My response

Post on Reddit by u/Ignacio_CLP:

For Secular Buddhist. Why the need to call yourself "Buddhist" if you don't believe what the founder of Buddhism taught?

Question

I don't want to judge anyone beliefs here. You all can do whatever you want. I just don't understand all this secular Buddhist thing, Its like the christian atheism movement.

If you read the suttas, you will find that the Buddha taught about: karma, rebirth, devas, hell and heaven, hungry ghosts, magical powers, etc.

Not only that,these beliefs are a central foundation of the Buddhist teachings, beacause it gives virtue its purpose, and helps align yourself with right view.

People can meditate and practice virtue, but why do you call yourself Buddhist if you don't believe what he taught.

If you think that they are metaphors, then are you explicitly stating that you have the real dhamma and that 2500 years of monastic lineage got it all wrong?

My Response:

    What I don't like about Christianity, Islam and Judaism is the expectation to believe in a monotheistic god. A narrow doctrinal point in the whole scheme of things spiritually. If you don't believe the way expected it's heresy. Dogma is to be followed. Thinking for yourself is a blasphemy. And yet there are many versions of the concept of god in active use among humans. They are seen as mistaken and lost. My opinion is that it's better for people to develop their own spirituality than to just follow what others think they understand because you never know what they really understand.

    The transcendental movement in Concord USA, was a rebellion against the Puritan ways, and pushed the questions on to nature and trusting in your own instincts. Being self reliant.

    The gatekeeping of a Buddhist who defines Buddhism as their sect's vision, feels similar. To presume to know what is literal or not, essential or a cultural artifact is what is being debated, but it forecloses the debate to say "anything that diverges from my sect's dogma is not Buddhism."

    I happen to think rebirth is a cultural belief of Hindu India of the times, and maybe the Buddha believed it as a metaphor, and maybe it's not essential. I know that's not the standard view here, but despite being told over and over again how it's essential and pure and great, I'm still not seeing it. After 20 years. The fault might be mine, no doubt. But I'm not going to pretend I feel what I don't feel, that's more of a spiritual death to me. It's important to me to think for myself, come to my own understanding based on the syncretic views of the best of the times I live in.

    I have tried to keep an open mind, but after 20 years, I feel I'm allowed to speak up and proclaim I don't get it even after trying. I respect the tradition, and I'm not sure yet whether there will be a sect that lives that doesn't include it. I guess I'd rather not even talk about it.

    I love mythological thinking, devotional thinking and feeling, and poetry, but I don't experience is as literalism, and I'm willing to have a big tent. Someone on Reddit can tell me not to call myself a Buddhist, but frankly they seem like the Christians I avoid with their talk of heresy, dogma and blasphemy. They just call it right view and wrong view

    The history of Europe is a history of the utilization of theology to back up nationalistic and power claims. I don't see spirituality as part of that grid, I see it as avoiding that kind of nonsense. Personal, private, intimate, beyond others judgement, except those I allow it to be judged by, my sangha.

    It feels like someone is trying to import that way of thinking into Buddhism when they act like a gatekeeper. Whatever. You don't know my practice, you don't know my experience, you don't know my study, you don't know my practice, but to judge it based on some doctrine point, that's frankly what most westerners avoid by going to Buddhism. There's a nuanced, flexible, psychological understanding in Buddhism. There are many schools. What you do is more important than what you believe. I don't even see this theological point to be of much importance to my meditation practice, my ethical practice, or my study of the Dharma, or my fellowship with other Buddhists.

    I'm afraid this kind of fundamentalism and focus on doctrine is a fetter. I hope I'm wrong and I wish you well Ignacio_CLP.

    I was reading Udana 3:2, and they talk about the 33 deities. When you google it, they are Hindu deities. I'm pretty sure if the Buddha was in the Christian country he would talk about the Christian mythology as though it were real. Yes, maybe I'm taking grave liberties with the tradition. Maybe I've winnowed out what is essential and what is cultural. Time will tell.