In response to this issue one could argue that Buddhism has developed in such a way that it has always absorbed, adapted and adopted the beliefs of the culture in which it becomes embedded. Therefore, as some may argue that modern society is post-Christian, atheistic and secular, Buddhism for the modern world is secular and therefore a religion-less and belief-less form of Buddhism. Don Cupitt (1934-) wrote ‘Religion today… has to become an immediate and deeply felt way of relating yourself to life in general and your own life in particular.’ Buddhism meets this need and so is not challenged at all by secularization.
Religion also provides certainty regarding life after death, or, the ‘other’. Religion is essentially a metaphysical foundation for life. Again, it could be argued that this is not something which Buddhism has. There are a variety of views about what happens when a person dies and Buddha himself was non-committal; for example, the Buddha describes metaphysical questions as unanswered. Scholars such as Batchelor propose that the original Buddha and the authentic and pure Buddhism which they have uncovered is not religious but is wholly atheistic and secular. Secular Buddhism, therefore, is arguably a wholly valid presentation of Buddhism. The Buddhist scholar Trevor Ling influenced the ideas developed by secular Buddhists in the West and even entitled a book ‘The Buddha: The Social-Revolutionary Potential of Buddhism’ in which he argues that the Buddha was not the founder of a religion and that his teaching was not religious. Ling sees the Buddha’s teaching as initially flourishing because it was a time of economic growth and urbanization and a time when tribal republics and autocratic monarchies were establishing their identity. The message of the here and now, of suffering and an end to suffering is very much appealing to the realities of life on earth than a message of future hope and prayers!
However, just because it can be seen as secular this does not necessarily mean it escapes secular challenges! This may seem a paradox but the fact is Buddhism is just ‘Buddhism’. In a sense it is so pliable that it can adapt to any cultural world view. Therefore, the many cultural variations and specific types of Buddhism, many of which make metaphysical claims, are also contrary to a secular viewpoint.
An alternative argument could be that what Buddha is describing in the phrase ‘there is an unborn, unbecome, unmade, unfabricated’ is what theologians might call the Absolute. That being the case, from a certain point of view this could be seen as religious since one understanding of religion is to define it as the relationship that human beings have with the Absolute, however that Absolute is envisaged.
I would argue that it is dangerous to see Buddhism as simply ‘secular’ per se. Yes, it can be at its very basic level but that does not mean it adopts a secular stance in rejecting religion! My argument would be that it is dangerous to ‘box’ Buddhism in as it should and does appeal to all human beings. To identify it as secular also means it rejects the spiritual, which is debatable, but also that it is in danger of adopting philosophies that emanate from a secular world-view such as naturalism and materialism. It could even be argued, in conclusion, that it is Buddhism that challenges secular society to be more selfless, compassionate and less aggressive and greedy but also, more tolerant and open towards the views of others.