In this answer, I was told,

Many Mahayana schools of Buddhism, including at least some Zen sects and some Tibetan Vajrayana lineages, understand the supernatural as skillful means (upaya), i.e. useful metaphors/simplifications pointing to aspects of "reality".

Assuming this to be true, can these schools of thought discard the supernatural aspects (which we may refer to as "myths of Buddhism"), as such metaphors may be less useful or not useful in the modern age? In other words, may we "modernize" Buddhism as an upaya?

If the supernatural elements or "myths" (such as Buddhist cosmology etc.) are skillful means rather than integral to The Buddha's teachings, then is it correct to say that "modernizing" the teachings could also be an Upaya?

Has any recent guru (within the past 50 years or so) mentioned such a possibility of "modernizing Buddhism" in his writings or his speeches? Kindly give references.

In this answer, I was told,

Many Mahayana schools of Buddhism, including at least some Zen sects and some Tibetan Vajrayana lineages, understand the supernatural as skillful means (upaya), i.e. useful metaphors/simplifications pointing to aspects of "reality".

Assuming this to be true, can these schools of thought discard the supernatural aspects (which we may refer to as "myths of Buddhism"), as such metaphors may be less useful or not useful in the modern age? In other words, may we "modernize" Buddhism as an upaya?

If the supernatural elements or "myths" (such as Buddhist cosmology etc.) are skillful means rather than integral to The Buddha's teachings, then is it correct to say that "modernizing" the teachings could also be an Upaya?

Has any recent guru (within the past 50 years or so) mentioned such a possibility of "modernizing Buddhism" in his writings or his speeches? Kindly give references.

In this answer, I was told,

Many Mahayana schools of Buddhism, including at least some Zen sects and some Tibetan Vajrayana lineages, understand the supernatural as skillful means (upaya), that is to say, as useful metaphors/simplifications pointing to the real, but non-obvious, aspects of the so-called "reality".

Assuming this to be true, is it now possible for these schools of thought to explicitly discard the supernatural aspects of Buddhism, based on the possibility that such metaphors are now less useful or not useful in the modern age?

If the supernatural elements (Buddhist cosmology etc.) are skillful means rather than an integral part of The Buddha's teachings, then is it legitimate to ask whether such a possibility of "modernizing" or "updating" the teachings would also be necessitated as an Upaya?

Kindly make references to any recent guru (within the past 50 years or so) who has thrown light on such a possibility in his writings or his speeches.

In this answer, I was told,

Many Mahayana schools of Buddhism, including at least some Zen sects and some Tibetan Vajrayana lineages, understand the supernatural as skillful means (upaya), i.e. useful metaphors/simplifications pointing to aspects of "reality".

Assuming this to be true, can these schools of thought discard the supernatural aspects (which we may refer to as "myths of Buddhism"), as such metaphors may be less useful or not useful in the modern age? In other words, may we "modernize" Buddhism as an upaya?

If the supernatural elements or "myths" (such as Buddhist cosmology etc.) are skillful means rather than integral to The Buddha's teachings, then is it correct to say that "modernizing" the teachings could also be an Upaya?

Has any recent guru (within the past 50 years or so) mentioned such a possibility of "modernizing Buddhism" in his writings or his speeches? Kindly give references.

Context: In an answer to this question, I was told, "Many Mahayana schools of Buddhism, including at least some Zen sects and some Tibetan Vajrayana lineages, understand the supernatural as skillful means (upaya), that is to say, as useful metaphors/simplifications pointing to the real, but non-obvious, aspects of the so-called "reality"."

Assuming this to be true, is it now possible for these schools of thought to explicitly discard the supernatural aspects of Buddhism, based on the possibility that such metaphors are now less useful or not useful in the modern age?

If the supernatural elements (Buddhist cosmology etc.) are skillful means rather than an integral part of The Buddha's teachings, then is it legitimate to ask whether such a possibility of "modernizing" or "updating" the teachings would also be necessitated as an Upaya?

Kindly make references to any recent guru (within the past 50 years or so) who has thrown light on such a possibility in his writings or his speeches.

In this answer, I was told,

Many Mahayana schools of Buddhism, including at least some Zen sects and some Tibetan Vajrayana lineages, understand the supernatural as skillful means (upaya), that is to say, as useful metaphors/simplifications pointing to the real, but non-obvious, aspects of the so-called "reality".

Assuming this to be true, is it now possible for these schools of thought to explicitly discard the supernatural aspects of Buddhism, based on the possibility that such metaphors are now less useful or not useful in the modern age?

If the supernatural elements (Buddhist cosmology etc.) are skillful means rather than an integral part of The Buddha's teachings, then is it legitimate to ask whether such a possibility of "modernizing" or "updating" the teachings would also be necessitated as an Upaya?

Kindly make references to any recent guru (within the past 50 years or so) who has thrown light on such a possibility in his writings or his speeches.