I hope to read the Kindle version of this book soon but I am wary here of the confusions over secularism. So without having read the book I will caution those who approach this to be wary of definitions of secularism.
What on earth does the term mean? A look at my work on the eonic effect can be useful here. Check out my Decoding World History.
There is no ‘secular’ standard in the end to judge the doctrines of ancient religions.
The problem is in part due to the once triumphant physics which decreed a shallow reductionist scientism. It got almost everything wrong. Another confusion is over Darwinism. That is supposed to be secular. Baloney. The theory is wrong. Secularism has no real definition The term emerged in the Reforamtion to suggest a new era had arrived. but the definition then shifted to many other candidates. Many secular humanists have very narrow views of everything and back it all up with bad science, Darwinism, etc…Man is a machine, has no soul, no free will. Etc… To be secular means to live in the wake of the ‘modern transition’ in the sense of the eonic effect. But then it is obvious there is no consistent perspective. A figure like Kant is dismissed out of hand and yet if anyone should be considered secular. There are dozens of figures like this in the modern ‘secular’ wave. Buddhism is an insidious mystery with a later occult danger zone. Bu secularist reject the occult, is that right? A secular interpretation has a poor chance of getting it right here. It is also true that Buddhism is a huge question mark itself. The idea of ‘anatta’ or no soul is a distortion in my view. Here plain old hinduism is more useful Perhaps. Thsu the core doctrine is probably imaginary later stuff.
The secularist adopts a Buddhism that evicts ‘englightenment’ as unsecular is a new and fresh form of poison, and I see no reason it should be thought secular. In the end we have almost zero chance of getting it right.
There is a lot more to say here but the obvious moral is to be wary of secular idiots.