For most secular Buddhist practitioners, the Pāli Canon, when relieved of its metaphysical truth claims, serves as the cornerstone for their teachings and practice. For instance, Stephen Batchelor sees the Canon’s Four Noble Truths not as dogmatic beliefs about reality meant to alleviate suffering across multiple lifetimes but as four lowercase “tasks” to be addressed in a single life. In this way, Batchelor realigns the Buddha’s original concerns with contemporary sensibilities, producing a practical ethic for our times.
This article introduces a novel form of Secular Buddhism, drawn from an essay of mine recently published in The Indian International Journal of Buddhist Studies in Varanasi.[i] Unlike current options, it derives a secular teaching from the Lotus Sūtra, a prominent Mahāyāna text that is notably filled with metaphysical content. Nevertheless, I contend my reinterpretation offers a viable alternative for secular Buddhists.
The Lotus Sūtra’s climactic revelation is the disclosure of an Eternal Buddha, a characteristic that would lead most people to question how such a text could possibly form the basis of a secular approach to Buddhism. After all, it portrays the Buddha as an ever-present reality ineffably interacting with everything in the universe: a concept diametrically opposed to the secular preference for a historical Buddha cleared of transcendent traits.
My Secular Approach to the Lotus Sūtra
To reinterpret this revelation and associate it solely with immanence, I apply a three-part hermeneutic. The first part provides a justifiable basis for deconstructing the supernatural elements inherent in a literal interpretation of the Eternal Buddha. This involves examining the Sūtra’s historical and cultural context, recognizing that its doctrinal innovations were intended for an audience with a completely different worldview. Understanding the Lotus Sūtra as a product of its time and genre allowed me to set aside a literal reading of its extraordinary imagery without dismissing its underlying ethical and philosophical insights.
The second part replaces the Eternal Buddha with an expression for the benevolent aspects of existence. Specifically, I introduce the phrase: “The conditional emergence of benevolence as gifted by time, process, and potential.” This phrase is central to my secular interpretation because it places the Mahāyāna concepts of “Buddha-nature” and “enlightenment” not in a supernatural embodiment, but in the inherent, unfolding capacity for goodness and ethical action within the natural world. The notion advanced is not that existence is intrinsically good, but rather that goodness is experienced and can be cultivated within it.
Last, the third part of the hermeneutic seeks to validate the phrase by demonstrating its alignment with both a traditional understanding of Buddhist doctrine and contemporary socio-philosophical principles. This demonstrates how my secular reading resonates with the past and present and can, in due course, serve as a legitimate extension of the tradition.
Another facet of my approach is that it includes companion secular prayer sets and a daily ritual. The prayers, referenced in the essay, emphasize the moral thrust of the phrase and encourage shaping one’s life in its likeness. They are for inspiring practitioners to improve themselves and align their sphere of influence with a common principle of good. Although a practice based on daily prayer rituals appears significantly different from one relying on mindfulness meditation, it serves a similar transformative purpose.
The following is an excerpt from the Secular Prayers:
In response to calls for a grounded principle capable of lifting all faiths, what was once a supreme truth beyond comprehension was converted into a universal ethic that requires understanding to respect. The implications are liberating, for the ultimate insight is no longer limited to a mystical union subject to claims of sectarian custody, but just as well observed firsthand in the natural order and open for emulation based on one’s best judgment.[ii]
How my approach represents a novel form of Secular Buddhism that can help the movement appeal to a wider range of people
To assess whether my reinterpretation of the Lotus Sūtra merits acceptance as an alternative form of Secular Buddhism, the essay compares it to the preexisting models of Stephen Batchelor, Gil Fronsdal, and Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar. In the end, it finds consistency with Batchelor’s formulation of a Buddhist ethic divested of metaphysical truth claims, Fronsdal’s Naturalistic Buddhism as without supernatural beliefs, and Ambedkar’s reinterpretation of the early teachings, which strips Buddhism of the dehumanizing cosmology of India’s indigenous past.
The essay then considers whether the teaching it proposes represents not just another form of Secular Buddhism but a truly novel one. While the teachings of Batchelor, Fronsdal, and Ambedkar all primarily derive from the Pāli Canon, they are distinguishable. Batchelor advances a pragmatic approach that relies on insight and loving-kindness meditation, a focus on conditioned arising, and release from attachments. His practice is critically tempered by skepticism to challenge reactivity and judgmental small-mindedness.[iii] Fronsdal, who also relies on similar meditational practices for much the same ethical purpose, distinguishes his teachings as “religious” in the sense that he embraces the sacredness of simply “being” instead of supernormal constructs.[iv] Ambedkar, on the other hand, stressed a radical socio-political reordering inspired by the Buddha’s teachings. Although he was not clear about the role of meditation and his followers now debate the issue, his main emphasis was on reforming society, especially rectifying caste-based injustices.[v]
The secular version proffered in my essay is the product of a demystified Lotus Sūtra. It introduces a paramount morality sourced in the immanent realm, articulating an expression for what Batchelor describes as an “everyday sublime” that “outstrips our capacity for representation.”[vi] The phrase I introduce identifies the dharma that Fronsdal only alludes to as “empirical,” “personally accessible,” and “verifiable by our natural senses.”[vii] Furthermore, my approach encompasses the numerous elements that Ambedkar associates with saddharma in his chapter on the topic,[viii] while offering an alternative practice that might better help his Dalit followers realize the egalitarian reality they pursue.
Mostly, though, my version of Secular Buddhism distinguishes itself by providing an overarching principle designed to replace the loss of a transcendent Buddha. As a result, the movement is in a better position to appeal to a wider range of people who struggle with supernaturalism in religion. Deifications such as a Supreme Being, God, Allah, Bhagavan, and Brahma are not just ideals but heartfelt realities cherished by many today. Clearly, those who reject this kind of theistic framing already have alternatives from the Pāli Canon to choose from. However, for the disillusioned seeking to replace an enchanted divine with an unadorned affirmative one, there is now a phrase derived from the Lotus Sūtra to serve as a closer fit.
My Project and Stephen Batchelor’s Critique of Beliefs
In conclusion, I address a passage from Stephen Batchelor’s After Buddhism that might lead to rejection of my project as a suitable choice for secular Buddhists.
. . . let me suggest that religious Buddhists tend to base their practice on beliefs. If one believes—pace the second noble truth, that craving is the origin of suffering—then your practice will be motivated by the intention to overcome craving to eliminate suffering. But if your experience of birth, sickness, aging, and death raises fundamental questions about your existence, then your practice will be driven by the urgent need to come to terms with those questions, irrespective of any theory about where birth, sickness, ageing, and death originate. Such a practice is concerned with finding an authentic and autonomous response to the questions that life poses rather than confirming any doctrinal article of faith.[ix]
Given Batchelor’s emphasis on a practice without beliefs, it is important to acknowledge that the practice I endorse is indeed based on a belief: in the benevolent aspects of existence. The essay clarifies the meaning of “benevolence” with explanations for benevolent occurrences, contributions, and processes.[x] While contemplating birth, sickness, aging, and death prompts fundamental questions about the harsh and transient nature of existence, Batchelor emphasizes that cultivating ‘an authentic and autonomous response’ to these very questions should be the impetus for a secular Buddhist practice. He prioritizes direct engagement over confirming the truth of any pre-established doctrine. My proposed ethic offers an affirmative avenue for that engagement, serving as a guiding principle for building a life of purpose after navigating existential quandaries. Given Batchelor’s concerns about beliefs in the above passage, however, it seems likely that he and those who think likewise might find this approach unacceptable.
While my essay was published in an academic journal, its implications are far from being merely academic. I encourage readers to consider it in full to understand how the Lotus Sūtra can serve, at least for some, as a strong option for secular Buddhists moving forward.
[i] Tate, John R. (2024). “An Ultimate from Immanence: Lotus Buddhism Redefined for a Secular Worldview,” In The Indian International Journal of Buddhist Studies: No. 24, pp. 209-50. (As modified on May 8, 2025 in DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.15362204.)
[ii] “Secular Prayers,” p. 8. May 8, 2025, Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15362783.
[iii] Batchelor, Stephen, 2015. After Buddhism: Rethinking the Dharma for the Secular Age, pp. 23-24. New Haven: Yale University Press.
[iv] Able, Venessa, 2022. “Gill Fronsdal on Immanent and Naturalistic Buddhism.” The Dewdrop. Thedewdrop.org, June 1, 2025. https:/thedewdrop.org/2022/04/18/gil-fronsdal-interview/
[v] Hennigar, Mallory, 2021. "Boundation & Bindās: Ambedkarite Youth In a Global Buddhist Movement." Syracuse University Dissertations (1301): pp. 12, 125-26.
[vi] Batchelor, 2015. p. 250.
[vii] Fronsdal, Gil, 2021. “Naturalistic Buddhism.” In Secularizing Buddhism: New Perspectives on a Dynamic Tradition, edited by Richard K. Payne, pp. 278-79. Boulder: Shambhala Publications.
[viii] Ambedkar, B. R., 1957. “The Buddha & His Dhamma,” Book Three, Part V. In Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar: Writings and Speeches, Vol. 11. Bombay: Siddarth College Publications. Electronic version: Bombay: Education Department, Government of Maharashtra, 1992. Posted by Pritchett, Francis W. at Columbia University, n.d. Pritchett.com, June 1, 2024. https://franpritchett.com/00ambedkar/ambedkar_buddha/index.html.
[ix] Batchelor, 2015: p. 24.
[x] Tate, 2024: 228-31
John R. Tate is a secular Buddhist practitioner who lives in Fujinomiya, Japan. His email address is johnrtate2024@gmail.com.
