagines are not the First Cause, nor do they have the final say. They are incidental story elements whose value is unchanged whether they are purely symbolic or actual beings. A talking turtle in a Buddhist parable is no more to be believed in than a talking turtle in Aesop's Fables, but the lesson packed into a story with that imagined creature is meant to be learned.

Finally, Buddhism and Unitarian Universalism are notable exceptions, but religions are generally in the business of being factually correct about the most important thing there can possibly be. They construct alleged realities not only populated by God(s), but with things like a serpent that really spoke in Hebrew to the literal first man and woman in the actual Garden of Eden – to be taken as literally as God Himself. By contrast, Buddha told us that he teaches with fables and metaphors, not with facts, and that even his teachings should be left behind if they become a hindrance rather than an asset. Dogma versus anti-dogmatism.

All of which is to say that Buddhism is, on its own terms, extremely well-aligned with secular, humanistic thinking.

My teaching is a means of practice, not something to hold onto or worship. My teaching is like a raft used to cross the river. Only a fool would carry the raft around after he had already reached the other shore. Buddha

Buddhism emphasizes experiential knowledge. In fact, we don't consider Buddhism to be a religion in the usual sense of the term. From the lamas' [Buddhist monk-teachers'] point of view, Buddhist teachings are more in the realm of philosophy, science, or psychology. Lama Thubten Yeshe

There is a misconception that Buddhism is a religion and that you worship Buddha. Buddhism is a practice, like yoga … I met a Catholic priest who lives in a Buddhist monastery in France. He told me that Buddhism made him a better Christian. I love that. Thích Nhất Hạnh

Don't try to use what you learn from Buddhism to be a Buddhist. Use it to be a better whatever you already are. His Holiness the 14^th Dalai Lama

The ultimate authority must always rest with the individual's own reason and critical analysis. His Holiness the 14^th Dalai Lama

The purpose of studying Buddhism is not to study Buddhism, but to study ourselves. Shunryu Suzuki

The history of every religion is that it is a product of the culture that produces it, and if it migrates beyond its culture of origin, it is reinterpreted to better interface with the other cultures it encounters. Judaism has a half-dozen or so branches. Likewise for Islam. Christianity has thousands. Buddhism developed over 200 branches as it spread across Asia, and eventually the whole world. Every one of those branches was "wrong", too great a departure, missing something essential, until it lived long enough that it unceremoniously became an acknowledged member of the family.

Legitimacy is in the eye of the beholder. If you are Calvinist, Baptists are not Christians, and neither is the Pope. If you are Orthodox Jewish, Conservative Jews are not Jewish, and Reform Jews and the other smaller groups that claim to be a branch of Judaism are … well, there's no expressing it.

In all religions, whatever variation is newly arising at a moment in history is roundly condemned as a disjunction, not a part of the whole, not correct, horribly wrong (misguided at best). We see the same thing at inter-generational boundaries spanning fashion choices, religious interpretation, politics, civil rights, the fundaments of morality, … Then a few decades or centuries later, if it has survived, that variation is magically a part of the whole, at least in the eyes of everyone except those closest to it. In every culture, every other culture is Other.

Secular Buddhism's secularity and youth are not disqualifications for its membership in Buddhism's diverse family of over 200 branches. Secular Buddhism goes out of its way to preserve, respect, appreciate, acknowledge, and embody as much as it can from the Buddhist tradition other than its supernatural assertions. Secular Buddhism takes Buddhism so seriously and respectfully that it explicitly embraces it despite tensions with secularists for being too un-secular and by religionists for not being too unreligious.

Secular Buddhism has a well-recognized body of literature, extending but grounded in traditional Buddhist literature, a set of recognized experts / leaders, peer-reviewed scholarly works, a number of people who identify as members, and most importantly, continuity with Buddhist teachings and values other than its supernatural assertions. Secular Buddhism does exist, isn't an oxymoron, and isn't just a bucket of dismembered Buddhist-inspired techniques. It is simply the new kid on Buddhism's block. It's not devoid of Buddhist history, lessons, values, ethics, or guidance for a morally and pragmatically good life. It's just devoid of unprovable metaphysical assertions, and of having lived long enough yet to achieve full recognition as a member of the family.

The point that is most fundamental and least sociological is that Buddhism on its own terms, by revolving around human responsibility and agency instead of God(s) is much less metaphysical and much more humanistic than other religions. We have Secular Buddhism because Buddhism has something to offer secularists that does not require advanced mental gymnastics or absurd apologetics, something that aligns with rational thinking and empirical observation rather than requiring you to abandon reason.

Buddhism has divine beings and supernatural assertions, like any religion, but distinctively in Buddhism, none of that is required to justify what Buddhism values, or to see how its teachings help one to best guide their feelings, thoughts, and behaviors. In Buddhism, it's not because God(s) said so, and not even because Buddha said so. It's that you are invited to do your best to understand the teachings, apply them in your own life, see what you get, and draw your own conclusions. Instead of insisting that you have faith in it, Buddhism has faith in you.

Secular Buddhism is the discovery of another bridge no different than the bridges built over millennia between the Pāli Canon and every branch of Buddhism existing today, no different than every branch of Judaism, Islam, or the thousands of branches of Christianity. Using Christianity as the most obvious example, the vast majority of us recognize any group organized around almost any interpretation of the teachings of Jesus as a form of Christianity, even though they may differ on points as profound in doctrine as whether one can have a direct relationship with Jesus/God, or needs a priest or saint as an intermediary, or as profound in daily life as whether the instructions to do unto others as you would have done to you, and to treat strangers and immigrants as one of your own, are moral obligations or optional matters of personal preference. The differences between traditional Buddhism and Secular Buddhism pale in comparison.

Buddhism presents immensely wise, accessible guidance, and rejects unquestionable dogma. The overlap between Buddhism on its own terms and secular thought made Secular Buddhism all but inevitable. It has shown up, it's been here for decades, it's Buddhist, and it's secular. Rather than abandoning Buddhism, Secular Buddhism extends the reach of Buddhism's immense value to people who might otherwise have missed it. Just as every other now-accepted branch of Buddhism (or any other religion) has been reshaped to reach people embedded in different cultures, Buddhism is evolving. All religions do this, despite the desires of religious conservatives who resist, decry, and disclaim what history incessantly produces.