Does Buddhism require a belief in the supernatural?

[Bricker]

I don't know much about Zen Buddhism, but Theravada Buddhism requires a belief in the supernatural in much the same way that Christianity requires a belief in the supernatural -- that is, one could presumably say, "I follow the teachings of Christ because they lead to good results for me and others, but I reject the idea that Jesus had a divine nature or rose from the dead," but that's a personal "take" on Christianity that doesn't comport with the wide understanding or practice. So in the ordinary sense of the word "require," it's fair to say that Christianity requires belief in the supernatural.

By the same standard, Theravada Buddhism does as well.

And in the teachings of Theravada Buddhism, there is a distinction between "rebirth" and "reincarnation." They are not the same thing. "Reincarnation" refers to the recycling of a permanant soul or consciousness in human or animal form. "Rebirth" refers to a mental state that, by the law of karma, persists though continual instances of birth and death, sustained by one's attachments. In Theravada Buddhism, "rebirth" is not the same thing as "reincarnation."

Debate.

[Bricker]

From a previous discussion that inspired this thread:



Rebirth and reincarnation are the same thing, by the way.


No, they are not. Cite. (http://www.maithri.com/fromindexpage.htm)

The Buddha taught about rebirth in Theravada Buddhism but not in the reincarnation or the transmigration of permanent souls. The life after death is only a continuation of the present process of existence. The Buddha realized that our existence does not begin with this human life nor end with this life in some kind of eternal heaven or hell afterwards, out he beheld that we have been existing since beginningless time in countless numbers of various existences according to our accumulated Karma and will continue to do so until the whole process is understood and gradually brought to a standstill. Theravada Buddhism is a gradual path of mental evolution, where man transcends human weaknesses and attains perfection of mind and finally solves the problem of existence, attains Nirvana.


Let me gues. You have no cite, but are going to insist you're correct anyway?

And Diogenes' response, in full:


Yes they are.

[Meatros]

I don't know much about Zen Buddhism, but Theravada Buddhism requires a belief in the supernatural in much the same way that Christianity requires a belief in the supernatural -- that is, one could presumably say, "I follow the teachings of Christ because they lead to good results for me and others, but I reject the idea that Jesus had a divine nature or rose from the dead," but that's a personal "take" on Christianity that doesn't comport with the wide understanding or practice. So in the ordinary sense of the word "require," it's fair to say that Christianity requires belief in the supernatural.

As I said in the other thread, I don't know. I would actually suggest that it doesn't require it. Neither does Christianity require the supernatural.

When I say this I fully recognize that I am not speaking about the terms as they are usually used. There are Christians who deny the supernatural aspects (I think there might even be a name for the sect of Christianity that does this - but don't hold me to it), I am specifically thinking of Shelby Spong and John Dominic Crossan, both of whom, it's my understanding, reject the supernatural aspects of Christianity.

So perhaps these would equate to 'personal takes' and if that's your categorization, I'm fine with that.

[Bricker]

As I said in the other thread, I don't know. I would actually suggest that it doesn't require it. Neither does Christianity require the supernatural.

When I say this I fully recognize that I am not speaking about the terms as they are usually used. There are Christians who deny the supernatural aspects (I think there might even be a name for the sect of Christianity that does this - but don't hold me to it), I am specifically thinking of Shelby Spong and John Dominic Crossan, both of whom, it's my understanding, reject the supernatural aspects of Christianity.

So perhaps these would equate to 'personal takes' and if that's your categorization, I'm fine with that.

As am I. If we can comfortably say that Christianity does not require belief in the supernatural, then I absolutely agree we can say the same for Buddhism of any flavor.

But as you acknowledge, this is not the ordinary use of the term.

[Sparky the Wonder Spirit]

Using what you know about Theraveda Buddhism to try and prove that Zen requires a belief in the supernatural is like using the Catholic catechism to prove that Baptists believe in transubstantiation.

[Bricker]

Using what you know about Theraveda Buddhism to try and prove that Zen requires a belief in the supernatural is like using the Catholic catechism to prove that Baptists believe in transubstantiation.

You know, I considered leading off the OP with a phrase like: I don't know much about Zen Buddhism...

I wish I had done that, because then I could show that I had already considered the point you raise here.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Buddhism does not require any beliefs at all. It is a cognitive discipline, not a credal religion.

Christianity does require supernatural beliefs. It IS a credal religion.

Zen is Mahayana, not Therevada.

Rebirth and reincarnation are the same thing. Rebirth does not necessarily mean transmigration of souls, but there is no distinction between "rebirth" and "reincarnation" since both of those words are English translations for the same Pali word, punabbhava ("re-becoming" or "becoming again"). "Rebirth" and "reincarnation" are not different words or concepts in Pali. The entire cycle of birth and rebirth is called samsara, and there are differing views of how samsara occurs - "transmigration" is the belief it's essentially the same soul moving from body to body. Siddhartha Gautma reputedly said that it's more like a new soul every time. The next birth is influenced by this one, but it's not the same entity (he used the analogy of one candle lighting another).

Trying to parse a difference between "reincarnation" and "rebirth," though is just nonsensical, though. It's the same thing in Pali. It's like trying argue that there's a difference between the "Holy Spirit" and the "Holy Ghost."

Having said that, you aren't required to believe in any form of samasara at all to be a Buddhist. Supernatural beliefs are incidental and optional in Buddhism. They're even ubiquitous, but they aren't essential. You can still be a Buddhist without beliving anu of it.

You can't be a Christian without believing in basic creed that Jesus was the resurrected son of God.

By the way, Buddha himself told his disciples not to even waste they're time worrying about what happens after death. said it was a useless distraction and it didn't matter.

[Blalron]

Using what you know about Theraveda Buddhism to try and prove that Zen requires a belief in the supernatural is like using the Catholic catechism to prove that Baptists believe in transubstantiation.

Even so, Zen has historically included a belief in the supernatural. I know there have been some recent, modern Zen practioners that have cast aside supernatural beliefs (like Stephen Batchelor) but those are the exceptions rather than the rule.

Whether Stephen Batchelor is a "real Buddhist" is a matter of definition which I'm happy to ignore. But I don't believe his vision of Buddhism much resembles what the Buddha himself had in mind.

[Bricker]

Rebirth and reincarnation are the same thing. Rebirth does not necessarily mean transmigration of souls, but there is no distinction between "rebirth" and "reincarnation" since both of those words are English translations for the same Pali word, punabbhava ("re-becoming" or "becoming again"). "Rebirth" and "reincarnation" are not different words or concepts in Pali. The entire cycle of birth and rebirth is called samsara, and there are differing views of how samsara occurs - "transmigration" is the belief it's essentially the same soul moving from body to body. Siddhartha Gautma reputedly said that it's more like a new soul every time. The next birth is influenced by this one, but it's not the same entity (he used the analogy of one candle lighting another).

Trying to parse a difference between "reincarnation" and "rebirth," though is just nonsensical, though. It's the same thing in Pali. It's like trying argue that there's a difference between the "Holy Spirit" and the "Holy Ghost."

Having said that, you aren't required to believe in any form of samasara at all to be a Buddhist. Supernatural beliefs are incidental and optional in Buddhism. They're even ubiquitous, but they aren't essential. You can still be a Buddhist without beliving anu of it.

You can't be a Christian without believing in basic creed that Jesus was the resurrected son of God.

By the way, Buddha himself told his disciples not to even waste they're time worrying about what happens after death. said it was a useless distraction and it didn't matter.

Your post is your cite?

My cites (http://www.maithri.com/fromindexpage.htm):

The Buddha taught about rebirth in Theravada Buddhism but not in the reincarnation or the transmigration of permanent souls.

There are many words from Pali that apply. From the suttas:

MN 4 -- "Upapannā" -- reappears
These beings — who were endowed with bad conduct of body, speech & mind, who reviled noble ones, held wrong views and undertook actions under the influence of wrong views — with the break-up of the body, after death, have re-appeared in the plane of deprivation, the bad destination, the lower realms, in hell.


MN 135 -- "Upapajjati" -- reappears or reborn
Here, student, some woman or man is a killer of living beings, murderous, bloody-handed, given to blows and violence, merciless to living beings. Due to having performed and completed such kammas, on the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappears in a state of deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, in hell. If, on the dissolution of the body, after death, instead of his reappearing in a state of deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, in hell, he comes to the human state, he is short-lived wherever he is reborn.


And again in MN 57:

Here, Punna, he develops the dog duty fully & unstintingly, he develops the dog-habit fully & unstintingly, he develops the dog mind fully & unstintingly, he develops dog behavior fully & unstintingly. Having done that, on the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappears in the company of dogs.

And others as well. All of these specify actions that cause circumstances in rebirth, but NOT a continuous soul or consciousness that is typcial of reincarnation.

Compare to the Bhagavad Gita, which clearly imagines reincarnation:

For the soul there is never birth nor death. Nor, having once been, does he ever cease to be. He is unborn, eternal, ever-existing, undying and primeval. He is not slain when the body is slain.

As the embodied soul continuously passes, in this body, from boyhood to youth to old age,
the soul similarly passes into another body at death.
A self-realized soul is not bewildered by such a change.


THAT is reincarnation. The coul, incarnated into a new body.

Theravada Buddhism tells of karmic rebirth, a consequence of the law of karma. Hindu-influenced Buddhism (like Zen, possibly?) teaches of the metaphysical concept of reincarnation.

[heatmiserfl]

Buddhism is very difficult to pin down regarding dogma. Rebirth and karma are the most hotly contested topics. No Buddhist (as far as I know) will equate rebirth directly with reincarnation as defined by other Indian sects. Modern and most Western buddhists reject any definition of rebirth that has supernatural elements. Most the Japanese Zen Buddhists that came to the US in the early to mid 20th century had a very modern view of rebirth. Look up Stephen Batchelor or Thich Nhat Hahn for their non-supernatural definitions of rebirth.

Even for buddhist fundamentalists, rebirth does not involve a permanent self or soul that is reborn. However, as far as I can tell, they are incapable of saying exactly what it is that is reborn that does not involve supernatural elements. Since there is no self, karma is also different in that it doesn't have to involve some kind of karmic justice. All karma means is action. Of course actions have unpredictable consequences which may increase suffering.

Thich Nhat Hanh or Thay (as they call him) is really cute when talking about rebirth. He likes to quote Lavoisier or even state the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Since there is no real self, what is reborn. Nothing, obviously. So rebirth is just a transformation. He stresses the concept of interbeing. Brad Warner also espouses similar ideas. For example, he uses waves in an ocean to describe no-self and rebirth. Waves come and go but the ocean is always there. Waves were never individual "selves".

But Buddhist fundamentalists have a view of rebirth that sounds similar to what I would think of as reincarnation. They will take literally texts talking about the Buddha or a monk coming back as a fox, etc. Clearly these texts are meant to be allegorical. It's obvious if you read several of them. Yet these people will cling to this notion (clinging not very buddhisty).

Buddhism has an emphasis on self-discovery and experimentation outlined most famously in the Kalama sutta that basically says, "Don't listen to authority just because they say they're authority." Very annoying to the fundamentalists.

[scule]

I think you need to define supernatural in order to proceed (I know that's nitpicking, but it helps frame the argument).

I'd suggest that Buddhism does require a belief in the supernatural because it suggests that the purpose of its entire existence is the harmony of the soul across all earthly iterations of itself (or its progeny, for lack of a better term) through the process of attaining enlightenment. If you start with the basic assumption that supernatural means that which cannot be described as existing in the natural, observable universe, then I'd say souls fit the bill.

[heatmiserfl]

I think you need to define supernatural in order to proceed (I know that's nitpicking, but it helps frame the argument).

I'd suggest that Buddhism does require a belief in the supernatural because it suggests that the purpose of its entire existence is the harmony of the soul across all earthly iterations of itself (or its progeny, for lack of a better term) through the process of attaining enlightenment. If you start with the basic assumption that supernatural means that which cannot be described as existing in the natural, observable universe, then I'd say souls fit the bill.

There is no permanent soul in Buddhism. Even fundamentalist Buddhists (although they teeter on describing a soul many times).

[Bricker]

Siddhartha Gautma reputedly said that it's more like a new soul every time. The next birth is influenced by this one, but it's not the same entity (he used the analogy of one candle lighting another).


This much is true. (And in answer to a question about where one goes after attaining nibbana, he asked what happens to the flame when the candle is extinguished.)

But one candle lighting another describes the concept of karmic rebirth, and specifically rejects the reincarnation idea that it's the same entity involved.

[CarnalK]

I think,Diogenes, blithely waving away the differences between rebirth and reincarnation, when it's a topic of intense discussion in Buddhism, kind of negates any position of authority you think you have here. So I think you really should provide a little outside backup on your arguments.

I would like to know why you proclaim Zen to be Buddhism "at it's most elemental". Is it because they choose to discard the things you would like discarded? That would be my intuition.

[scule]

There is no permanent soul in Buddhism. Even fundamentalist Buddhists (although they teeter on describing a soul many times).

Fair enough, but bringing the concept of a soul into the equation is pretty supernatural.

[Malthus]

Theravada Buddhism, at least in the original writings, stikes me as a reasonably rational set of beliefs that simply presupposes that a lot of supernatural stuff happens to be true - stuff like karma, rebirth, reincarnation, etc.

Whether the beliefs are still reasonably rational if that supernatural background is removed or redefined so as not to be supernatural, I dunno.

[heatmiserfl]

THAT is reincarnation. The coul, incarnated into a new body.

Theravada Buddhism tells of karmic rebirth, a consequence of the law of karma. Hindu-influenced Buddhism (like Zen, possibly?) teaches of the metaphysical concept of reincarnation.

I suppose you could say that some Buddhist would describe some non-material thing as a soul. Usually they'll call it "mind". Hindus also call their soul the mind or consciousness. However, Hindus stress a self and stress that the soul is permanent. At least that's how I was taught regarding Buddhism. The Buddha stressed that there is neither a permanent self nor soul. In fact, nothing is permanent.

Zen is less related to Hinduism (IMO) than Theravada. Theravada is derived from the older form of Buddhism and many think is closer to the original teachings of the monks that came after Buddha (they follow the Pali Canon).

[Bricker]

Theravada Buddhism, at least in the original writings, stikes me as a reasonably rational set of beliefs that simply presupposes that a lot of supernatural stuff happens to be true - stuff like karma, rebirth, reincarnation, etc.

Whether the beliefs are still reasonably rational if that supernatural background is removed or redefined so as not to be supernatural, I dunno.

The Four Noble Truths (http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/buddhistworld/whats-thera.htm):

1. The Noble Truth of dukkha (suffering, unsatisfactoriness, stress): life is fundamentally fraught with unsatisfactoriness and disappointment of every description;

2. The Noble Truth of the cause of dukkha: the cause of this dissatisfaction is tanha (craving) in all its forms;

3. The Noble Truth of the cessation of dukkha: an end to all that unsatisfactoriness can be found through the relinquishment and abandonment of craving;

4. The Noble Truth of the path leading to the cessation of dukkha: there is a method of achieving the end of all unsatisfactoriness, namely the Noble Eightfold Path;
.
.
.
The last of the Noble Truths -- the Noble Eightfold Path -- contains a prescription for the relief of our unhappiness and for our eventual release, once and for all, from the painful and wearisome cycle of birth and death (samsara) to which — through our own ignorance (avijja) of the Four Noble Truths — we have been bound for countless aeons.


Those are the fundamental precepts of Theravada Buddhism, and I don't see how we can separate the claim that the practice leads to cessation of dukka through ending rebirth from the rest of the mix.

I grant that an individual may say, "I think following these practices leads me to peace in this life, and nothing more," but that's an a la carte approach that could be applied to claim that ANY religion does not require belief in the supernatural.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Your post is your cite?

My cites (http://www.maithri.com/fromindexpage.htm):



There are many words from Pali that apply. From the suttas:

MN 4 -- "Upapannā" -- reappears


MN 135 -- "Upapajjati" -- reappears or reborn


And again in MN 57:



And others as well. All of these specify actions that cause circumstances in rebirth, but NOT a continuous soul or consciousness that is typcial of reincarnation.
You seem to think the word "reincarnation" actually means anything in pali. It doesn't. You are conflating that meaningless word with transmigration of souls. Transmigration is not synonomous with "reincarnation," which is just one way to translate the Pali words referring to samasara and rebirth.

Of course, this doesn't even matter because none of thsoe beliefs are required to be a Buddhist. especially not in Zen.

One more time. It is not a credal religion. The 4 Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path do not contain any metaphysical/supernatural assmptions.

[Frylock]

The Four Noble Truths (http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/buddhistworld/whats-thera.htm):



Those are the fundamental precepts of Theravada Buddhism, and I don't see how we can separate the claim that the practice leads to cessation of dukka through ending rebirth from the rest of the mix.

I grant that an individual may say, "I think following these practices leads me to peace in this life, and nothing more," but that's an a la carte approach that could be applied to claim that ANY religion does not require belief in the supernatural.

The part at the end that you quoted--the part about rebirth--is not part of a foundational Buddhist formulation of doctrine, rather, it is the author's own interpretation of the intention of the eightfold path. Reading the next couple of paragraphs from the web page you linked to, you see that the actual foundational specification of the eightfold path contains no necessary reference to any supernatural phenomena.

[Bricker]

You seem to think the word "reincarnation" actually means anything in pali. It doesn't. You are conflating that meaningless word with transmigration of souls. Transmigration is not synonomous with "reincarnation," which is just one way to translate the Pali words referring to samasara and rebirth.

Of course, this doesn't even matter because none of thsoe beliefs are required to be a Buddhist. especially not in Zen.

One more time. It is not a credal religion. The 4 Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path do not contain any metaphysical/supernatural assmptions.

And your post is your cite again.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Fair enough, but bringing the concept of a soul into the equation is pretty supernatural.You are not required to believe in a soul to be a Buddhist.

[Malthus]

The Four Noble Truths (http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/buddhistworld/whats-thera.htm):



Those are the fundamental precepts of Theravada Buddhism, and I don't see how we can separate the claim that the practice leads to cessation of dukka through ending rebirth from the rest of the mix.

I grant that an individual may say, "I think following these practices leads me to peace in this life, and nothing more," but that's an a la carte approach that could be applied to claim that ANY religion does not require belief in the supernatural.

Yeah, that's pretty well my opinion.

The point of Theravada Buddhism is to get off the cycle by following the Eightfold Path. The existence of the cycle presupposes a supernatural background.

The techniques or steps of the Path may be good in-and-of themselves, and followed by those without any belief in the supernatural, but the ultmate goal of liberation from the cycle does presuppose a supernatural background.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

The Four Noble Truths (http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/buddhistworld/whats-thera.htm):



Those are the fundamental precepts of Theravada Buddhism, and I don't see how we can separate the claim that the practice leads to cessation of dukka through ending rebirth from the rest of the mix.
What you posted is not what the Eightfold Path actually says. This is only that author's paraphrase/interpretation. That part about "seccasaion of dukka" is not part of the formula. You don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about.

[Bricker]

The part at the end that you quoted--the part about rebirth--is not part of a foundational Buddhist formulation of doctrine, rather, it is the author's own interpretation of the intention of the eightfold path. Reading the next couple of paragraphs from the web page you linked to, you see that the actual foundational specification of the eightfold path contains no necessary reference to any supernatural phenomena.

Yes, and you can follow the Ten Commandments and believe in the wisdom of the Beatitudes without accepting God's existence or Christ's divinity, too.

But the fact remains that the Buddha taught that the way to end dukkha is to end tanha, and that by doing so you will end samsara.

You could choose to follow those steps without believing in samsara. But you can't claim this samsara is not as critical to the total package as Jesus' divinity is to Christianity.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Yeah, that's pretty well my opinion.

The point of Theravada Buddhism is to get off the cycle by following the Eightfold Path. The existence of the cycle presupposes a supernatural background.

There is no presumption of a cycle in the formula. That is a misrepresentation.

[Bricker]

What you posted is not what the Eightfold Path actually says. This is only that author's paraphrase/interpretation. That part about "seccasaion of dukka" is not part of the formula. You don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about.

Yes, it is. I'm right and you're wrong.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha.

[Frylock]

By the way, there can be a completely naturalistic interpretation of the Buddhist concept of rebirth. Rebirth isn't supposed to be the continued existence of a single consciousness, but rather, it's supposed to be the dissolution of one consciousness constituting part of the causal stream leading to the aggregation of another consciousness.

Well... this actually happens. My own consciousness is, in part, constituted by things that happened in the consciousness of people that came before me. My ideas and the way I understand the world are shaped, in part, by not only the people who raised me but also the experiences of people in the culture I belong to at large.

My parents didn't have to die in order for me to "rebear" some of their consciousness of course, but AFAIK buddhist doctrines about rebirth don't require that one dies before dissolute portions of ones consciousness can contribute to the aggregation of others. Indeed, in buddhist doctrine, there is no self--hence it should be no surprise if the dissolution of consciousness is a constant process and not just something that happens at death--even if its most, so to speak, "spectacular" dissolution may happen there at the end...

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Yes, it is. I'm right and you're wrong.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha.
You're making yourself look like an idiot. You TRULY don't don't know what you're talking about.

[Bricker]

Number of posts made by Diogenes so far: five.

Number of cites that are not his posts, but refer to some other authority: zero.

[Frylock]

Yes, and you can follow the Ten Commandments and believe in the wisdom of the Beatitudes without accepting God's existence or Christ's divinity, too.

But the fact remains that the Buddha taught that the way to end dukkha is to end tanha, and that by doing so you will end samsara.

You could choose to follow those steps without believing in samsara. But you can't claim this samsara is not as critical to the total package as Jesus' divinity is to Christianity.

I'm not schooled in the foundational texts of Buddhism. You've given us a website written by a contemporary author, but can you do me the favor of citing "chapter and verse" where in a foundational text (i.e. one universally accepted by Therevada buddhist sects--since Therevada seems to be your target here) the Buddha is portrayed as teaching tha that the way to end dukkha is to end tanha, thereby ending samsara?

[Malthus]

The part at the end that you quoted--the part about rebirth--is not part of a foundational Buddhist formulation of doctrine, rather, it is the author's own interpretation of the intention of the eightfold path. Reading the next couple of paragraphs from the web page you linked to, you see that the actual foundational specification of the eightfold path contains no necessary reference to any supernatural phenomena.

The point of following the Eightfold Path is to, eventually, get off the cycle of Samsara.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsara_(Buddhism)

The existence of that cycle seems to qualify as a supernatural belief to me, and it's pretty basic to Theravada Buddhism.

Cite to original Pali script:

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn15/sn15.003.than.html

[Bricker]

You're making yourself look like an idiot. You TRULY don't don't know what you're talking about.

And yet I have repeatedly offered cites to my points, meaning at the very least that others out there equally endorse my idiotic claims.

You, on the other hand, have relied on your authority as an SDMB "Expert." A title which you conferred on yourself.

[Bricker]

I'm not schooled in the foundational texts of Buddhism. You've given us a website written by a contemporary author, but can you do me the favor of citing "chapter and verse" where in a foundational text (i.e. one universally accepted by Therevada buddhist sects--since Therevada seems to be your target here) the Buddha is portrayed as teaching tha that the way to end dukkha is to end tanha, thereby ending samsara?

Yes. Cite. (http://www.buddhanet.net/budsas/ebud/bud-dict/dic3_t.htm)

taṇhā: (lit. 'thirst'):is the chief root of suffering, and of the ever-continuing cycle of rebirths. "What, o monks, is the origin of suffering? It is that craving which gives rise to ever-fresh rebirth and, bound up with pleasure and lust, now here, now there, finds ever fresh delight. It is the sensual craving (kāma-taṇhā), the craving for existence (bhava-taṇhā), the craving for non-existence (vibhava-taṇhā)'' (D. 22). T. is the 8th link in the formula of the dependent origination (paṭiccasamuppāda, q.v.). Cf. sacca.


Why don't you ask Diogenes for some cites?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

The actual words of the Buddha from the actual sutta (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.065.than.html):
"In the same way I saw an ancient path, an ancient road, traveled by the Rightly Self-awakened Ones of former times. And what is that ancient path, that ancient road, traveled by the Rightly Self-awakened Ones of former times? Just this noble eightfold path: right view, right aspiration, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration. That is the ancient path, the ancient road, traveled by the Rightly Self-awakened Ones of former times. I followed that path. Following it, I came to direct knowledge of aging & death, direct knowledge of the origination of aging & death, direct knowledge of the cessation of aging & death, direct knowledge of the path leading to the cessation of aging & death. I followed that path. Following it, I came to direct knowledge of birth... becoming... clinging... craving... feeling... contact... the six sense media... name-&-form... consciousness, direct knowledge of the origination of consciousness, direct knowledge of the cessation of consciousness, direct knowledge of the path leading to the cessation of consciousness. I followed that path.

"Following it, I came to direct knowledge of fabrications, direct knowledge of the origination of fabrications, direct knowledge of the cessation of fabrications, direct knowledge of the path leading to the cessation of fabrications. Knowing that directly, I have revealed it to monks, nuns, male lay followers & female lay followers, so that this holy life has become powerful, rich, detailed, well-populated, wide-spread, proclaimed among celestial & human beings."
The Buddha taught the Eightfold Path as a cessation to suffering. He did not say you have to believe in samasara. That's bullshit.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

The point of following the Eightfold Path is to, eventually, get off the cycle of Samsara.

No it isn't. The point of the Path is to end suffering.

[Malthus]

The actual words of the Buddha from the actual sutta (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.065.than.html):

The Buddha taught the Eightfold Path as a cessation to suffering. He did not say you have to believe in samasara. That's bullshit.

Heh, from two posts above yours:

At Savatthi. There the Blessed One said: "From an inconstruable beginning comes transmigration. A beginning point is not evident, though beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving are transmigrating & wandering on. What do you think, monks: Which is greater, the tears you have shed while transmigrating & wandering this long, long time — crying & weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — or the water in the four great oceans?"

"As we understand the Dhamma taught to us by the Blessed One, this is the greater: the tears we have shed while transmigrating & wandering this long, long time — crying & weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — not the water in the four great oceans."

"Excellent, monks. Excellent. It is excellent that you thus understand the Dhamma taught by me.

"This is the greater: the tears you have shed while transmigrating & wandering this long, long time — crying & weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — not the water in the four great oceans.

"Long have you (repeatedly) experienced the death of a mother. The tears you have shed over the death of a mother while transmigrating & wandering this long, long time — crying & weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — are greater than the water in the four great oceans.

"Long have you (repeatedly) experienced the death of a father... the death of a brother... the death of a sister... the death of a son... the death of a daughter... loss with regard to relatives... loss with regard to wealth... loss with regard to disease. The tears you have shed over loss with regard to disease while transmigrating & wandering this long, long time — crying & weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — are greater than the water in the four great oceans.

"Why is that? From an inconstruable beginning comes transmigration. A beginning point is not evident, though beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving are transmigrating & wandering on. Long have you thus experienced stress, experienced pain, experienced loss, swelling the cemeteries — enough to become disenchanted with all fabricated things, enough to become dispassionate, enough to be released."


http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn15/sn15.003.than.html

[Malthus]

No it isn't. The point of the Path is to end suffering.

Same difference. In Theravada Buddhism, one ends suffering by escaping the cycle (and only by escaping the cycle) - and one does that by following the Path.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

It is not necessary to believe in samsara. Bottom line. The Buddha never made that part of the doctrine. I just quoted the actual text of the Sutra. This debate is over.

[Bricker]

The actual words of the Buddha from the actual sutta (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.065.than.html):

The Buddha taught the Eightfold Path as a cessation to suffering. He did not say you have to believe in samasara. That's bullshit.

Wow. A link.

And even in your link, he doesn't limit himself to the cessation of suffering:

Then the thought occurred to me, 'Aging & death don't exist when what doesn't exist? From the cessation of what comes the cessation of aging & death?' From my appropriate attention there came the breakthrough of discernment: 'Aging & death don't exist when birth doesn't exist. From the cessation of birth comes the cessation of aging & death.

But wait -- there's more (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.017.than.html):

"Now from the remainderless fading & cessation of that very ignorance comes the cessation of fabrications. From the cessation of fabrications comes the cessation of consciousness. From the cessation of consciousness comes the cessation of name-&-form. From the cessation of name-&-form comes the cessation of the six sense media. From the cessation of the six sense media comes the cessation of contact. From the cessation of contact comes the cessation of feeling. From the cessation of feeling comes the cessation of craving. From the cessation of craving comes the cessation of clinging/ sustenance. From the cessation of clinging/sustenance comes the cessation of becoming. From the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth. From the cessation of birth, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair all cease. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of stress & suffering."


From the cessation of birth.

What exactly does the Buddha mean? Was he advising Kassapa the clothless ascetic to turn back time and not be born?

Or was he advising him to not be reborn?

What did he mean, there, Diogenes?

[Bricker]

It is not necessary to believe in samsara. Bottom line. The Buddha never made that part of the doctrine. I just quoted the actual text of the Sutra. This debate is over.

And I just quoted the actual text of the sutra.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Heh, from two posts above yours:



http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn15/sn15.003.than.html
You're misunderstanding the word "transmigration" here. It isn't a reference to transmigration of souls (which the Buddha didn't believe in), but to the inherent impermanence of life. That everything is changing and transient, that nothing stays the same, and that this is part of what causes suffering.

[Frylock]

Why don't you ask Diogenes for some cites?

I haven't been discussing anything with Diogenes.

[Malthus]

It is not necessary to believe in samsara. Bottom line. The Buddha never made that part of the doctrine. I just quoted the actual text of the Sutra. This debate is over.

Your quotation does not state the point you are attempting to make, whereas mine (I note, from the same site you used) expressly describes the cyscle of Samsara as the target of liberation.

From a historical analysis:

In spite of the rejection of authority of Vedas, the Buddhism of the Pali canon shares a common heritage with much of Indian philosophy, in particular the Upanishads, insofar as both stress the need for yoga as a means of the realization of the truth and share a basic philosophical vocabulary. The central difference between the two, however, is that in early Buddhist teaching there is no atman with which the yogi is to identify as his true Self. Rather, repeatedly in the Pali canon the doctrine of anatman (Pali: anatta) appears. In the Upanishadic philosophy when one withdraws from the external world, calms the senses and empties the mind one discovers atman, the (true) Self, which is identified with Brahman; this insight liberates from samsara. Contrary to the vedanta view, in the Buddhism of the Pali canon what liberates from samsara is the insight that there is no permanent and abiding self with which to identify; this is the teaching of anatman. (Emphasis added)

http://www.abu.nb.ca/courses/grphil/EPhil/Buddh.htm

[Diogenes the Cynic]

And I just quoted the actual text of the sutra.
And you didn't understand a word of it.

[Bricker]

You're misunderstanding the word "transmigration" here. It isn't a reference to transmigration of souls (which the Buddha didn't believe in), but to the inherent impermanence of life. That everything is changing and transient, that nothing stays the same, and that this is part of what causes suffering.

Cite?

Look, Diogenes, you cannot simply assert things as true. You've already embarrassed yourself with not knowing about the difference between reincarnation and rebirth (a line of discussion I see you've dropped without comment, your usual tactic for avoiding an admission of error) and you're obviously unclear about how critical samsara is to attaining nibbana. In short, you're no "expert," and cannot simply post claims and expect the readers to accept your analysis as gospel. If you have cites, post 'em. Everyone else is managing to.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Wow. A link.

And even in your link, he doesn't limit himself to the cessation of suffering:



But wait -- there's more (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.017.than.html):



From the cessation of birth.

What exactly does the Buddha mean? Was he advising Kassapa the clothless ascetic to turn back time and not be born?

Or was he advising him to not be reborn?

What did he mean, there, Diogenes?
If you read back further, he's defining "birth" as essentially synonomous with consciousness. He's using these words like "birth, aging and death" figuratively. Awareness of those things causes suffering. You should really take a class or something.

[Frylock]

Yes. Cite. (http://www.buddhanet.net/budsas/ebud/bud-dict/dic3_t.htm)



That looks like a pretty conclusiove citation--provided that "(D. 22). T. is the 8th link in the formula of the dependent origination (paṭiccasamuppāda, q.v.)" is constituted by references to foundational Therevada texts. What do "D. 22" and paticcasamuppada" mean? Are these references to passages from foundational texts?

[Bricker]

And you didn't understand a word of it.

Another one of those, "Who are you going to believe? Diogenes the Expert, or the quoted text?" moments.

[Bricker]

If you read back further, he's defining "birth" as essentially synonomous with consciousness. He's using these words like "birth, aging and death" figuratively. Awareness of those things causes suffering. You should really take a class or something.

I have. But rather than simply claim I know it because i took a class, I have provided citations to buttress my points.

[Malthus]

You're misunderstanding the word "transmigration" here. It isn't a reference to transmigration of souls (which the Buddha didn't believe in), but to the inherent impermanence of life. That everything is changing and transient, that nothing stays the same, and that this is part of what causes suffering.

Odd then that the Buddha is stating that you repeatedly experience the deaths of your mom and pop as you transmigrate, shedding in the process more tears than the ocean. ;)

It is true that in Buddhism there is no true, eternal, permanent self - you are as changing as everything else (another source of suffering) - but there is still a 'you' that is bound to the wheel. The wheel of Karma, birth and rebirth, Samsara.

[CarnalK]

And yet I have repeatedly offered cites to my points, meaning at the very least that others out there equally endorse my idiotic claims.

You, on the other hand, have relied on your authority as an SDMB "Expert." A title which you conferred on yourself.
I think he is correct that if you look at the specific text that lays out the Noble Truths, you won't see "rebirth" in there or directly supernatural stuff. Truths: 1 (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca1/index.html) 2 (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca2/index.html) 3 (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca3/index.html) 4 (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca4/index.html)

But you have to disregard a lot of exposition and commentary to say supernatural has nothing to do with it. For example, further along in the very same Sutta that those truths are listed is the text:
Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta: Setting the Wheel of Dhamma in Motion (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn56/sn56.011.than.html)
"And, monks, as long as this — my three-round, twelve-permutation knowledge & vision concerning these four noble truths as they have come to be — was not pure, I did not claim to have directly awakened to the right self-awakening unexcelled in the cosmos with its deities, Maras, & Brahmas, with its contemplatives & priests, its royalty & commonfolk. But as soon as this — my three-round, twelve-permutation knowledge & vision concerning these four noble truths as they have come to be — was truly pure, then I did claim to have directly awakened to the right self-awakening unexcelled in the cosmos with its deities, Maras & Brahmas, with its contemplatives & priests, its royalty & commonfolk. Knowledge & vision arose in me: 'Unprovoked is my release. This is the last birth. There is now no further becoming.'"

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Cite?
The cite is the text. Read it yourself. Better yet, take a class. You don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about.
Look, Diogenes, you cannot simply assert things as true. You've already embarrassed yourself with not knowing about the difference between reincarnation and rebirth

There IS no difference. You were wrong, and you continue to make yourself look like a buffoon by insisting that there is. Neither one of those words has any translation into Pali. They are English approximations of the same Pali word.

[treis]

I don't know what you are talking about Diogenes, but you are way off base here:

At Savatthi. There the Blessed One said: "From an inconstruable beginning comes transmigration. A beginning point is not evident, though beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving are transmigrating & wandering on. What do you think, monks: Which is greater, the tears you have shed while transmigrating & wandering this long, long time — crying & weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — or the water in the four great oceans?"

"As we understand the Dhamma taught to us by the Blessed One, this is the greater: the tears we have shed while transmigrating & wandering this long, long time — crying & weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — not the water in the four great oceans."

"Excellent, monks. Excellent. It is excellent that you thus understand the Dhamma taught by me.

"This is the greater: the tears you have shed while transmigrating & wandering this long, long time — crying & weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — not the water in the four great oceans.

"Long have you (repeatedly) experienced the death of a mother. The tears you have shed over the death of a mother while transmigrating & wandering this long, long time — crying & weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — are greater than the water in the four great oceans.

"Long have you (repeatedly) experienced the death of a father... the death of a brother... the death of a sister... the death of a son... the death of a daughter... loss with regard to relatives... loss with regard to wealth... loss with regard to disease. The tears you have shed over loss with regard to disease while transmigrating & wandering this long, long time — crying & weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — are greater than the water in the four great oceans.


http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn15/sn15.003.than.html

It is clear that the whole point of the Buddha's teachings is to stop the cycle of death and rebirth through the extinguishing of desire. It's crystal clear in this text. Each of us has shed more tears than the water in the ocean because we have experience the suffering of many many life times. There is no real way to follow the Buddha's teachings without accepting the supernatural cycle of death and rebirth.

[Bricker]

That looks like a pretty conclusiove citation--provided that "(D. 22). T. is the 8th link in the formula of the dependent origination (paṭiccasamuppāda, q.v.)" is constituted by references to foundational Therevada texts. What do "D. 22" and paticcasamuppada" mean? Are these references to passages from foundational texts?

Yes, those refer to the tipitaka, or the Pali canon, which is most certainly foundational.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

I think he is correct that if you look at the specific text that lays out the Noble Truths, you won't see "rebirth" in there or directly supernatural stuff. Truths: 1 (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca1/index.html) 2 (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca2/index.html) 3 (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca3/index.html) 4 (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca4/index.html)

But you have to disregard a lot of exposition and commentary to say supernatural has nothing to do with it. For example, further along in the very same Sutta that those truths are listed is the text:
Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta: Setting the Wheel of Dhamma in Motion (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn56/sn56.011.than.html)
There are a lot of optional supernatural beliefs in Buddhism. None of them are necessary, especially not in Zen, which is what I practice, and which is not Theravada anyway, so I don't know why Bricker thinks he's making any point at all about Zen in trying to argue his incorrect understanding of Theravada.

[CarnalK]

treis, I think that the problem is that loooong ago Buddhists figured the best way to recruit in a hostile religious environment is to downplay the believing spiritual stuff and upplay the "good way to live" stuff. Diogenes has just bought that hook, line and sinker.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

There is absolutely no requirement to believe in anything supernatural. That's a fact. Go to any Zen temple and ask them.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

treis, I think that the problem is that loooong ago Buddhists figured the best way to recruit in a hostile religious environment is to downplay the believing spiritual stuff and upplay the "good way to live" stuff. Diogenes has just bought that hook, line and sinker.
It's not "good way to live" stuff. It's cognitive discipline. Zen meditation is just exercise for the brain with no more necessary religious component than yoga. You can practice yoga just as a physical activity, or you can practice it as a spiritual discipline. Same with Zen.

[Bricker]

The cite is the text. Read it yourself. Better yet, take a class. You don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about.


There IS no difference. You were wrong, and you continue to make yourself look like a buffoon by insisting that there is. Neither one of those words has any translation into Pali. They are English approximations of the same Pali word.

Why do you think I am focusing on Theravada Buddhism, and disavowing any in-depth knowledge of Zen? It's because I have taken a class that focused on Theravada Buddhism.

I know there is no covincing the Great Rock of Diogenes.

But I'm also pretty certain that every other person reading this thread knows you're wrong.

[treis]

There is absolutely no requirement to believe in anything supernatural. That's a fact. Go to any Zen temple and ask them.

If Zen temples don't accept the basic teaching of the Buddha, then they are not Buddhists by any meaningful definition.

[CarnalK]

There is absolutely no requirement to believe in anything supernatural. That's a fact. Go to any Zen temple and ask them.

I know they say that. I spent 10 days meditating at a silent Theravada buddhist retreat and the instructor said that all the time. It's just that you have to ignore the core purpose of all the meditating, which I was fine to play along with.

It's not "good way to live" stuff. It's cognitive discipline. Zen meditation is just exercise for the brain with no more necessary religious component than yoga. You can practice yoga just as a physical activity, or you can practice it as a spiritual discipline. Same with Zen.

Exactly right. Yoga without the spiritual component is just an exercise class. However, it doesn't follow that "yoga doesn't require a spiritual component either". I would say in that case you are just aping the exercises, like you are doing with Buddhism.

[heatmiserfl]

And yet I have repeatedly offered cites to my points, meaning at the very least that others out there equally endorse my idiotic claims.

You, on the other hand, have relied on your authority as an SDMB "Expert." A title which you conferred on yourself.

Bricker, Dio's posts have so far been pretty on the mark. The only thing I would slightly disagree with is that he interchanges the words reincarnation and rebirth but when he defines them by distinguishing the Hindu from the Buddhist concepts, he is absolutely correct. He is also correct that precise definitions of rebirth and karma and not important in many Buddhist sects. Beyond the 4 Noble Truths, dogma in general is not important for Zen and Western Theravadan schools. In fact, AFAIK, most Buddhist schools focus mostly on practice which will stress either meditation and/or chants/rituals along with just being compassionate.

I studied Soto Zen Buddhism with an expert for a couple of years. The one thing I remember the most is that dogma is highly frowned upon and practice is of utmost importance. For zen, practice is mindfullness and meditation. Period. It's right in the title, Zen. This is true for both Soto and Rinzai schools of Zen. In fact, any intellectualization is highly frowned upon and the practices are designed to get rid of useless thought processes and beliefs. For Soto zen, you just sit. For Rinzai, you usual meditate on a koan. All the zen legends and koans include silly contradictory and nonsensical stories to get you to stop thinking. For example, I remember a great koan where a student asked a monk what happens to him after death so the monk cuts off his arm. It's what my daughter would call, "totally random."

I also used to go to a sangha for Thich Nhat Hanh. He is Vietnamese Zen which is a combination of Rinzai and Theravadan. He is a school all by himself, IMO. Nevertheless, he stresses the same things I learned from Soto Zen; meditation and practice, not dogma is of utmost importance. The Theravadan schools focus on insight meditation which the Soto's like to claim is very different and inferior from their practices. I found they were pretty similar in the end.

One more thing about Stephen Batchelor. Some may say he's not real Buddhist but the guy studied both Tibetan in Dharmsala and Korean Zen Buddhism in Korea intensely. I've read two of his books and started a third about his life and I can say that what he says is not too different than what I was taught in the Soto Zen and Thich Nhat Hanh schools. So even though he is somehow radical for his book "Buddhism Without Beliefs", his teachings were very similar to what I already knew.

[Inner Stickler]

Wrong about what? That his buddhist practice doesn't require belief in the supernatural? Because it's pretty clear to me that he's trucking along just fine. Why is it so important to you that he admit you must believe in the supernatural to be a buddhist? (And I disagree that you can follow the 10 commandments without belief in god. That first commandment seems really difficult to follow otherwise.)

[CarnalK]

Why are you so willing to defend his Buddhist practice when he himself says he's only "sort of" a Buddhist?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

If Zen temples don't accept the basic teaching of the Buddha, then they are not Buddhists by any meaningful definition.
The teachings of the Buddha don't require any supernatural beliefs.

[Inner Stickler]

Why are you so willing to defend his Buddhist practice when he himself says he's only "sort of" a Buddhist?Am I? If Dio were bitching at Bricker that he wasn't really a catholic I would say the same thing at Dio.

[treis]

The teachings of the Buddha don't require any supernatural beliefs.

Of course they do. How can you believe in the lecture I quoted without accepting the concept of samsara?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Why are you so willing to defend his Buddhist practice when he himself says he's only "sort of" a Buddhist?
I mean that in the way that someone who only goes to church on Christmas and easter is "sort of a Christian."

I still practice Zen meditation, but not as often or as intensely as I used to. I don't have a temple. I don't really see it as religious, but my point in the thread that led to this was only that it might make my daughter feel better to tell her (without lying) that I did at least have something which could be called a "religious" identity, at least insofar as an 11 year old could understand it.

Why Bricker felt the need to threadshit about that, I still don't understand. It wasn't a debate thread about religion, it was an MPSIMS thread about a family issue.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Of course they do. How can you believe in the lecture I quoted without accepting the concept of samsara?
You don't have to believe in samsara, but if you do believe in samsara, the Buddha says the Path will work. It doesn't matter if you don't, though. It doesn't make you a heretic. Belief in samsara karma, rebirth, gods, etc. is all optional, and ultimately irrelevant, an the teachers will oftn tell you that getting hung up on that stuff is a waste of time and part of the problem.

Buddha said that asking those questions was akin to a man who has been shot with an arrow asking a bunch of questions about what the arrow looks like instead of just pulling it out. There is no dogma. Thinking that shit matters is just part of the problem. As long as you "believe" shit, you aren't getting anywhere.

[Bricker]

Bricker, Dio's posts have so far been pretty on the mark. The only thing I would slightly disagree with is that he interchanges the words reincarnation and rebirth but when he defines them by distinguishing the Hindu from the Buddhist concepts, he is absolutely correct. He is also correct that precise definitions of rebirth and karma and not important in many Buddhist sects. Beyond the 4 Noble Truths, dogma in general is not important for Zen and Western Theravadan schools. In fact, AFAIK, most Buddhist schools focus mostly on practice which will stress either meditation and/or chants/rituals along with just being compassionate.

I studied Soto Zen Buddhism with an expert for a couple of years. The one thing I remember the most is that dogma is highly frowned upon and practice is of utmost importance. For zen, practice is mindfullness and meditation. Period. It's right in the title, Zen. This is true for both Soto and Rinzai schools of Zen. In fact, any intellectualization is highly frowned upon and the practices are designed to get rid of useless thought processes and beliefs. For Soto zen, you just sit. For Rinzai, you usual meditate on a koan. All the zen legends and koans include silly contradictory and nonsensical stories to get you to stop thinking. For example, I remember a great koan where a student asked a monk what happens to him after death so the monk cuts off his arm. It's what my daughter would call, "totally random."

I also used to go to a sangha for Thich Nhat Hanh. He is Vietnamese Zen which is a combination of Rinzai and Theravadan. He is a school all by himself, IMO. Nevertheless, he stresses the same things I learned from Soto Zen; meditation and practice, not dogma is of utmost importance. The Theravadan schools focus on insight meditation which the Soto's like to claim is very different and inferior from their practices. I found they were pretty similar in the end.

One more thing about Stephen Batchelor. Some may say he's not real Buddhist but the guy studied both Tibetan in Dharmsala and Korean Zen Buddhism in Korea intensely. I've read two of his books and started a third about his life and I can say that what he says is not too different than what I was taught in the Soto Zen and Thich Nhat Hanh schools. So even though he is somehow radical for his book "Buddhism Without Beliefs", his teachings were very similar to what I already knew.

I don't make any claims whatsoever about Zen practice.

Everything you've said above relates to "many Buddhist sects."

That may well be true, which is why I focused this discussion precisely and narrowly on the one Buddhist sect I was familiar with, Theravada Buddhism.

Perhaps you apply the same analysis above to Dio's comments as applied to Theravada Buddhism.

[Bricker]

I mean that in the way that someone who only goes to church on Christmas and easter is "sort of a Christian."

I still practice Zen meditation, but not as often or as intensely as I used to. I don't have a temple. I don't really see it as religious, but my point in the thread that led to this was only that it might make my daughter feel better to tell her (without lying) that I did at least have something which could be called a "religious" identity, at least insofar as an 11 year old could understand it.

Why Bricker felt the need to threadshit about that, I still don't understand. It wasn't a debate thread about religion, it was an MPSIMS thread about a family issue.

I have no interest in your family issue. You made a sweeping statement about Buddhism that I knew to be false as applied to Theravada Buddhism. I asked you about it.

You did not say, "Well, this applies to Zen practice."

You did not do anything except insist that your broad, general statement was true. Undoubtedly it is, in the Zen world, although given your track record I wouldn't trust you to spell Zen, but enough othert people have said it that I believe it.

But it's not so for the Theravada school.

[treis]

You don't have to believe in samsara, but if you do believe in samsara, the Buddha says the Path will work. It doesn't matter if you don't, though. It doesn't make you a heretic. Belief in samsara karma, rebirth, gods, etc. is all optional, and ultimately irrelevant, an the teachers will oftn tell you that getting hung up on that stuff is a waste of time and part of the problem.

Buddha said that asking those questions was akin to a man who has been shot with an arrow asking a bunch of questions about what the arrow looks like instead of just pulling it out. There is no dogma. Thinking that shit matters is just part of the problem. As long as you "believe" shit, you aren't getting anywhere.

No, that's a ridiculous interpretation. The Buddha says things like:

Each of us has been "wandering for a long long time"

Each of us has shed more water through tears than there is in the 4 oceans.

Each of us has repeatedly experienced the death of our mothers, fathers, and other loved ones.

There is absolutely no doubt and no room for interpretation. Buddha is speaking about the concept of Samsara, and the entire point of his teaching is to stop that cycle. If you don't accept that, you simply are not following the teachings of the Buddha, and are not a Buddhist by any reasonable definition.

[heatmiserfl]

But the fact remains that the Buddha taught that the way to end dukkha is to end tanha, and that by doing so you will end samsara.

You could choose to follow those steps without believing in samsara. But you can't claim this samsara is not as critical to the total package as Jesus' divinity is to Christianity.

Here, you're debating about things without acknowledging that fact the meanings themselves are up for interpretation. People who actually practice Buddhism are taught that the meanings have fluidity. Anyone can read a couple of things about Buddhism online but unless you actually practice it and listen to a Zen Buddhist priest or Theravadan monk, you can't grasp the complexity of concepts. Sometimes, after years of study, you can't grasp the concepts. But you're not supposed to get insight by reading scriptures. You get it through practice. If you are really interested in Buddhism, check out some online Zen lectures from Thich Nhat Hanh or I can give you the name of the guy I studied with. He has an online Sangha. For Theravadan, Ajahn Brahm has tons of online lectures. Some of these guys may believe in some supernatural things (I know Ajahn Brahm's concept of mind is goofy, IMO) but all of them stress that it's not important. Practice is the only thing that is important.

Frylock explains it quite well here:
By the way, there can be a completely naturalistic interpretation of the Buddhist concept of rebirth. Rebirth isn't supposed to be the continued existence of a single consciousness, but rather, it's supposed to be the dissolution of one consciousness constituting part of the causal stream leading to the aggregation of another consciousness.

Well... this actually happens. My own consciousness is, in part, constituted by things that happened in the consciousness of people that came before me. My ideas and the way I understand the world are shaped, in part, by not only the people who raised me but also the experiences of people in the culture I belong to at large.

My parents didn't have to die in order for me to "rebear" some of their consciousness of course, but AFAIK buddhist doctrines about rebirth don't require that one dies before dissolute portions of ones consciousness can contribute to the aggregation of others. Indeed, in buddhist doctrine, there is no self--hence it should be no surprise if the dissolution of consciousness is a constant process and not just something that happens at death--even if its most, so to speak, "spectacular" dissolution may happen there at the end...


He just described dependent origination in relation to samsara. Samsara just means continuous stream. In fact streams and rivers are constant allegories in Buddhist teachings. Rebirth can be thought of as literal reincarnation but can also be rebirth or cycling of phenomenon/perception/consciousness in a microsecond. Every moment is impermanent. In the very next moment, a new cycle of suffering can arise. That's what I was taught. But I was also taught to quit thinking and just be in the moment.

These are things that Westerners, especially Christians, have difficulty grasping. Christians want to study the scriptures and try to take them literally. However, the Pali Canon or the Shobogenzo are not the Bible. There's no God with ultimate authority. Buddha is really just a role model. If you read a koan and tried to take that literally, yu'd think that Japanese monks were insane.

[Bricker]

Wrong about what? That his buddhist practice doesn't require belief in the supernatural? Because it's pretty clear to me that he's trucking along just fine. Why is it so important to you that he admit you must believe in the supernatural to be a buddhist? (And I disagree that you can follow the 10 commandments without belief in god. That first commandment seems really difficult to follow otherwise.)

:rolleyes:

The same logic applies. "You shall not have any strange gods before me." Well, I don't have any gods at all, so no problem there!

And what's this about "why is it so important?" This is a factual assertion; it's important as a matter of the board's supposed purpose.

Finally, not once have I ever said that he has to believe or disbelieve in anything. As I repeatedly said, he make take whatever he pleases from the practice.

But there's a big difference between "As I practice Buddism..." and "As Buddhism is practiced...."

You do see that, don't you?

[treis]

Here, you're debating about things without acknowledging that fact the meanings themselves are up for interpretation. People who actually practice Buddhism are taught that the meanings have fluidity. Anyone can read a couple of things about Buddhism online but unless you actually practice it and listen to a Zen Buddhist priest or Theravadan monk, you can't grasp the complexity of concepts. Sometimes, after years of study, you can't grasp the concepts. But you're not supposed to get insight by reading scriptures. You get it through practice. If you are really interested in Buddhism, check out some online Zen lectures from Thich Nhat Hanh or I can give you the name of the guy I studied with. He has an online Sangha. For Theravadan, Ajahn Brahm has tons of online lectures. Some of these guys may believe in some supernatural things (I know Ajahn Brahm's concept of mind is goofy, IMO) but all of them stress that it's not important. Practice is the only thing that is important.

Frylock explains it quite well here:


He just described dependent origination in relation to samsara. Samsara just means continuous stream. In fact streams and rivers are constant allegories in Buddhist teachings. Rebirth can be thought of as literal reincarnation but can also be rebirth or cycling of phenomenon/perception/consciousness in a microsecond. Every moment is impermanent. In the very next moment, a new cycle of suffering can arise. That's what I was taught. But I was also taught to quit thinking and just be in the moment.

These are things that Westerners, especially Christians, have difficulty grasping. Christians want to study the scriptures and try to take them literally. However, the Pali Canon or the Shobogenzo are not the Bible. There's no God with ultimate authority. Buddha is really just a role model. If you read a koan and tried to take that literally, yu'd think that Japanese monks were insane.

There is no doubt that there is 2000 years of deviation, reevaluation, modification, elaboration, or whichever term you like on the Buddha's teaching. The point is that at some point when you cease to follow the basic teachings of Buddha that you can't be reasonably called a Buddhist. That doesn't mean your beliefs are not valid, or less correct than the Buddha's teachings. It simply means that you are practicing another belief system, distinct from Buddhism.

[Bricker]

Here, you're debating about things without acknowledging that fact the meanings themselves are up for interpretation. People who actually practice Buddhism are taught that the meanings have fluidity. Anyone can read a couple of things about Buddhism online but unless you actually practice it and listen to a Zen Buddhist priest or Theravadan monk, you can't grasp the complexity of concepts.

If this statement is intended to suggest that the extent of my exposure to Theravada Buddhism is "reading a couple of things online," then you are mistaken. I studied Theravada Buddhism for several years; I followed the teachings of Ven. Henepola Gunaratana through a student of his who got a "thank you" credit on his book "Mindfulness in Plain English," which is a guide to Vipassana meditation practice.

Of course, I'll admit that Bhante Gunaratana's lessons never took, or this ignorance wouldn't piss me off.

[heatmiserfl]

That may well be true, which is why I focused this discussion precisely and narrowly on the one Buddhist sect I was familiar with, Theravada Buddhism.

Perhaps you apply the same analysis above to Dio's comments as applied to Theravada Buddhism.

Remember, I said that Vietnamese Zen is a combination of Rinzai Zen and Theravadan. They will read from the Pali Canon. Doesn't matter. Studying Theravadan history or the Pali Canon in a class is not practicing Theravadan. It's really missing the point of Buddhist practice. Metta practice, which is used in theravadan schools, is stressed in Vietnamese Zen. They also use visualization practices and body scanning as part of insight meditation. My sangha was more loose and let you meditate any way you wanted for 30 minutes. They also chanted right before to get you in the mood.

[Bricker]

There are a lot of optional supernatural beliefs in Buddhism. None of them are necessary, especially not in Zen, which is what I practice, and which is not Theravada anyway, so I don't know why Bricker thinks he's making any point at all about Zen in trying to argue his incorrect understanding of Theravada.

My incorrect understanding, supported by multiple cites to multiple sources, one of which was another section of the single citation you provided.

Why, if you're so right, is it so dofficult for you to cite sources showing how right you are?

And get off the Zen -- I don't know enough about Zen to make any points about it. I initially thought you might, but based on your track record here, I'd barely trust you to count the letters in the word 'Zen,' much less provide some factual information on the practice.

[Bricker]

Remember, I said that Vietnamese Zen is a combination of Rinzai Zen and Theravadan. They will read from the Pali Canon. Doesn't matter. Studying Theravadan history or the Pali Canon in a class is not practicing Theravadan. It's really missing the point of Buddhist practice. Metta practice, which is used in theravadan schools, is stressed in Vietnamese Zen. They also use visualization practices and body scanning as part of insight meditation. My sangha was more loose and let you meditate any way you wanted for 30 minutes. They also chanted right before to get you in the mood.

While I studied Theravada extensively, I agree I never practiced it.

I disagree that this leaves me unqualified to make basic statements about factual elements of the Buddha's teachings as understood by Theravada Buiddhism.

[Malthus]

Here's an interesting Slate article on topic:

http://www.slate.com/id/2078486/

[Blalron]

Here's an interesting Slate article on topic:

http://www.slate.com/id/2078486/

From your article:

Buddhism is functionally theistic, even if it avoids the "G" word. Like its parent religion Hinduism, Buddhism espouses reincarnation, which holds that after death our souls are re-instantiated in new bodies, and karma, the law of moral cause and effect. Together, these tenets imply the existence of some cosmic judge who, like Santa Claus, tallies up our naughtiness and niceness before rewarding us with rebirth as a cockroach or as a saintly lama.

I strongly disagree with Horgan's characterization that Buddhism is "functionally theistic." The Law of Karma is no more theistic than the Law of Gravity. If you jump off a cliff, it's going to hurt. It doesn't mean that a deity is punishing you for doing so.

[Malthus]

From your article:



I have to strongly disagree with Horgan's characterization that Buddhism is "functionally theistic." The Law of Karma is no more theistic than the Law of Gravity. If you jump off a cliff, it's going to hurt. It doesn't mean that a deity is punishing you for doing so.


He's misusing the word "theistic", I agree. No gods are involved, and theism, as I understand it, requires gods.

If he stuck to the topic of this thread - that Buddhism functionally requires belief in the supernatural - he's be on the money. The Law of Karma, like the cycle of rebirth, are supernatural beliefs, albeit ones which do not require a god to operate.

[Bricker]

From your article:



I strongly disagree with Horgan's characterization that Buddhism is "functionally theistic." The Law of Karma is no more theistic than the Law of Gravity. If you jump off a cliff, it's going to hurt. It doesn't mean that a deity is punishing you for doing so.

This is why I stayed away from theism and stuck with 'supernatural.' There may not be a diety involved, but if karma is true, then there is a supernatural force involved.

[heatmiserfl]

There is absolutely no doubt and no room for interpretation. Buddha is speaking about the concept of Samsara, and the entire point of his teaching is to stop that cycle. If you don't accept that, you simply are not following the teachings of the Buddha, and are not a Buddhist by any reasonable definition.

There is no doubt that there is 2000 years of deviation, reevaluation, modification, elaboration, or whichever term you like on the Buddha's teaching. The point is that at some point when you cease to follow the basic teachings of Buddha that you can't be reasonably called a Buddhist. That doesn't mean your beliefs are not valid, or less correct than the Buddha's teachings. It simply means that you are practicing another belief system, distinct from Buddhism.


There is a huge amount of deviation. I'd say even more than Christianity. For example, read a little bit about Pureland Buddhism or the various Tibetan sects. The reason is that the Buddha is not a god, so the scriptures are not the word of god and he himself stressed self experience. The whole concept of "being a Buddhist" itself would be ridiculous to the Buddha, IMO. Again, there are fundamentalist Buddhists who focus on scriptures and rituals, just like any fundamentalist. But the point is not to "be a Buddhist or claim that something is Buddhist or not" The Buddha himself came up with his concepts by watching a plow when he was a kid, heading out to observe life, tried a bunch religious self-sacrifice and then later sitting under the Bodhi tree. He just sat there, battled his desires and achieved enlightenment. That's it. The Pali Canon was not written by him and was actually written long after he died without his divine input.

While I studied Theravada extensively, I agree I never practiced it.

I disagree that this leaves me unqualified to make basic statements about factual elements of the Buddha's teachings as understood by Theravada Buiddhism.
Sorry, I didn't mean to make it sound like you didn't study it. But with absolute statements, I could guess that you never practiced. You are not necessarily wrong but neither is Dio. And I agree with Dio much more that, unlike Christianity, practice is emphasized over dogma.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

I have no interest in your family issue.
Then why did you open my other thread at all?
You made a sweeping statement about Buddhism that I knew to be false as applied to Theravada Buddhism. I asked you about it.
It's not false even as applied to Theravada, but even if it were, your objection would still be stupid. If Zen doesn't require any supernatural beliefs, and Zen is Buddhist, then QED, one can be Buddhist without supernatural beliefs.
But it's not so for the Theravada school.
Yes it is. You're simply wrong, and you shit in my thread about a personal family issue to pick an irrelevant and uninformed fight.

Once again, even if Theravada required any supernatural beliefs, that wouldn't mean that "Buddhism" does, any more than "Christianity" requires specifically Catholic beliefs.

[Bricker]

Then why did you open my other thread at all?

I thought I might, but reading your thread cured me of the interest.


It's not false eve as applied to Theravada, but even if it were, you're objection would still be stupid. If Zen doesn't require any supernatural beliefs, and Zen is Buddhist, then QED, one can be Buddhist without supernatural beliefs.


I agree.

Which is why my very first post in the original MPSIMS thread went like this:

Buddhism doesn't require any supernatural beliefs.

Theravada Buddhism does.

I then go on to ask you about Zen and Mahayana, trusting (foolishly, I now know) to be able to provide factual information about those practices.


Yes it is. You don't know what you're talking about, and you shit in my thread about a personal family issue to pick an irrelevant and uninformed fight.


I thought it was going to be a very quick answer, but when you persisted in claiming that even Theravada Buddhism had no supernatural required component, I continued the discussion. It's true that this was off topic from your thread, but frankly, given your posting history, it seemed to me that you of all people would understand and welcome a thread's turning in a different direction.

[Malthus]

I don't think the Buddha would approve of this thread - quite aside from the supernatural/no supernatural debate. ;)

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Theravada Buddhism does not require any supernatural beliefs. You are misinformed.

[heatmiserfl]

I don't think the Buddha would approve of this thread - quite aside from the supernatural/no supernatural debate. ;)

This thread is emptiness and emptiness is this thread.

The Straight Dope cannot fight ignorance because there is no ignorance and no end to ignorance.

:D

[Captain Amazing]

I don't know as much about Theravada, but in Mahayana....

Well, from the Vimalakirti Nirdesa Sutra, which is a Mahayana Sutra:

Those bodhisattvas then asked the Licchavi Vimalakirti, "How does the Buddha Sakyamuni teach the Dharma?"

Vimalakirti replied, "Good sirs, these living beings here are hard to discipline. Therefore, he teaches them with discourses appropriate for the disciplining of the wild and uncivilized. How does he discipline the wild and uncivilized? What discourses are appropriate? Here they are:

"'This is hell. This is the animal world. This is the world of the lord of death. These are the adversities. These are the rebirths with crippled faculties. These are physical misdeeds, and these are the retributions for physical misdeeds. These are verbal misdeeds, and these are the retributions for verbal misdeeds. These are mental misdeeds, and these are the retributions for mental misdeeds. This is killing. This is stealing. This is sexual misconduct. This is lying. This is backbiting. This is harsh speech. This is frivolous speech. This is covetousness. This is malice. This is false view. These are their retributions. This is miserliness, and this is its effect. This is immorality. This is hatred. This is sloth. This is the fruit of sloth. This is false wisdom and this is the fruit of false wisdom. These are the transgressions of the precepts. This is the vow of personal liberation. This should be done and that should not be done. This is proper and that should be abandoned. This is an obscuration and that is without obscuration. This is sin and that rises above sin. This is the path and that is the wrong path. This is virtue and that is evil. This is blameworthy and that is blameless. This is defiled and that is immaculate. This is mundane and that is transcendental. This is compounded and that is uncompounded. This is passion and that is purification. This is life and that is liberation.'

"Thus, by means of these varied explanations of the Dharma, the Buddha trains the minds of those living beings who are just like wild horses. Just as wild horses or wild elephants will not be tamed unless the goad pierces them to the marrow, so living beings who are wild and hard to civilize are disciplined only by means of discourses about all kinds of miseries."

The bodhisattvas said, "Thus is established the greatness of the Buddha Sakyamuni! It is marvelous how, concealing his miraculous power, he civilizes the wild living beings who are poor and inferior. And the bodhisattvas who settle in a buddha-field of such intense hardships must have inconceivably great compassion!"

The Licchavi Vimalakirti declared, "So be it, good sirs! It is as you say. The great compassion of the bodhisattvas who reincarnate here is extremely firm. In a single lifetime in this universe, they accomplish much benefit for living beings. So much benefit for living beings could not be accomplished in the universe Sarvagandhasugandha even in one hundred thousand aeons. Why? Good sirs, in this Saha universe, there are ten virtuous practices which do not exist in any other buddha-field. What are these ten? Here they are: to win the poor by generosity; to win the immoral by morality; to win the hateful by means of tolerance; to win the lazy by means of effort; to win the mentally troubled by means of concentration; to win the falsely wise by means of true wisdom; to show those suffering from the eight adversities how to rise above them; to teach the Mahayana to those of narrow-minded behavior; to win those who have not produced the roots of virtue by means of the roots of virtue; and to develop living beings without interruption through the four means of unification. Those who engage in these ten virtuous practices do not exist in any other buddha-field."

Again the bodhisattvas asked, "How many qualities must a bodhisattva have, to go safe and sound to a pure buddha-field after he transmigrates at death away from this Saha universe?"

Vimalakirti replied, "After he transmigrates at death away from this Saha universe, a bodhisattva must have eight qualities to reach a pure buddha-field safe and sound. What are the eight? He must resolve to himself: 'I must benefit all living beings, without seeking even the slightest benefit for myself. I must bear all the miseries of all living beings and give all my accumulated roots of virtue to all living beings. I must have no resentment toward any living being. I must rejoice in all bodhisattvas as if they were the Teacher. I must not neglect any teachings, whether or not I have heard them before. I must control my mind, without coveting the gains of others, and without taking pride in gains of my own. I must examine my own faults and not blame others for their faults. I must take pleasure in being consciously aware and must truly undertake all virtues.'

"If a bodhisattva has these eight qualities, when he transmigrates at death away from the Saha universe, he will go safe and sound to a pure buddha-field."

When the Licchavi Vimalakirti and the crown prince Manjusri had thus taught the Dharma to the multitude gathered there, one hundred thousand living beings conceived the spirit of unexcelled, perfect enlightenment, and ten thousand bodhisattvas attained the tolerance of the birthlessness of things.

And from the Mahayana "Larger Pure Land" sutra, also called the "Infinite Life" Sutra.

The Buddha said to Ananda, "If a beggar in extreme poverty sits by the side of a king, how can their appearances be compared?"
Ananda replied, "If such a man sits by the side of a king, his emaciated, mean and ragged appearance cannot be compared with the king's. His appearance is a thousand million kotis or even incalculable times inferior to the king's. What is the reason for this? The conditions of a beggar in extreme poverty--being at the lowest social level, with barely enough clothes to cover his body, scarcely enough food to sustain his life, with hunger and cold always tormenting him, and having almost lost in human contact -- are all the result of his misdeeds in former lives. In the past he did not cultivate roots of virtue, but instead, accumulated riches without giving anything to others. He became more miserly as his wealth increased, desired to obtain more, insatiably hankered after further acquisitions and gave no thought to good actions. Thus he piled up a mountain of evil karma. When his life ended, all his wealth was gone, and what he had accumulated with great toil and worry was of no avail to him; all passed in vain into the possession of others. Having no stock of merit on which to depend and no virtue on which to rely, after death he fell into one of the evil realms, where he suffered pain for a long period. When his karmic retributions ended, he was able to escape, but was reborn into a lower class; being foolish, base and inferior, he barely maintains the appearance of a human being.
"The king of a country is the most Honored of all men. This is the reward for virtues accumulated in former lives, in which he, with a compassionate heart, gave generously to many, saved people from suffering through kindness and benevolence, performed good deeds with sincerity, and never disputed with others. When that life ended, he was rewarded by rebirth into a higher state. Born in a heavenly realm, he enjoyed bliss and happiness. His accumulated virtues produced such a surplus of goodness that, when he was reborn as a man in this life, his birth was, deservedly, into a royal family. Being naturally noble, his dignified and majestic demeanor commands the respect of his people, and superb clothes and sumptuous food are prepared and served to him as he pleases. All this is a reward for virtues from his past lives."

The Buddha said to Ananda, "What you say is true. Even though a king is the noblest of all men and has a regal countenance, if he is compared with a wheel-turning monarch, he will appear as base and inferior as a beggar beside a king. Likewise, however excellent and unrivaled the majestic appearance of such a monarch may be, if he is compared with the lord of the Heaven of the Thirty-three Gods, he will also appear incomparably inferior, even ten thousands kotis of times more so. Again, if this heavenly lord is compared with the lord of the Sixth Heaven, he will appear a hundred thousand kotis of times inferior. If the lord of the Sixth Heaven is compared with a bodhisattva or a shravaka dwelling in the land of Amitayus, his countenance and appearance will be far from matching those of the bodhisattva or shravaka, being a thousand million kotis of times or even incalculable times inferior."

[Diogenes the Cynic]

You don't have to believe any of that stuff to be a Buddhist. It's highly allegorical anyway.

[treis]

What exactly do you need to believe in to be a Buddhist?

[Bricker]

You don't have to believe any of that stuff to be a Buddhist. It's highly allegorical anyway.

Right, another detailed, quoted cite derailed by your definitive statement.

Diogenes, get this through your head: I doubt anyone here is convinced because Diogenes Said So.

If you can't cite it, then as far as I'm concerned, you're making shit up.

And given how frequently your pronouncements run counter to the cited material, you're doing a crappy job of making shit up.

And I have to believe that since I started needling you for cites, you've been desperately searching for some. And coming up empty.

Right?

[Bricker]

There IS no difference. You were wrong, and you continue to make yourself look like a buffoon by insisting that there is. Neither one of those words has any translation into Pali. They are English approximations of the same Pali word.

In this post (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13850242&postcount=9), I cited THREE different Pali words.

Cited.

C-I-T-E-D.

CEE-EYE-TEE-EEE-DEE.

[CarnalK]

You don't have to believe any of that stuff to be a Buddhist. It's highly allegorical anyway.

Do you think that a Pure Land Buddhist doesn't have to believe in the supernatural? Because I would say flat out, if he doesn't then he's some other kind of Buddhist.

Do you know of any Zen masters who declare they don't believe in a non-metaphorical rebirth cycle? This one I would be surprised to find, but I'm open to it.

[heatmiserfl]

Do you think that a Pure Land Buddhist doesn't have to believe in the supernatural? Because I would say flat out, if he doesn't then he's some other kind of Buddhist.

Do you know of any Zen masters who declare they don't believe in a non-metaphorical rebirth cycle? This one I would be surprised to find, but I'm open to it.

Pureland Buddhism is extremely unique in that it seems to have a sort of Buddhist Jesus figure who helps people get to the Pure Land (an actual place "in the West" like paradise). But I don't know much about it.

Here's the problem with samsara and no-self. If there is no self, what is reborn? When you meditate, you realize that your mind state or thoughts or conditions are reborn all the time because nothing is permanent.

Likewise, the modern Zen masters (20th century, onward) tend avoid talking about rebirth all together. They focus on zazen. Take Shunryu Suzuki for example. I have the audio, "Zen Mind Beginner's Mind" and I can't remember him mentioning rebirth at all. It was all Buddha nature and zazen. You read things from the San Francisco Zen Center and no rebirth. Gudo Wafu Nishijima, OTOH, flat out rejects literal rebirth. AFAIK, all the teachers in his lineage agree with him. Thich Nhat Hanh is coy but basically says that what's reborn is thoughts/conditions/etc. which is what Frylock was describing and what I was taught:

Most people think of reincarnation in terms of a permanent soul. This is popular Buddhism. But we have to rise to the level of right view. Continuation is a necessity, it is a truth. But this continuation must be seen in the light of non-self, of impermanence.

If, for example, you want to recognize my continuation, do not look in this direction. [Thay points to himself.] There is a part of my continuation in this direction, but when you look all around you, you will see other forms of the continuation. So don’t wait for the body to decompose. We’ve already begun our continuation. You know that you have the power to change. You can ensure a beautiful continuation. Let’s suppose that yesterday you produced a thought that was not worthy of you, and today you’re sorry. You think, “I don’t want to be continued in that way.” You can correct it, you can transform that continuation.

If you have touched right view, you will be able to produce a different thought, a thought that is worthy of you today, a thought that carries within it understanding, compassion, and non-discrimination. The moment you produce this wonderful thought, it will go out and catch the other thought that you produced yesterday. And in the space of half a second it will be able to transform that thought.
http://iamhome.org/articles/karma4.php

Even the Genjo Koan, written by the founder of Soto Zen, Dogen says this:
Firewood becomes ash; it can never go back to being firewood. Nevertheless, we should not take the view that ash is its future and firewood is its past. We should recognize that firewood occupies its place in the Universe as firewood, and it has its past moment and its future moment. And although we can say that it has its past and its future, the past moment and the future moment are cut off. Ash exists in its place in the Universe as ash, and it has its past moment and its future moment. Just as firewood can never again be firewood after becoming ash, human beings cannot live again after their death. So it is a rule in Buddhism not to say that life turns into death. This is why we speak of “no appearance.” And it is Buddhist teaching as established in the preaching of Gautama Buddha that death does not turn into life. This is why we speak of “no disappearance.” Life is an instantaneous situation, and death is also an instantaneous situation. It is the same, for example, with winter and spring. We do not think that winter becomes spring, and we do not say that spring becomes summer.

http://www.thezensite.com/ZenTeachings/Dogen_Teachings/GenjoKoan8.htm#nish6

The Heart Sutra says this:
All things are empty:
Nothing is born, nothing dies,
nothing is pure, nothing is stained,
nothing increases and nothing decreases.
http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/heartsutra.html

[Measure for Measure]

The OP poses a good question, even if it has devolved into something of an ego bout. I struggled with it for over an hour with only partial success. Please be advised that my understanding of Buddhism is most incomplete.

Thus have I heard

Most Asian Buddhists practice a post-Theravada faith. The teachings of most Asian schools have a supernatural aspect. I recall a Mahayana text that addressed the OP fairly directly, but I can't locate it and I read it over 15 years ago. Worse, my recollection is vague, but I seem to recall the Buddha considering a situation where reincarnation in fact does not obtain. He assures his audience that the Dharma will still provide a worthwhile life. Maybe I'll put out a feeler in GQ.

According to Theravada texts, the Buddha expressed an opinion on the permanence of the soul. He disagreed with his contemporaries who stated that the soul was eternal. He disagreed with his contemporaries who espoused annihilationism, that the soul perished with the body. The Buddha sought a middle path between these two extremes. The Buddhist master Bhante Nagasena also assures us in an ancient Pali text that, "Rebirth takes place without anything transmigrating," and provides 2 metaphors for how such a thing could take place. [1]

That said, the Buddha was wary of such metaphysical speculations, as he believed that they weren't always effective means of ameliorating suffering. Permit me to quote from the Majjhima-Nikaya, Sutta 63, Questions Which Tend Not to Edification: The religious life, Malunkyaputta, does not depend on the dogma that the saint both exists and does not exist after death; nor does the religious life, Malunkyaputta, depend upon the dogma that the saint neither exists nor does not exist after death. Whether the dogma obtain, Malunkyaputta, that the saint both exists and does not exist after death, or that the saint neither exists nor does not exist after death, there still remain birth, old age, death, sorrow, lamentation, misery, grief, and despair, for the extinction of which in the present life I am prescribing. The Buddha continues on in this vein. The Buddha appeared not to think that one's opinion of the afterlife was of primary importance.

In contrast, Jesus of Nazareth commanded his followers in Matthew to love God with all their heart (as he quoted from Deuteronomy). This requires belief in a supernatural entity.

---------------
So much for doctrine. What of practice? As I said, Asian Buddhist belief typically has supernatural aspects. But many Westerners practice a secular Buddhism, since their culture doesn't have as much of a tradition supporting reincarnation. Now there are also atheistic Christians - I've seen their website! But their influence and traction is small. So in practice, Buddhism is reasonably friendly of seculars.

---------------
I still haven't addressed the core issues. To wit, what is left of Buddhism when one extracts the supernatural elements? How does this contrast with Christianity? Such a discussion is beyond the scope of this post, not to mention my mastery. But surely human endeavors to ameliorate suffering are not dependent upon belief in an afterlife.


[1] All quotes from an 1896 translation of Theravada texts by Henry Clarke Warren, Harvard University Press. Reprinted by Athenium Press. I find Nagasena's treatment plausible.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Do you think that a Pure Land Buddhist doesn't have to believe in the supernatural?
Of course it does. So does Tibetan Buddhism. I didn't say no school of Buddhism had any suoernatural beliefs, I said that you aren't required to have supernatural beliuefs in order to be a Buddhist. Even the schools that have supernatural beliefs don't place any emphasis on acepting them as credal. Buuddhism is a religion of practice, not belief.
Do you know of any Zen masters who declare they don't believe in a non-metaphorical rebirth cycle? This one I would be surprised to find, but I'm open to it.
Zen Masters (at least the ones I've read. I don't know any personally) don't tend to talk about rebirth at all, and when they do, it's not in literal terms. Thich Nhat Hanh, for instance who was referenced by heatmiserfl above, talks a lot about death, and the fear of death, and says that death isn't real, but he desn't speak in terms of a surviving consciousness or soul, but in more naturalistic terms about nothing really being created or destroyed.

One of the things that heatmiserfl tried to explain was that a lot of the language used is highly abstract and metaphorical, and is meant to be evocative on a non-verbal, non-intellectual level. They're never literally telling you what they're telling you. They're trying to trigger changes in consciousness, often by using irrational puzzles and metaphors (koans) to shock the subject of of conventional thought patterns.

Samsara and "transmigration are ongoing and constant. Every second is different from the one before it. Every moment is a death and rebirth.

By the way, if you go to a Zen temple or meditation center and ask a bunch of questions about rebirth, they'll tell to STFU and meditate. Zen is all about the meditation. All zen is zazen. If you think you're supposed to believe anything, you're doing it wrong.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

The religious life, Malunkyaputta, does not depend on the dogma that the saint both exists and does not exist after death; nor does the religious life, Malunkyaputta, depend upon the dogma that the saint neither exists nor does not exist after death. Whether the dogma obtain, Malunkyaputta, that the saint both exists and does not exist after death, or that the saint neither exists nor does not exist after death, there still remain birth, old age, death, sorrow, lamentation, misery, grief, and despair, for the extinction of which in the present life I am prescribing.
AFAICT, this is highly persuasive for DtC's claim. Personally I mistrust any claim that any particular religious system "requires" a particular dogma, unless the religion is purely hierarchical, like Catholicism or Scientology. It's a bright line in an area where bright lines don't really serve.

[CarnalK]

Of course it does. So does Tibetan Buddhism. I didn't say no school of Buddhism had any suoernatural beliefs, I said that you aren't required to have supernatural beliuefs in order to be a Buddhist. Even the schools that have supernatural beliefs don't place any emphasis on acepting them as credal. Buuddhism is a religion of practice, not belief.

I really do agree that the practice is the thing in Buddhism. I always found it interesting that Zen and Tibetan Buddhism both became popular in the West since they are so different in the way under discussion. When I was quite interested in Buddhism years ago I sort of shied away from both, I just found Theravada style much more compelling. I thought koans were silly and I didn't like the lama dynasty crap in Tibetan. I seem to remember reading how the discovery of Tibetan Buddhism was a bit of a double shock to the outside Buddhist world. As in "Wow, they have preserved the oldest copies of the Pali Canon all these years" and "Wow, what an abomination!" with their far more literal views on re-birth.

Thanks, heatmiserfl, for those passages.

[John DiFool]

Pureland Buddhism is extremely unique in that it seems to have a sort of Buddhist Jesus figure who helps people get to the Pure Land (an actual place "in the West" like paradise). But I don't know much about it.

Here's the problem with samsara and no-self. If there is no self, what is reborn? When you meditate, you realize that your mind state or thoughts or conditions are reborn all the time because nothing is permanent.

Right-your desires "drag you down" each and every passing moment. The mistake is in thinking that "rebirth" is something that I have to wait for in the "future". Don't get this confused with the transformation necessary to attain enlightenment-that is a sort of rebirth, but in the upward direction.

The question then becomes: can anyone attain buddha-hood/nature in just one lifetime, if we assume no prior lifetimes, you start as a zygote, there was nothing before (not even Nothing)?

[Kobal2]

Any particular reason it be out of the realm of the possible ?

[Measure for Measure]

The question then becomes: can anyone attain buddha-hood/nature in just one lifetime, if we assume no prior lifetimes, you start as a zygote, there was nothing before (not even Nothing)? Highly unlikely, in my view. Luckily, many lifetimes precede us: just visit any graveyard. As it is, we all inherit influences from the past: culture is intrinsic to the human condition.

The Buddha grappled with some knotty philosophical issues, as well as the reality that an understanding of them was necessary but not sufficient to relieve our burdens. A rigorous treatment of the self would have started with something like this (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/identity/), but 99% of his audience wouldn't have cared and the remainder wouldn't have proceeded much closer to enlightenment, as the Buddha conceived it. At any rate, it's not surprising that Buddhism would develop a multitiered practice.

[Measure for Measure]

I don't know much about Zen Buddhism, but Theravada Buddhism requires a belief in the supernatural in much the same way that Christianity requires a belief in the supernatural -- that is, one could presumably say, "I follow the teachings of Christ because they lead to good results for me and others, but I reject the idea that Jesus had a divine nature or rose from the dead," but that's a personal "take" on Christianity that doesn't comport with the wide understanding or practice. So in the ordinary sense of the word "require," it's fair to say that Christianity requires belief in the supernatural.

By the same standard, Theravada Buddhism does as well. I lack a thorough understanding of Buddhism. But AFAIK, one can meaningfully attend Buddhist services, meditate and accept the 4 holy truths as elaborated upon by other Theravada texts, without believing in a permanent self or even in one that hops in full form from one body to another. In contrast, it is difficult to pray if you believe that God does not exist.

[heatmiserfl]

Thanks, heatmiserfl, for those passages.

Sure! BTW, almost all Buddhist sects have offshoots that cater to Westerners with much less supernatural elements. Tibetan Buddhism has Shambhala, for example. I've watched some lectures by Pema Chodron and she's wonderful.

Right-your desires "drag you down" each and every passing moment. The mistake is in thinking that "rebirth" is something that I have to wait for in the "future". Don't get this confused with the transformation necessary to attain enlightenment-that is a sort of rebirth, but in the upward direction.

The question then becomes: can anyone attain buddha-hood/nature in just one lifetime, if we assume no prior lifetimes, you start as a zygote, there was nothing before (not even Nothing)?

Not so much your desires dragging you down but how you act upon them and how you view them. Acting on desires creates karma or karma itself means action. Also, desires can create anxiety, dissatisfaction, disappointment, etc. That's dukka which is more than simply suffering. I agree that rebirth is happening constantly. Enlightenment? Well, I like to be goal-less. That's why I gravitated to Soto Zen as opposed to Rinzai.

Some people think the buddha nature is already there, we just can't see it. I remember something about dust on a mirror and you need to clean it off to see your true self. I suppose you could reach enlightenment in your life. Rinzai buddhists certainly try hard for it. They also stress having series of kenshos or mini-enlightenments that are transient but eventually stick around. Epiphany moments.

Soto zen is just the opposite. Attaining enlightenment is not even stressed because then you start focusing on yourself which doesn't exist. The part of the Genjo Koan, at least how I understand it, is that enlightenment is not a huge event. Nothing changes. It just is what it is.

To study the Buddha way is to study oneself. To study oneself is to forget oneself. To forget oneself is to be enlightened by the myriad dharmas. To be enlightened by the myriad dharmas is to bring about the dropping away of body and mind of both oneself and others. The traces of enlightenment come to an end, and this traceless enlightenment is continued endlessly. When a person starts to search out the dharma, he separates himself far from the dharma. When the dharma has already been rightly transmitted in oneself, just then one is one's original self.

A person getting enlightened is like the moon reflecting in the water. The moon does not get wet, the water is not disturbed. Though it is a great expanse of light, it reflects in a little bit of water; the whole moon and the whole sky reflect even in the dew on the grass; they reflect even in a single drop of water. Enlightenment not disturbing the person is like the moon not piercing the water. A person not obstructing enlightenment is like the dewdrop not obstructing the heavens. The depth is the measure of the height. As for the length or brevity of the time [of the reflection], one ought to examine whether the water is large or small and discern whether the sky and moon are wide or narrow.

[heatmiserfl]

I lack a thorough understanding of Buddhism. But AFAIK, one can meaningfully attend Buddhist services, meditate and accept the 4 holy truths as elaborated upon by other Theravada texts, without believing in a permanent self or even in one that hops in full form from one body to another. In contrast, it is difficult to pray if you believe that God does not exist.

The 4 Noble Truths are the only thing that I saw that all the sects agree upon. The text of the 8-fold path is common but there is obviously huge debate on what is right speech, right livelihood, etc. and whether it should pertain to everyone or just monks and so on.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Any particular reason it be out of the realm of the possible ?
No. Theoretically it can happen to anybody at any time.

[Bricker]

Of course it does. So does Tibetan Buddhism. I didn't say no school of Buddhism had any suoernatural beliefs, I said that you aren't required to have supernatural beliuefs in order to be a Buddhist.

Actually, that's not quite how the conversation went.

If you had responded to my initial statement about Theravada Buddhism with the line above, this entire thread would not exist.

But you did not, and I understand why you now want to slightly rewrite history to give yourself a reasonable position.

Also notice that the question you declared definitively settled: that there's no difference between rebirth and reincarnation -- has somehow escaped further discussion.

[Measure for Measure]

According to my understanding of this thread, you aren't required to have supernatural beliefs in order to be a Buddhist in a Theravada tradition. See posts 98, 100, 105 and 106. I have studied Buddhism, but my knowledge is less than extensive though.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Actually, that's not quite how the conversation went.
Yeah, that's pretty much exactly how it went. Any confusion is on your part, not mine.
If you had responded to my initial statement about Theravada Buddhism with the line above, this entire thread would not exist.
Theravada Buddhism does not require any supernatural beliefs, so I don't know what you think your point is.
Also notice that the question you declared definitively settled: that there's no difference between rebirth and reincarnation -- has somehow escaped further discussion.
There is no difference. You are simply confused, and don't understand most of what you are reading. There is no reason for further dicussion. Those words have no distinction in Pali.

[Bricker]

I lack a thorough understanding of Buddhism. But AFAIK, one can meaningfully attend Buddhist services, meditate and accept the 4 holy truths as elaborated upon by other Theravada texts, without believing in a permanent self or even in one that hops in full form from one body to another. In contrast, it is difficult to pray if you believe that God does not exist.

How is it possible to accept the Fourth Noble Truth without believing in rebirth?

[Bricker]

There is no difference. You are simply confused, and don't understand most of what you are reading. There is no reason for further dicussion. Those words have no distinction in Pali.

No cite, no dice. I cited sevaral different Pali words that are used for the concept, shredding your claim that rebirth and reincarnation are the same thing because they are the same Pali word.

You have not cited a single thing to support that claim, and have done a reasonably good job at trying to set the tone that for this discussion, cites show the lack of knowledge, and only practice has any credibility.

[MrDibble]

How is it possible to accept the Fourth Noble Truth without believing in rebirth?

What? What's believing in rebirth got to do with the Middle way?

Where is rebirth in right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration

[brocks]

you're obviously unclear about how critical samsara is to attaining nibbana. In short, you're no "expert,"

This raises the question: Why would anyone want to be an expert on bullshit?

Anybody who claims to know anything about any kind of life after death is peddling bullshit. And no, I don't have a cite for that.

[Malthus]

What? What's believing in rebirth got to do with the Middle way?

Where is rebirth in right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration

Without the purpose of relieving suffering through ending the cycle of Samsara, there is no particular point to following the eightfold path.

It is much the same as if an athiest were to follow one of the devotional branches of Hinduism, that prescribes repeating the name of Krishna, because it settles the mind and feels good.

You can do it, sure, but it is really no better than doing something else that has a similar effect.

[Bricker]

What? What's believing in rebirth got to do with the Middle way?

Where is rebirth in right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration

The way to relieve, end, rebirth is right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration, according to the Fourth Noble Truth.

[MrDibble]

Without the purpose of relieving suffering through ending the cycle of Samsara, there is no particular point to following the eightfold path.The point is to relive suffering immediately, in this life. Rebirth (while accepted by most devotees, I think) isn't necessary, and focusing on it would certainly come under the heading of "distracting", IMO. There's a problem here with conflating Saṃsāra-as-rebirth-cycle with Saṃsāra-as-current-experience. It can have both meanings, but one can focus on one or the other in practice, even to the exclusion of the other. I think Saṃsāra finds an analogue in the Islamic notion of Jihad - it could mean holy war, sure, but it could also just mean the daily struggle to make your way in the world as a righteous Muslim.

I'm not denying that Saṃsāra-as-cycle is the usual (Therevada, at least) Buddhist view (so I'm in agreement with Bricker there), but it's entirely possible to construct a consistent Buddhist worldview that doesn't include it, and still follows the Middle Way as it's laid down in the Pali Canon (and so be reasonably thought part of the Therevada school as opposed to another).(So I guess I agree with DtC there).

[Malthus]

The point is to relive suffering immediately, in this life. Rebirth (while accepted by most devotees, I think) isn't necessary, and focusing on it would certainly come under the heading of "distracting", IMO. There's a problem here with conflating Saṃsāra-as-rebirth-cycle with Saṃsāra-as-current-experience. It can have both meanings, but one can focus on one or the other in practice, even to the exclusion of the other. I think Saṃsāra finds an analogue in the Islamic notion of Jihad - it could mean holy war, sure, but it could also just mean the daily struggle to make your way in the world as a righteous Muslim.

I'm not denying that Saṃsāra-as-cycle is the usual (Therevada, at least) Buddhist view (so I'm in agreement with Bricker there), but it's entirely possible to construct a consistent Buddhist worldview that doesn't include it, and still follows the Middle Way as it's laid down in the Pali Canon (and so be reasonably thought part of the Therevada school as opposed to another).(So I guess I agree with DtC there).

The Pali canon is pretty explicit on the meaning of the cycle (see the suttas quoted upthread), and it's understood as meaning that by the vast majority of Theravada devotees.

I have no doubt that Buddhism is expansive enough a philosophy to embrace non-supernatural interpretations, just as many if not most religious/philosophical traditions - Taoism, Shamanism, Buddhism, Judaism, Hinduism all have non-supernatural adherents. Even Islam, of some Western Sufi schools, is more pantheistic (and, ultimately, atheistic) than otherwise.

However, in all cases, the non-supernatural (while possible) wasn't the original. That is, I think, because when the original was created the distinction between the supernatural and non-supernatural wasn't evident to their creators - who simply took the supernatural for granted.

The philosophy of the Buddha was such. He wasn't particularly interested in theorizing about origins and the afterlife (the anecdote about being a medico on a battlefield, removing an arrow - the job is to relieve suffering, take out the arrow, not wonder where it came from). He took the world as being basically what was commonly believed by Indians of his time - complete with gods, rebirth, demons, the whole nine yards. Which was woven into his philosophy (I particularly liked the part where being a god was actually a bad idea - so much more bound to the world of illusion if you have such powers!).

Certainly, one can redefine terms and arrange matters to suit a Western audience that does not wish to believe the whole set of background assumptions on which Buddhism is predicated upon, but what you get is something rather different from the original Theravada Buddhism. Mind you, the same road was already traveled by some Mahayana strands (while some became much more akin to devotional religions like Chistianity).

[Diogenes the Cynic]

How is it possible to accept the Fourth Noble Truth without believing in rebirth?
Because the Four Noble truths say nothing about it and have nothing to do with it.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

No cite, no dice. I cited sevaral different Pali words that are used for the concept, shredding your claim that rebirth and reincarnation are the same thing because they are the same Pali word.
No you didn't. You don't understand what you're reading. You are confused about the difference between rebirth and transmigration of souls, but both of those things can be rendered in English as "reincarnation."

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Without the purpose of relieving suffering through ending the cycle of Samsara, there is no particular point to following the eightfold path.
The Eightfold Path is about relieving dukkha, which is often translated as "suffering," but (so I was told by Eastern Religion prof actually versed in Pali) as "dissatisfaction. The First Noble Truth is that life is inherently unsatisfactory. The Path relives this dischord/unhappiness/suffering. It has fuck all to do with samsara instead of the most metpahorical sense in which samsara - constinuous death and rebirth - is going on constantly in this life.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

The way to relieve, end, rebirth is right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration, according to the Fourth Noble Truth.
It's about relieving dukkha, not rebirth. You don't know what you're talking about. The Four Noble Truths don't say shit about rebirth ot a permanent soul.

By the way, did you read the sutra where Buddhs explicitly said it doesn't matter if you believe in rebirth or not?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

The Pali canon is pretty explicit on the meaning of the cycle (see the suttas quoted upthread), and it's understood as meaning that by the vast majority of Theravada devotees.

I have no doubt that Buddhism is expansive enough a philosophy to embrace non-supernatural interpretations, just as many if not most religious/philosophical traditions - Taoism, Shamanism, Buddhism, Judaism, Hinduism all have non-supernatural adherents. Even Islam, of some Western Sufi schools, is more pantheistic (and, ultimately, atheistic) than otherwise.

However, in all cases, the non-supernatural (while possible) wasn't the original. That is, I think, because when the original was created the distinction between the supernatural and non-supernatural wasn't evident to their creators - who simply took the supernatural for granted.

The philosophy of the Buddha was such. He wasn't particularly interested in theorizing about origins and the afterlife (the anecdote about being a medico on a battlefield, removing an arrow - the job is to relieve suffering, take out the arrow, not wonder where it came from). He took the world as being basically what was commonly believed by Indians of his time - complete with gods, rebirth, demons, the whole nine yards. Which was woven into his philosophy (I particularly liked the part where being a god was actually a bad idea - so much more bound to the world of illusion if you have such powers!).

Certainly, one can redefine terms and arrange matters to suit a Western audience that does not wish to believe the whole set of background assumptions on which Buddhism is predicated upon, but what you get is something rather different from the original Theravada Buddhism. Mind you, the same road was already traveled by some Mahayana strands (while some became much more akin to devotional religions like Chistianity).Buddhism makes no effort to deny whatever cultural, ambient supernatural beliefs it finds itself among. It does not make any of those beliefs mandatory, though. You can believe in them or not. It doesn't matter. I said early on that supernatural beliefs (and even god beliefs) are ubiquitous in Buddhism, but none of them are required, and that includes any belief in a literal samasara.

[MrDibble]

However, in all cases, the non-supernatural (while possible) wasn't the original.
This is true, and, I think, ultimately what Bricker is driving at.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

In the original, the supernatural was irrelevant. Buddha saw that question as irrelevant and said so. He explicitly said it didn't matter if you believed in a literal version of samsara (which is actually a Hindu concept). What mattered was using the Path to relieve dukkha RIGHT NOW.

[heatmiserfl]

This raises the question: Why would anyone want to be an expert on bullshit?

Anybody who claims to know anything about any kind of life after death is peddling bullshit. And no, I don't have a cite for that.

You must be the Buddha because he said basically the exact same thing! :D

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

I don't know much about Zen Buddhism, but Theravada Buddhism requires a belief in the supernatural in much the same way that Christianity requires a belief in the supernatural -- that is, one could presumably say, "I follow the teachings of Christ because they lead to good results for me and others, but I reject the idea that Jesus had a divine nature or rose from the dead," but that's a personal "take" on Christianity that doesn't comport with the wide understanding or practice. So in the ordinary sense of the word "require," it's fair to say that Christianity requires belief in the supernatural.
It's worth returning back to this definition of "require," because it points to what seems a key difference:

-Jesus was really clear about the necessity of a belief in his divinity: You wanna talk with Dad, you go through Me, he said.
-Buddha was really clear that he didn't care about rebirth: if you're thinking about the supernatural theories and stuff, you're totally missing the point, he said.

So if you're looking at Christianity, it makes sense to say that a belief in Jesus's divinity is key, since that's what Jesus himself said. The fact that many people believe in it is immaterial: many other beliefs people have had about Jesus (the Holy Grail, belief in Mary's divinity, the belief that prayer brings prosperity) are cultural flotsam that follows Christianity, but it wouldn't make sense to say that Christianity requires these beliefs. Even if you look at Christianity during periods or in cultures in which a particular belief is nearly universal among Christians (the Pope is God's representative on earth or whatever, and yes, I know that's sloppily phrased), someone who rejects that belief may still be a Christian if they believe in Jesus's unique divinity.

If you're looking at Buddhism, though, all the supernatural stuff appears to be cultural flotsam, given Buddha's own remarks about not wasting time theorizing about those beliefs. He doesn't say, "Nobody reaches enlightenment except through belief in reincarnation"; quite the opposite.

So someone that doesn't believe in reincarnation isn't like a Christian who rejects Jesus's divinity, something sine qua non of Christianity; they're more like a 15th-century Christian who rejects the Pope's authority, something nearly universal but nevertheless not emphasized by the religion's founder.

That's how it looks to me, anyway.

FWIW, DtC and Bricker, the sniping y'all have done at and the bickering y'all have done with each other in this thread has made your comments about the least interesting ones in the thread. I much prefer Measure for Measure and heatmiserfl and MrDibble and Malthus, who are actually providing a fairly decent education in the relevant issues.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

FWIW, DtC and Bricker, the sniping y'all have done at and the bickering y'all have done with each other in this thread has made your comments about the least interesting ones in the thread. I much prefer Measure for Measure and heatmiserfl and MrDibble and Malthus, who are actually providing a fairly decent education in the relevant issues.
I agree.

[Malthus]

It's worth returning back to this definition of "require," because it points to what seems a key difference:

-Jesus was really clear about the necessity of a belief in his divinity: You wanna talk with Dad, you go through Me, he said.
-Buddha was really clear that he didn't care about rebirth: if you're thinking about the supernatural theories and stuff, you're totally missing the point, he said.

So if you're looking at Christianity, it makes sense to say that a belief in Jesus's divinity is key, since that's what Jesus himself said. The fact that many people believe in it is immaterial: many other beliefs people have had about Jesus (the Holy Grail, belief in Mary's divinity, the belief that prayer brings prosperity) are cultural flotsam that follows Christianity, but it wouldn't make sense to say that Christianity requires these beliefs. Even if you look at Christianity during periods or in cultures in which a particular belief is nearly universal among Christians (the Pope is God's representative on earth or whatever, and yes, I know that's sloppily phrased), someone who rejects that belief may still be a Christian if they believe in Jesus's unique divinity.

If you're looking at Buddhism, though, all the supernatural stuff appears to be cultural flotsam, given Buddha's own remarks about not wasting time theorizing about those beliefs. He doesn't say, "Nobody reaches enlightenment except through belief in reincarnation"; quite the opposite.

So someone that doesn't believe in reincarnation isn't like a Christian who rejects Jesus's divinity, something sine qua non of Christianity; they're more like a 15th-century Christian who rejects the Pope's authority, something nearly universal but nevertheless not emphasized by the religion's founder.

That's how it looks to me, anyway.



To my mind, the real problem lies in the attempt to get at what is "essential" to the nature of Buddhism.

There are two ways of going about that analysis:

(1) From a historical, ethnographic and descriptive analysis; and

(2) From a philosophical/intuitive analysis.

From the first perspective, it is pretty clear that the supernatural is an integral part of Theravada Buddhism from its beginning. The Buddha's own sayings, in the Pali canon, simply assume that stuff like reincarnation is true, and that liberation from the cycle is the goal. Some suttas state this expressly, like the one quoted above about monks having shed an ocean of tears through various lifetimes. And certainly, most historic sects of Buddhism understood it to mean just that.

From the second perspective, it is perfectly possible to construct a coherent set of beliefs that emphasize enlightment being something that occurs in this life alone, or even in brief flashes or moments. Certainly, several Mahayana sects believe that (mind you several others are purely devotional), though to my mind it requires some redefining of terms and changing of meanings to make sense. Someone following one of those Mahayana sects may indeed re-examine the Pali texts and find what they need in there - though it would take ignoring or redefining what doesn't fit, by way of declaring that those bits are not "essential" from a 'true, intuitive knowledge of Buddhism'.

Hence, you are likely to get Western historians of Buddhism and Western Buddhists saying different things.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Hence, you are likely to get Western historians of Buddhism and Western Buddhists saying different things.
It seems to me, then, if you can get two different educated people making defensible arguments in either direction, it doesn't make sense to call a belief in the supernatural required. Claiming it's required appears to be far too cut-and-dry.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

From a historical perspectoive, Buddha thought supernatural beliefs were irrelevant and said so. Buddhism is not bound by the cultural milieu it sprang from. It if were, it would be Hinduism.

Jesus was a practicing, kosher keeping Jew. That doesn't mean you have to observe Jewish law to be Christian (and don't bother telling me what Paul said, because Paul wasn't Jesus, and Jesus said to keep following the Law).

Both the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament are filled with archaic and incorrect assumptions about the physical universe, that doesn't mean you have to think the sky is a solid dome or that stars can literally fall to the earth to be either Christian or Jewish.

Supernatural beliefs are not, and never have been an essential or required part of Buddhist practice, any more than YEC beliefs are required to be Christian.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Another thing to consider is the insidious passive voice in "required." Who's doing the requiring?

I think other synonyms might make the issue clearer. Instead of saying, "required," you could say, "mainstream," or "normal," or even "recognizeable." These words might lead to different results. Non-supernatural theravada Buddhism might not be mainstream and it might not be normal--but would people still recognize it as Theravada? Which people?

If, say, 95% of self-identified Theravada Buddhists wouldn't recognize it as Theravada, that's pretty significant.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

They wouldn't tell you you weren't practicing Theravada.

[heatmiserfl]

How is it possible to accept the Fourth Noble Truth without believing in rebirth?

Can you describe to me, precisely, the process of rebirth and what is being reborn?

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

They wouldn't tell you you weren't practicing Theravada.What makes you believe that?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Because you would would be practicing Theravada.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Because you would would be practicing Theravada.That's a circular argument and not what I asked at all. I asked why you think they wouldn't tell you that you weren't. Given that Theravada Buddhism has no central authority to declare who is and who isn't practicing it, an answer should either refer to external cites of what self-identified Theravada Buddhists believe constitutes Theravada Buddhism, or to some supernatural inner source you possess.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

That's a circular argument and not what I asked at all. I asked why you think they wouldn't tell you that you weren't. Given that Theravada Buddhism has no central authority to declare who is and who isn't practicing it, an answer should either refer to external cites of what self-identified Theravada Buddhists believe constitutes Theravada Buddhism, or to some supernatural inner source you possess.
Therevada is about practice, not belief. If you are practicing the Theravadic disciplines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theravada#The_Three_Noble_Disciplines) (none of which involve anything supernatural), then you are, by definition, practicing Theravada. Therevadic practice is (obviously) defined by practicing Therevadic disciplines. If you're practicing, you're practicing, if you aren't you aren't. Belief plays no role in it. Practice is supposed to be about getting beyond beliefs anyway. If you believe anything, you're doing it wrong.

[Blalron]

It's worthwhile to point out that there's no such thing as a Buddhist Pope to authoritatively declare Buddhist Orthdoxy. The Buddha explicitly declined to appoint a leader to replace him. So any renegade Buddhist who proclaims he doesn't believe in the supernatural isn't going to be excommunicated for doing so.

However, belief in Karma and Rebirth are listed as part of Right View (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nanamoli/wheel377.html), which is the first thing listed in the Noble Eightfold Path.

Both Theravada and Mahayana Buddhism believe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Points_Unifying_the_Therav%C4%81da_and_the_Mah%C4%81y%C4%81na) in Paticcasamuppāda, or Dependent Arising, a description of the proccess of samsara that includes death and rebirth.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

It's worthwhile to point out that there's no such thing as a Buddhist Pope to authoritatively declare Buddhist Orthdoxy. The Buddha explicitly declined to appoint a leader to replace him. So any renegade Buddhist who proclaims he doesn't believe in the supernatural isn't going to be excommunicated for doing so.

However, belief in Karma and Rebirth are listed as part of Right View (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nanamoli/wheel377.html), which is the first thing listed in the Noble Eightfold Path.
This is incorrect. Here is the Pali text:
And what is right view? Knowledge with reference to suffering, knowledge with reference to the origination of suffering, knowledge with reference to the cessation of suffering, knowledge with reference to the way of practice leading to the cessation of suffering: This is called right view.
All that karma and rebirth bullshit did not come from Buddha and is not required belief.
Both Theravada and Mahayana Buddhism believe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Points_Unifying_the_Therav%C4%81da_and_the_Mah%C4%81y%C4%81na) in Paticcasamuppāda, or Dependent Arising, a description of the proccess of samsara that includes death and rebirth.
None of these things are required beliefs, and are often understood as highly metaphorical anyway, especially in Zen.

[Blalron]

All that karma and rebirth bullshit did not come from Buddha and is not required belief.

There are scores of Pali Suttas where the Buddha talks about karma and rebirth. If you took a time machine to 500 B.C.E northern India and asked Siddhartha Gautama about the subject, I'm pretty sure he wouldn't call it "bullshit."

[Diogenes the Cynic]

The Buddha specifically said it didn't matter if you believed in rebirth or not. He pretty much did call the Hindu concept of transmigation of souls bullshit, but his teachings really had nothing to do with ideas of the afterlife anyway. He was teaching people how to relieve themselves of unhappiness right now, in this life, and said that all unhappininess was caused by desire you feel right now in this life.

[heatmiserfl]

Without the purpose of relieving suffering through ending the cycle of Samsara, there is no particular point to following the eightfold path.

It is much the same as if an athiest were to follow one of the devotional branches of Hinduism, that prescribes repeating the name of Krishna, because it settles the mind and feels good.

You can do it, sure, but it is really no better than doing something else that has a similar effect.
The unique part of Buddhism, IMO, is that it is focused on ending or at least diminishing suffering not only for yourself but for others. It's part of other religions but not necessarily the focus. I also think the Buddha came up with this idea not just from meditating but through many years of observation and experimentation.

I'd like to add my scientific explanation of what happened to the Buddha under the Bodhi Tree. I will include some of my experiences while meditating but I want to caution anyone from putting too much weight into my own experiences (if you meditate, you may have your own).

What I took out of that experience was very dependent on what I brought in to the experience and this is where I think the Buddhist philosophy that includes ending suffering by realizing that everything is empty and impermanent informs your meditation. When I used to meditate a lot, the first thing I would do is focus on something. In zazen, you're not supposed to do that but I usually ended up doing it accidentally. So if I was counting breaths, I would feel every aspect of the breath or sometimes I would actually see numbers floating in my head like on Sesame Street. Eventually, I'd reach a state in which I heard and felt everything at once, not just the breath. Then I would meld with everything, meaning I wouldn't feel my arms and legs as something separate. Then there was hugeness. Hard to describe. This brought a feeling of bliss. If I were Christian, I might feel that I was engulfed by Jesus' love. For me, I just realized that being me is not really such a big deal. Other things are more important.

When Buddha had his first epiphany, he was just a boy and he was watching a man plow the fields. As I recall, he realized after his meditative state that everything was impermanent like crops, the birds and the worms, etc. When he was older, he set out to observe the world with a special interest in suffering. He was also interested in happiness since he seemed unfulfilled even though he was a prince. When he finally sat under the Bodhi tree, his transcendental experience involved a war with Mara (the trickster). This is when he came up with the idea that desires can lead to unhappiness. However, I suspect that he was already informed by his previous experiences so that he didn't think desires were evil; instead it was clinging and attachment that resulted in dukkha. So he got himself into the transcendent state of mind but it was the issues he was contemplating on previously that made him come up with something unique from even the current Indian religions.

So where did he come up with the notion of rebirth? Well, reincarnation and karma was already around. However, I think he was already starting to think that nothing was permanent so a permanent soul probably didn't exist either. He already had feelings of no-self through his adventures into the various Indian aesthetics. Plus, he was concerned about suffering and just battled Mara during meditation. This is why he came up with the idea of co-dependent origination which is the cornerstone of the 2nd Noble Truth. Wikipedia puts it nicely: With Ignorance as condition, Mental Formations arise; With Mental Formations as condition, Consciousness arises; With Consciousness as condition, Name and Form arise; With Name & Form as condition, Sense Gates arise; With Sense Gates as condition, Contact arises; With Contact as condition, Feeling arises; With Feeling as condition, Craving arises; With Craving as condition, Clinging arises; With Clinging as condition, Becoming arises; With Becoming as a condition, Birth arises; With Birth as condition, Aging and Dying arise.

My interpretation of this is that once the Buddha turned down activity in 4 areas of his brain, especially the pre-frontal cortex, all the sense gates and mental formations and cravings disappear and he felt like nothing and everything at the same time. So he saw all his “thousands of lives” (ie. One with the universe). Once you're part of the universe, there is no "you" to be born die or reborn. When you realize that, you stop clinging to things, you're enlightened and you stop suffering. The trick is to not see it intellectually but to realize it intuitively. The only way to know things intuitively is through practice, just like everything else.

[heatmiserfl]

Can I just say, that the key word here is require. You can find many sanghas that don't require you to accept some meaning of rebirth. Furthermore, I still would like someone to define what is reborn. If we can't define what is reborn, that what exactly are we required to believe?

[Malthus]

The unique part of Buddhism, IMO, is that it is focused on ending or at least diminishing suffering not only for yourself but for others. It's part of other religions but not necessarily the focus. I also think the Buddha came up with this idea not just from meditating but through many years of observation and experimentation.

I'd like to add my scientific explanation of what happened to the Buddha under the Bodhi Tree. I will include some of my experiences while meditating but I want to caution anyone from putting too much weight into my own experiences (if you meditate, you may have your own).

What I took out of that experience was very dependent on what I brought in to the experience and this is where I think the Buddhist philosophy that includes ending suffering by realizing that everything is empty and impermanent informs your meditation. When I used to meditate a lot, the first thing I would do is focus on something. In zazen, you're not supposed to do that but I usually ended up doing it accidentally. So if I was counting breaths, I would feel every aspect of the breath or sometimes I would actually see numbers floating in my head like on Sesame Street. Eventually, I'd reach a state in which I heard and felt everything at once, not just the breath. Then I would meld with everything, meaning I wouldn't feel my arms and legs as something separate. Then there was hugeness. Hard to describe. This brought a feeling of bliss. If I were Christian, I might feel that I was engulfed by Jesus' love. For me, I just realized that being me is not really such a big deal. Other things are more important.

When Buddha had his first epiphany, he was just a boy and he was watching a man plow the fields. As I recall, he realized after his meditative state that everything was impermanent like crops, the birds and the worms, etc. When he was older, he set out to observe the world with a special interest in suffering. He was also interested in happiness since he seemed unfulfilled even though he was a prince. When he finally sat under the Bodhi tree, his transcendental experience involved a war with Mara (the trickster). This is when he came up with the idea that desires can lead to unhappiness. However, I suspect that he was already informed by his previous experiences so that he didn't think desires were evil; instead it was clinging and attachment that resulted in dukkha. So he got himself into the transcendent state of mind but it was the issues he was contemplating on previously that made him come up with something unique from even the current Indian religions.

So where did he come up with the notion of rebirth? Well, reincarnation and karma was already around. However, I think he was already starting to think that nothing was permanent so a permanent soul probably didn't exist either. He already had feelings of no-self through his adventures into the various Indian aesthetics. Plus, he was concerned about suffering and just battled Mara during meditation. This is why he came up with the idea of co-dependent origination which is the cornerstone of the 2nd Noble Truth. Wikipedia puts it nicely: With Ignorance as condition, Mental Formations arise; With Mental Formations as condition, Consciousness arises; With Consciousness as condition, Name and Form arise; With Name & Form as condition, Sense Gates arise; With Sense Gates as condition, Contact arises; With Contact as condition, Feeling arises; With Feeling as condition, Craving arises; With Craving as condition, Clinging arises; With Clinging as condition, Becoming arises; With Becoming as a condition, Birth arises; With Birth as condition, Aging and Dying arise.

My interpretation of this is that once the Buddha turned down activity in 4 areas of his brain, especially the pre-frontal cortex, all the sense gates and mental formations and cravings disappear and he felt like nothing and everything at the same time. So he saw all his “thousands of lives” (ie. One with the universe). Once you're part of the universe, there is no "you" to be born die or reborn. When you realize that, you stop clinging to things, you're enlightened and you stop suffering. The trick is to not see it intellectually but to realize it intuitively. The only way to know things intuitively is through practice, just like everything else.

That fits well with the "perennial philosophy" view of the essential experience of mysticism (see Aldous Huxley's book of the same name: http://www.amazon.ca/Perennial-Philosophy-Aldous-Huxley/dp/0060901918 ).

The same insight (again, with the emphasis on intuitive knowledge rather than intellectual understanding) show up again and again in various philosophical and religious traditions - some of which are expressly theistic and some of which are not.

It is of course not in and of itself of necessity a supernatural belief-system, though of course, it can be intepreted that way if the mystic is from a tradition that includes the supernatural. A Christian mystic is likely to interpret the same experience as "oneness with God", whereas a Taoist mystic will take a more pantheist view.

Traditionally and historically, Buddhism as a religion/philosophy in its Theravada version has usually interpreted the Buddha's insight in a manner, or rather through a lens, of the supernatural. Though I tend to agree with you that something rather like the typical mystic insight was what the Buddha himself experienced (though of course, I cannot by any means prove it).

Hence my notion that one is likely to get a different answer to the same question, depending on whether one approaches the matter as a historian with a historical, textual and ethnographic approach, or as a Buddhist practioner or mystic with an intuitive approach to what is "essential" (the basic mystic insight being "essential" and all else merely explanatory).

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Even from a historical perspective, the Buddha still said supernatural beliefs didn't matter, and his method had no dependence or necessary reference to them

[CarnalK]

Even from a historical perspective, the Buddha still said supernatural beliefs didn't matter, and his method had no dependence or necessary reference to them

But really, if the Master of a meditation method has achieved perfect enlightenment and he still believed in gods and angels, isn't it a little odd to adopt the method if you don't at least think that's likely correct?

[Rushgeekgirl]

The worst fundamentalists are always those on the outside looking in.

Samsara has been identified differently by different groups since Siddartha Gautama. Before that too, but within Buddhism there has always been room for different ideas on even the most basic concepts. If you practice what the Buddha taught and prefer to call yourself Buddhist, you are Buddist. You may not care for the title so you can call yourself a student of Buddhism or one who practices Buddhist thought.
You don't have to believe in any sort of "soul" migration or anything supernatural. But if it helps you to stay on your path, you are welcome to believe in "soul" migration. To be Buddhist or follow Buddhism doesn't require strict adherence to an writing any more than being a Christian requires one to believe women who commit adultery should be stoned to death. It's more analogous than you think, but you have to understand the way of Buddhism to see it as a valid comparison. You'd likely say Christianity doesn't depend on stoning adulterers either, but you know as well as I do that you can take several verses in the Bible and say this is evidence that Christians think adulterers should be executed. You take some words the Buddha said and you say, "See here, this is what he meant!" but you don't know. It's so open to interpretation even the Buddha himself would ask the earnest student instead of offering an explanation. And that answer would be accepted. This is the Buddhist approach.

You go in looking for something you've already decided on; you're not interested in a Buddhist's opinion unless it's in agreement with your own and you will tell a Buddhist his opinions are not valid, for the sake of your argument. This is not the Buddhist way.

[rat avatar]

To try and break the circle going on here I have a question that seems to have been ignored

Is the actions and effects beyond scientific understanding and to all of the rules of the natural rules of nature apply to that said action?

If so and if he found the solution to all suffering why did he not just share it?

I know saying "all" of anything is never a realistic question or test but as I am not a thiest I do not see how the solution to suffering could anything but supernatural.

a) found the solution by sitting under a tree where he was tempted by some outside force, which due to him searching enlightenment made it thunder etc...
b) he discovered the solution to end suffering.
c) yet suffering still a human issue in his followers and no one else has found enlightenment.

I would opine by the fact that his experience is not repeatable and there is at the current time no objective measure of enlightenment, that the belief is beyond scientific understanding and supernatural.

With the test being that you believe in his enlightenment, of course you could like his sayings but think he never reached it or even acknowledge such a state.

[Measure for Measure]

How is it possible to accept the Fourth Noble Truth without believing in rebirth? I still would like someone to define what is reborn. If we can't define what is reborn, that what exactly are we required to believe? Well, we know that death and rebirth occurs continuously throughout the day within a person, "16 times in the blink of an eye", IIRC. But let me continue from a Theravada text quoted in post 98 (http://books.google.com/books?id=aJM42opIanYC&pg=PA234&lpg=PA234&dq=bhante+Nagasena+rebirth+transmigrating&source=bl&ots=CF9HXTyPcA&sig=iXk2e5ZxgkFoZjwVkNFrO-5n8-I&hl=en&ei=Nf7jTafMGo_GsAO3lJQW&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=bhante%20Nagasena%20rebirth%20transmigrating&f=false).

What happens when one dies? Does the soul transmigrate to another? No: according to Theravada texts, this does not happen. Two metaphors are offered (http://www.archive.org/stream/budhismintransal003582mbp/budhismintransal003582mbp_djvu.txt): Said the king: "Bhante Nagasena, does rebirth take
place without anything transmigrating [passing over] ? "

"Yes, your majesty. Rebirth takes place without any-
thing transmigrating."

" How, bhante Nagasena, does rebirth take place without
anything transmigrating ? Give an illustration."

"Suppose, your majesty, a man were to light a light
from another light; pray, would the one light have passed
over [transmigrated] to the other light?"

" Nay, verily, bhante.'*

"In exactly the same way, your majesty, does rebirth
take place without anything transmigrating."

" Give another illustration.?

"Do you remember, your majesty, having learnt, when
you were a boy, some verse or other from your professor of
poetry?"

" Yes, bhante."

"Pray, your majesty, did the verse pass over [transmi-
,grate] to you from your teacher?"

" Nay, verily, bhante."

"In exactly the same way, your majesty, does rebirth
take place without anything transmigrating."

" You are an able man, bhante Nagasena." There's a pretty direct secular interpretation of the above: reincarnation as commonly understood in the West does not happen. But a sort of rebirth occurs, insofar as ideas and stances are transmitted through culture and interpersonal interaction. For those who believe that I am imposing one age's views on another, answer me why this text didn't simply say that souls are constantly changing and they move from one place to another after death.

This isn't some obscure text I quoted: AFAIK, the metaphor of the moving flame is a popular one. Don't get me wrong: traditional Buddhist presentations are full of supernatural references. But the Buddha was pretty explicit in saying that they weren't all that important: for example, the Buddha accepted that a heavenly realm existed, but he replied that its inhabitants were incapable of entering Nirvana. It seems reasonable to assert that which the Buddha deemed unimportant is not central to the practice of Buddhism, never mind a necessary component thereof. And indeed, most of the philosophy and meditation concerns itself with anatman, AFAIK. But really, if the Master of a meditation method has achieved perfect enlightenment and he still believed in gods and angels, isn't it a little odd to adopt the method if you don't at least think that's likely correct? Even if Buddha believed that sun revolved around the earth, why should I believe the same? Scientists don't take Newton's alchemy seriously either, but they all use calculus.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

The unique part of Buddhism, IMO, is that it is focused on ending or at least diminishing suffering not only for yourself but for others. It's part of other religions but not necessarily the focus. I also think the Buddha came up with this idea not just from meditating but through many years of observation and experimentation.

I'd like to add my scientific explanation of what happened to the Buddha under the Bodhi Tree. I will include some of my experiences while meditating but I want to caution anyone from putting too much weight into my own experiences (if you meditate, you may have your own).

What I took out of that experience was very dependent on what I brought in to the experience and this is where I think the Buddhist philosophy that includes ending suffering by realizing that everything is empty and impermanent informs your meditation. When I used to meditate a lot, the first thing I would do is focus on something. In zazen, you're not supposed to do that but I usually ended up doing it accidentally. So if I was counting breaths, I would feel every aspect of the breath or sometimes I would actually see numbers floating in my head like on Sesame Street. Eventually, I'd reach a state in which I heard and felt everything at once, not just the breath. Then I would meld with everything, meaning I wouldn't feel my arms and legs as something separate. Then there was hugeness. Hard to describe. This brought a feeling of bliss. If I were Christian, I might feel that I was engulfed by Jesus' love. For me, I just realized that being me is not really such a big deal. Other things are more important.

When Buddha had his first epiphany, he was just a boy and he was watching a man plow the fields. As I recall, he realized after his meditative state that everything was impermanent like crops, the birds and the worms, etc. When he was older, he set out to observe the world with a special interest in suffering. He was also interested in happiness since he seemed unfulfilled even though he was a prince. When he finally sat under the Bodhi tree, his transcendental experience involved a war with Mara (the trickster). This is when he came up with the idea that desires can lead to unhappiness. However, I suspect that he was already informed by his previous experiences so that he didn't think desires were evil; instead it was clinging and attachment that resulted in dukkha. So he got himself into the transcendent state of mind but it was the issues he was contemplating on previously that made him come up with something unique from even the current Indian religions.

So where did he come up with the notion of rebirth? Well, reincarnation and karma was already around. However, I think he was already starting to think that nothing was permanent so a permanent soul probably didn't exist either. He already had feelings of no-self through his adventures into the various Indian aesthetics. Plus, he was concerned about suffering and just battled Mara during meditation. This is why he came up with the idea of co-dependent origination which is the cornerstone of the 2nd Noble Truth. Wikipedia puts it nicely: With Ignorance as condition, Mental Formations arise; With Mental Formations as condition, Consciousness arises; With Consciousness as condition, Name and Form arise; With Name & Form as condition, Sense Gates arise; With Sense Gates as condition, Contact arises; With Contact as condition, Feeling arises; With Feeling as condition, Craving arises; With Craving as condition, Clinging arises; With Clinging as condition, Becoming arises; With Becoming as a condition, Birth arises; With Birth as condition, Aging and Dying arise.

My interpretation of this is that once the Buddha turned down activity in 4 areas of his brain, especially the pre-frontal cortex, all the sense gates and mental formations and cravings disappear and he felt like nothing and everything at the same time. So he saw all his “thousands of lives” (ie. One with the universe). Once you're part of the universe, there is no "you" to be born die or reborn. When you realize that, you stop clinging to things, you're enlightened and you stop suffering. The trick is to not see it intellectually but to realize it intuitively. The only way to know things intuitively is through practice, just like everything else.
I did some extensive study of mystic techiques as a Religion Major in college (some of it for indpendent study credits), and I was struck by the basic similarity of the experience once it got past the belief systems.

I tried all kinds of things personally, from drugs, to shamanic drumming, to various types of meditation, to fasting to a Lakota smokeout (I had a roomate at time whose father was an NAC Medicine Man at a Lakota reservation. I tried to get in on a peyote ritual too, but was discouraged. My roommate described the ritual to me in deatil, though, and it didn't sound like as much fun as I'd imagined).

I had varying degrees of success (even an OBE sensation or two), but the only thing that stuck with me long term was Zazen. I liked (and still like) how clean and simple it is. It's just mindfulness - a kind of disciplined awareness that breaks you out of ego awareness. I've even had the "one with the universe" experience (during meditation), which for me was a sensation of my awareness turning "inside out." It was a complete reorientation of what I experienced as my "self." Instead of "self" being me inside the universe, I had a sensation of my self really being the universe itself, and my body only being one of the things (and not a very important thing) that was part of it. The identification of myself as my body was (sorry to be trite here) an illusion of the ego. That we mistake our egos for being "us," when they really just obstruct. A lot of the kinds of metaphors that are commonly used (like the dust on the mirror) made sense to me now. We experience ourselves as our thoughts - as the constant, running commentary that is the expression of our physical needs, desires, emotions, fears, etc. That internal monologue that never shuts up is not really us. The real us is underneath that ego consciousness.

I feel like that realization is what lies behind not only the Buddha story about the trickster god under the bo tree, but also behind Jesus' metaphorical battle with Satan in the wilderness. Jesus and Buddha both had to get past both physical desires (Jesus' battle symbolized with food, Buddha with carnal desires), both had to battle feelings of grandiosity for their insights, and both consider letting themselves just go ahead and die fulfilled. It's really the same war with the ego.

Literalizing supernatural metaphors is missing the point in both cases. I think you're right that the Buddha experiencing all his other lives and deaths was about his reorientation of self and recognition that all births and deaths were the product of his own ego.

[Measure for Measure]

I know saying "all" of anything is never a realistic question or test but as I am not a thiest I do not see how the solution to suffering could anything but supernatural.

a) found the solution by sitting under a tree where he was tempted by some outside force, which due to him searching enlightenment made it thunder etc...
b) he discovered the solution to end suffering.
c) yet suffering still a human issue in his followers and no one else has found enlightenment. Within the Theravada tradition, (c) is not the case. There are many who have obtained nirvana.

Realistically though, I'd say that the Buddha developed a number of techniques to ameliorate suffering/tedium/dukkha. They involve mediation and philosophical insight.

[Attack from the 3rd dimension]

Well, we know that death and rebirth occurs continuously throughout the day within a person, "16 times in the blink of an eye", IIRC. But let me continue from a Theravada text quoted in post 98 (http://books.google.com/books?id=aJM42opIanYC&pg=PA234&lpg=PA234&dq=bhante+Nagasena+rebirth+transmigrating&source=bl&ots=CF9HXTyPcA&sig=iXk2e5ZxgkFoZjwVkNFrO-5n8-I&hl=en&ei=Nf7jTafMGo_GsAO3lJQW&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=bhante%20Nagasena%20rebirth%20transmigrating&f=false).



I've been avoiding this thread until now, but seeing Warren being quoted always warms my tiny little heart.


You are an able poster, Measure for Measure.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

But really, if the Master of a meditation method has achieved perfect enlightenment and he still believed in gods and angels, isn't it a little odd to adopt the method if you don't at least think that's likely correct?
No because one really has nothing to do with the other. Meditation does not give you any empirical information you don't already have. It's a different state of consciousness, a different sensation of how you see and experience things, but it doesn't tell you what the speed of light is, or whether there is life on other planets. You come out with the same cosmological/scientific knowledge and assumptions you go in with. It's not magic. It doesn't impart new knowledge, just insights about your own mind.

[CarnalK]

Even if Buddha believed that sun revolved around the earth, why should I believe the same? Scientists don't take Newton's alchemy seriously either, but they all use calculus.

I think this seriously evades the point of my question. While the focus of Buddhist meditation is the focus on self, I don't think it's outlandish to say that the true goal is to understand the nature of the universe*. If the Buddha had been some complete racist and proscribed this meditation method, I have a feeling a lot of progressive people might not be taking it up. Yet, because the founder of this religion removes himself from your decision to believe in the supernatural, we are supposed to ignore that his mastery of the method left him believing in gods and angels.

eta: I think I answer Diogenes here as well.
*or your relationship with it at least

[rat avatar]

Within the Theravada tradition, (c) is not the case. There are many who have obtained nirvana.

Realistically though, I'd say that the Buddha developed a number of techniques to ameliorate suffering/tedium/dukkha. They involve mediation and philosophical insight.

So do we have access to these people? I am sure there are several scientists who would love to study someone who has become enlightened and knows how to get rid of human suffering.

For it to not be supernatural it would seem that empirical data should be available.

To clarify I am not against the concept of the supernatural or even theism, I just have had no proof, I would convert if you could provide me with empirical data, which should possible if it is only in the natural world.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

I think this seriously evades the point of my question. While the focus of Buddhist meditation is the focus on self, I don't think it's outlandish to say that the true goal is to understand the nature of the universe.
No, the goal is only to reduce suffering. It's not, and was never supposed to be, any kind of holistic explanation for the universe.

[CarnalK]

No, the goal is only to reduce suffering. It's not, and was never supposed to be, any kind of holistic explanation for the universe.

No, you're wrong. The removal of suffering has a purpose and it is a holistic one.

eta: In case you think this is some thoughtless contrarian post, it is not

[Diogenes the Cynic]

So do we have access to these people? I am sure there are several scientists who would love to study someone who has become enlightened and knows how to get rid of human suffering.

For it to not be supernatural it would seem that empirical data should be available.

To clarify I am not against the concept of the supernatural or even theism, I just have had no proof, I would convert if you could provide me with empirical data, which should possible if it is only in the natural world.
Scientists have indeed studied people in states of samadhi. Here's a wiki about studies done on the famous Hindu mystic, Ramakrishna (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramakrishna%27s_samadhi#Medical_examinations), for instance.

I'm not sure what kind of "proof" you're talking about, but individual in these states do show a number of unusual physiological and neurological characteristics. They are definitely in an altered physiological and psychological state.

[heatmiserfl]

That fits well with the "perennial philosophy" view of the essential experience of mysticism (see Aldous Huxley's book of the same name: http://www.amazon.ca/Perennial-Philosophy-Aldous-Huxley/dp/0060901918 ).

The same insight (again, with the emphasis on intuitive knowledge rather than intellectual understanding) show up again and again in various philosophical and religious traditions - some of which are expressly theistic and some of which are not.

.......

Traditionally and historically, Buddhism as a religion/philosophy in its Theravada version has usually interpreted the Buddha's insight in a manner, or rather through a lens, of the supernatural. Though I tend to agree with you that something rather like the typical mystic insight was what the Buddha himself experienced (though of course, I cannot by any means prove it).

Hence my notion that one is likely to get a different answer to the same question, depending on whether one approaches the matter as a historian with a historical, textual and ethnographic approach, or as a Buddhist practioner or mystic with an intuitive approach to what is "essential" (the basic mystic insight being "essential" and all else merely explanatory).

What I was trying to convey is that the Buddha's ideas were through direct experimentation, observation, deductive reasoning and, finally, intuition derived from his mystical experiences. Another mystic would come up with different ideas based on what they bring into the mystical experience. In fact, the Buddha's ideas weren't that different from many of the ideas floating around India at the time. It seems to me that the emphasis was different, along with some details. For example, Hindus also have a Nirvana and to get there you must let go of your ego to find your true self or Brahma. All Karma, etc. is reliant on this Brahma. For Buddhism, there's not even really a Brahma. Sure there's a universe, but pretty much all the troubles are not because people are not in sync with Brahma but they are delusional and clingy. But the hallmark and most unique emphasis in Buddhism is that people cause their own suffering and they also can stop their own suffering.

[rat avatar]

Scientists have indeed studied people in states of samadhi. Here's a wiki about studies done on the famous Hindu mystic, Ramakrishna (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramakrishna%27s_samadhi#Medical_examinations), for instance.

I'm not sure what kind of "proof" you're talking about, but individual in these states do show a number of unusual physiological and neurological characteristics. They are definitely in an altered physiological and psychological state.

Evidence that by using the teachings of Budda to enter that altered physiological and psychological state is causative of some higher level of knowledge that allows them to reduce suffering in the world.

That is the claim that is made, I find it extraordinary and thus ask for evidence.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Evidence that by using the teachings of Budda to enter that altered physiological and psychological state is causative of some higher level of knowledge that allows them to reduce suffering in the world.

That is the claim that is made, I find it extraordinary and thus ask for evidence.
The claim is that this state is available to everybody. Everybody can reduce their own suffering.

[Malthus]

Well, we know that death and rebirth occurs continuously throughout the day within a person, "16 times in the blink of an eye", IIRC. But let me continue from a Theravada text quoted in post 98 (http://books.google.com/books?id=aJM42opIanYC&pg=PA234&lpg=PA234&dq=bhante+Nagasena+rebirth+transmigrating&source=bl&ots=CF9HXTyPcA&sig=iXk2e5ZxgkFoZjwVkNFrO-5n8-I&hl=en&ei=Nf7jTafMGo_GsAO3lJQW&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=bhante%20Nagasena%20rebirth%20transmigrating&f=false).

What happens when one dies? Does the soul transmigrate to another? No: according to Theravada texts, this does not happen. Two metaphors are offered (http://www.archive.org/stream/budhismintransal003582mbp/budhismintransal003582mbp_djvu.txt): There's a pretty direct secular interpretation of the above: reincarnation as commonly understood in the West does not happen. But a sort of rebirth occurs, insofar as ideas and stances are transmitted through culture and interpersonal interaction. For those who believe that I am imposing one age's views on another, answer me why this text didn't simply say that souls are constantly changing and they move from one place to another after death.

This isn't some obscure text I quoted: AFAIK, the metaphor of the moving flame is a popular one. Don't get me wrong: traditional Buddhist presentations are full of supernatural references. But the Buddha was pretty explicit in saying that they weren't all that important: for example, the Buddha accepted that a heavenly realm existed, but he replied that its inhabitants were incapable of entering Nirvana. It seems reasonable to assert that which the Buddha deemed unimportant is not central to the practice of Buddhism, never mind a necessary component thereof. And indeed, most of the philosophy and meditation concerns itself with anatman, AFAIK. Even if Buddha believed that sun revolved around the earth, why should I believe the same? Scientists don't take Newton's alchemy seriously either, but they all use calculus.

Certainly, the Buddha appeared to believe that there was no permanent self - but he didn't restict this insight to dying and being reborn. There was no permanent self while you were alive, either.

The two (dying & being reborn, and being alive in this life) were treated much as a muchness - there is 'something' that continues, but it is not some sort of perfect, immortal form. All is ceaseless change, itself a source of suffering.

This self is indeed conceived of using the metaphor of a flame. But this doesn't mean that the Buddha had a totally naturalistic and rational approach. The flame itself keeps going, fueled by the laws of karma, through life after life (hence the image of monks shedding a literal ocean of tears for the repeated deaths of mom & dad, another memorable metaphor from the Pali suttas) - until it is snuffed out. The flame isn't some permanent "you" because there is no such thing - even in a single life, let alone over many.

Theravada tends to take a gradualist view - that this snuffing out can, in many cases, take more than a single lifetime. Some Mahayana sects, on the other hand, believe it comes in flashes of insight.

[heatmiserfl]

Well, we know that death and rebirth occurs continuously throughout the day within a person, "16 times in the blink of an eye", IIRC. But let me continue from a Theravada text quoted in post 98 (http://books.google.com/books?id=aJM42opIanYC&pg=PA234&lpg=PA234&dq=bhante+Nagasena+rebirth+transmigrating&source=bl&ots=CF9HXTyPcA&sig=iXk2e5ZxgkFoZjwVkNFrO-5n8-I&hl=en&ei=Nf7jTafMGo_GsAO3lJQW&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=bhante%20Nagasena%20rebirth%20transmigrating&f=false).

Yep!

I had varying degrees of success (even an OBE sensation or two), but the only thing that stuck with me long term was Zazen.

Ya know what? I think I'm going to start up again. I have to admit that zazen was difficult for me even though it seems simple. I had to mix in vipassana body scans or labeling or metta meditation.

[heatmiserfl]

Evidence that by using the teachings of Budda to enter that altered physiological and psychological state is causative of some higher level of knowledge that allows them to reduce suffering in the world.

That is the claim that is made, I find it extraordinary and thus ask for evidence.

I'm not sure what you mean by someone reducing the suffering of the world. Do you mean the Bodhisattva vow? Just because you vow something doesn't mean it's going happen. Even if it never happens, it also doesn't mean someone is going to stop trying.

[Malthus]

Yep!



The same text continues on to state, on P. 235, as follows:

http://books.google.com/books?id=aJM42opIanYC&pg=PA234&lpg=PA234&dq=bhante+Nagasena+rebirth+transmigrating&source=bl&ots=CF9HXTyPcA&sig=iXk2e5ZxgkFoZjwVkNFrO-5n8-I&hl=en&ei=Nf7jTafMGo_GsAO3lJQW&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=bhante%20Nagasena%20rebirth%20transmigrating&f=false

"Behante, if it is not the same name and form that is born into the next existence, is one not freed from one's evil deeds?"

"If one were not born into another existence," said the elder, "one would be feed from one's evil deeds; but, your majesty, insomuch as one is born into another existence, therefore is one not freed from one's evil deeds".

One of the illustrations used to illustrate this point (at P. 237) is that of a young girl being puchased for marriage by a guy who goes off - if another man was to later marry that girl when she's grown to be of marriageable age, he can't argue that he's "really" marrying a different girl.

So, the process of death and rebirth is likened to both a flame and the growing of a girl into a women - it is not "the same" person, but nor is it a "different" person.

[heatmiserfl]

The same text continues on to state, on P. 235, as follows:

http://books.google.com/books?id=aJM42opIanYC&pg=PA234&lpg=PA234&dq=bhante+Nagasena+rebirth+transmigrating&source=bl&ots=CF9HXTyPcA&sig=iXk2e5ZxgkFoZjwVkNFrO-5n8-I&hl=en&ei=Nf7jTafMGo_GsAO3lJQW&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=bhante%20Nagasena%20rebirth%20transmigrating&f=false

"Behante, if it is not the same name and form that is born into the next existence, is one not freed from one's evil deeds?"

"If one were not born into another existence," said the elder, "one would be feed from one's evil deeds; but, your majesty, insomuch as one is born into another existence, therefore is one not freed from one's evil deeds".

One of the illustrations used to illustrate this point (at P. 237) is that of a young girl being puchased for marriage by a guy who goes off - if another man was to later marry that girl when she's grown to be of marriageable age, he can't argue that he's "really" marrying a different girl.

So, the process of death and rebirth is likened to both a flame and the growing of a girl into a women - it is not "the same" person, but nor is it a "different" person.

This can easily be interpreted in relation to karma. In fact, the last few examples were used in the context of being free from evil deeds.

"In exactly the same way, your majesty, although the name and form which is born into existence is not the name and form which is to end at death, nevertheless, it is sprung from it. Therefore one is not freed from one's evil deeds."

IOW, whatever you do in life, there will be consequences even after you die. Thich Nhat Hanh calls these the "seeds" that you plant in this life that affect you in this life but also can affect others after you die. Again, someone can interpret that as a supernatural something or other that moves into the next life. However, it is not required to interpret it that way. (Unless you're a monk and your tradition wants you to interpret it that way.)

[Attack from the 3rd dimension]

I think this seriously evades the point of my question. While the focus of Buddhist meditation is the focus on self, I don't think it's outlandish to say that the true goal is to understand the nature of the universe*. If the Buddha had been some complete racist and proscribed this meditation method, I have a feeling a lot of progressive people might not be taking it up. Yet, because the founder of this religion removes himself from your decision to believe in the supernatural, we are supposed to ignore that his mastery of the method left him believing in gods and angels.

eta: I think I answer Diogenes here as well.
*or your relationship with it at least

Buddha explicitly stated that questions about the nature of the universe were "questions that tend not to edification (http://books.google.ca/books?id=fyTvOdsovcIC&pg=PA120&dq=warren+buddhism+in+translation+arrow&hl=en&ei=6x7kTd7bE8yitgezqoWSBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false)".

"Malunkyaputta, any one who should say, 'I will not lead the religious life under the Blessed One until [he] shall elucidate to me either that the world is eternal or the world is not eternal,...or that the saint neither exists nor does not exist after death' --that person shall die Malunkyaputta, before the Tathagata has elucidated this to him.

It is as if, Malunkayputta, a man had been wounded with an arrow thickly smeared with poison, and his friends... were to procure...a physician or surgeon; and the sick man were to say, 'I will not have this arrow taken out until I have learned whether the many who wounded me belonged to the warrior cast or the brahman caste, or to the agricultural caste, or to the menial caste.' "

Also, while the historical Buddha may or may not have believed in Gods and whatnot, he certainly didn't think they were important in the context of what he was teaching, chiefly because they were also trapped in samsara and the wheel of rebirth. This made them, at best, students of Buddha. There's a nice story about a frog who is killed while listening to one of Buddha's sermons who become a god of the suite of the 33. He then comes and asks the Buddha for teaching and becomes enlightened." This is also in Warren's Buddhism in Translation (Harvard University Press), but page 301 is missing from Google books. I did dig out my own copy, just for you. :)

All this god stuff is great, but it's a bit hard to tell how much of it Buddha gave a damn about. He certainly used gods as figures in his teaching, but he certainly made them irrelevant to the main point of his teachings.

[Measure for Measure]

Thanks Attack from the 3rd dimension! Buddhist teachings in general warm my tiny heart -- which somewhat is problematic as they also cloud my judgment.

I've studied Buddhist texts and read selections of a few books about Buddhism, but I don't believe I have a solid understanding of Buddhist practice. So I've read this thread with some interest. While the focus of Buddhist meditation is the focus on self, I don't think it's outlandish to say that the true goal is to understand the nature of the universe*. ...*or your relationship with it at least. My understanding is that the Buddha's prime stated goal was the cessation of dukkha. You or someone else will have to explain to me how this relates to understanding the universe. (No snark intended - I simply lack the background to make propoer sense of that claim.) I do find it plausible that an Asian who grew up with Buddhism might see things that way. Yet, because the founder of this religion removes himself from your decision to believe in the supernatural, we are supposed to ignore that his mastery of the method left him believing in gods and angels. As I perceive it, the Buddha accepted gods before he sat under the Bohdi tree. Nothing he did under the Bohdi tree really affected that acceptance one way or another, assuming the battle with Mali was metaphorical. Admittedly, I trust that a number Mahayana and even Theravada Buddhists believe in the Mali battle literally. But if you're focused on reducing suffering, it shouldn't matter one way or the other within this framework. [1] So do we have access to these people? I am sure there are several scientists who would love to study someone who has become enlightened and knows how to get rid of human suffering. I understand that Buddhist monks have been studied with EEGs. The Buddha indeed said that his goal was the cessation of dukkha: my take is that such an implicit claim was exaggerated. Gurus have been known to utilize PR and showmanship. It happens. Substitute "Ameliorate" for "Cessation". Or redefine dukkha accordingly. [2]

Malthus: IMHO, the supernatural certainly figured into the Buddha's presentation and worldview. It just doesn't seem especially essential to Buddhist philosophy or practice. I will say though that in the absence of reincarnation (as understood by the West) the incentive to take a Buddhist path decreases, though does not disappear.


[1] Within a super-secular or even Western philosophical framework, it most certainly does matter though.

[2] When I ran cross country in high school, I found that with practice I could tune out some of the physical discomfort: I entered a certain zone. It was like perceiving pain from a vantage point where it didn't matter. Is it inaccurate to say that the pain went away? (I think it is somewhat inaccurate.) Then again, Patrick Mcdermott (http://www.amazon.com/Zen-Art-Systems-Analysis-Meditations/dp/0595256791/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1306805230&sr=8-1) once noted that there is a tradeoff between accuracy and clarity. Sometimes a rough and somewhat inaccurate characterization is clearer and more helpful than a lengthier but more learned discourse.

[Measure for Measure]

...one could presumably say, "I follow the teachings of Christ because they lead to good results for me and others, but I reject the idea that Jesus had a divine nature or rose from the dead," but that's a personal "take" on Christianity that doesn't comport with the wide understanding or practice. So in the ordinary sense of the word "require," it's fair to say that Christianity requires belief in the supernatural. I would modify that. I would say if somebody attends church and self-identifies as a Christian then he is Christian. By way of example, a Unitarian from the 1800s believed in the divinity of Jesus, but not in the Trinity. Every other denomination equated belief in the trinity with Christianity. In my framework, Unitarians were nonetheless Christians in the 1800s. Tying religious affiliation with Belief Y or Z is problematic in practice.

Yet Christianity is a social construct. I accept Bricker's distinction between being an Xist and having a personal take on X. But I would clarify that if there was a church that called itself Christian but thought that Jesus was the Greatest of All Prophets, Son of Man and Our Savoir but not the Son of God, then that church would still be properly thought of as Christian. I furthermore think that this would be using the term "Christian" in the common sense. (ETA: I suppose that those who disagreed with the church might say that they're not really Christian. But that's a different statement. Christian but not really Christian.)

[nowheat]

(Sorry to drop in out of left field like this.)

Does Buddhism require a faith in the supernatural?

(1) Buddhism, being that thing that people all over the world practice, well, the majority of authorities in power within the structures that are anything like official, traditional Buddhism would probably say "Faith in the Buddha first, and the Buddha taught rebirth, so 'Yes'."

(2) Buddhism, being what the Buddha taught, as represented in the Pali canon since it's the oldest comprehensive version we have, then, no. The Buddha said repeatedly that we need to be able to see for ourselves. Presumably if you've seen rebirth for yourself it'll not seem supernatural anymore. Nowhere does he say that a belief in rebirth is necessary.

As for what he can have meant by his references to rebirth, we need to keep in mind that it was the primary paradigm of the day, and he says quite explicitly that one with a liberated mind speaks to others in the way of their worldview "without clinging to it" -- so he has told us that he describes things in terms of what people believe, but he doesn't have to believe it to do this. When asked why he tells kinfolk where their monastic family members went after they died, he says, "Not to deceive people, not to impress them... but for their comfort and to tend them toward higher goals." He tells us repeatedly that he goes out of his way to not argue useless points of doctrine. Take all that together with a recognition of what he knew about language and points of view -- empty, empty, all empty -- and every word becomes a metaphor. To look for him to be "speaking literally" on any given point is asking for trouble (the very trouble we have in trying to understand what he said).

In his description of dependent origination he defines what a "being" is -- it is composed of the five aggregates -- that's anatta, the not-eternal self, our sense of a lasting self. It is that which he describes as being born, and it looks to me like that's what he's describing as being reborn. He talks often enough about his followers having "at most seven more births" and it's probably no coincidence that there are "seven stations of consciousness of beings" -- so my best guess (I'm still studying) is that he's seeing "rebirth" as major revisions of how we see ourselves on the road toward enlightenment.

[Bricker]

I would modify that. I would say if somebody attends church and self-identifies as a Christian then he is Christian. By way of example, a Unitarian from the 1800s believed in the divinity of Jesus, but not in the Trinity. Every other denomination equated belief in the trinity with Christianity. In my framework, Unitarians were nonetheless Christians in the 1800s. Tying religious affiliation with Belief Y or Z is problematic in practice.

Yet Christianity is a social construct. I accept Bricker's distinction between being an Xist and having a personal take on X. But I would clarify that if there was a church that called itself Christian but thought that Jesus was the Greatest of All Prophets, Son of Man and Our Savoir but not the Son of God, then that church would still be properly thought of as Christian. I furthermore think that this would be using the term "Christian" in the common sense. (ETA: I suppose that those who disagreed with the church might say that they're not really Christian. But that's a different statement. Christian but not really Christian.)

If that is the general framework we accept, then I agree that being a Buddhist does not require a belief in anything supernatural.

I just don't believe that's a particularly useful model, because the value of language is a common framework of communication.

[Malthus]

This can easily be interpreted in relation to karma. In fact, the last few examples were used in the context of being free from evil deeds.

"In exactly the same way, your majesty, although the name and form which is born into existence is not the name and form which is to end at death, nevertheless, it is sprung from it. Therefore one is not freed from one's evil deeds."

IOW, whatever you do in life, there will be consequences even after you die. Thich Nhat Hanh calls these the "seeds" that you plant in this life that affect you in this life but also can affect others after you die. Again, someone can interpret that as a supernatural something or other that moves into the next life. However, it is not required to interpret it that way. (Unless you're a monk and your tradition wants you to interpret it that way.)

Certainly this process was in relation to the laws of Karma. It is the whole 'laws of karma - cycle of rebirth - deeds leading to suffering through multiple rebirths' background that appears to be, in essence, a supernatural belief. In the above text, the Buddha is quite adimantly stating that this "something" that passes through rebirth is, in a way, you - of course not some eternal and unchanging "you", but as much "you" as a young girl who grows up to be a middle-aged woman is the same woman (he uses that exact analogy!).

I cannot agree that this is something external or minor in the Theravada tradition. A historical analysis indicates its centrality to that tradition; it is, as we have seen, a major part of the Pali dukkas. I will not say it is necessary to "Buddhism" because that term of course includes many different traditions and interpretations, including modern re-interpretations as we have seen.

Certainly the Buddha was not terribly interested in gods, devils and creation mythology - the battlefield doctor anecdote has already been discussed - gods and the like may exist and may not, but if they do, they are bound to the wheel along with the rest of us.

However, the nature of the wheel interested him very much, since it was bound together with the nature of suffering - relief of which was his main goal.

[Malthus]

Malthus: IMHO, the supernatural certainly figured into the Buddha's presentation and worldview. It just doesn't seem especially essential to Buddhist philosophy or practice. I will say though that in the absence of reincarnation (as understood by the West) the incentive to take a Buddhist path decreases, though does not disappear.


To this, I cannot agree (at least, if we are talking Theravada here).

I agree that the existence of gods and the like is not important to Buddhist practice (well, except for those Mahayana sects which essentially elevate Buddha- figures into gods, of course).

However, the nature of karma and the cycle of rebirth is quite essential, important and significant to Theravada Buddhist thought. Many of the Pali texts focus on that very subject.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

I just don't believe that's a particularly useful model, because the value of language is a common framework of communication.It's true that language is valuable as a common framework of communication. In certain disciplines, there are bright-line definitions: in medicine, for example, it's very clear what is and what isn't a bacterial infection, and that's not subject to debate. When you're working with computers, something either is or it isn't an optical drive. A child either is enrolled in kindergarten or she is not.

Some religions work this way, too: if you claim to be a Scientologist, but the Church of Scientology disowns you, I'll believe them over you. Same thing if you're a Catholic. (Not that I'm in any other way comparing Scientology to Catholicism--they're just the two clearest examples I can think of of hierarchical religions).

But other religions don't work this way, and the fuzziness is built into them. That's also true of certain artistic discplines (is a certain novel magical realist? Is a certain song grunge-punk? Is that painting postmodern?). Efforts to come up with precise, bright-line definitions miss the point, and do more to harm communication than they do to facilitate it.

Theravada Buddhism appears to me to have more in common with grunge-punk music than with Scientology.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

However, the nature of the wheel interested him very much, since it was bound together with the nature of suffering - relief of which was his main goal.
The literal conceptions of samsara held no interest to him at all, actually. He certainly did not think such beliefs were necessary to reduce dukkha and explicitly said so. These beliefs are also utterly irrelevant to Theravada practice.

[Zsofia]

I'm not sure what you mean by someone reducing the suffering of the world. Do you mean the Bodhisattva vow? Just because you vow something doesn't mean it's going happen. Even if it never happens, it also doesn't mean someone is going to stop trying.
In fact, at least in Zen (which is what I'm most familiar with) the vows are literally impossible - "Sentient beings are numberless; I vow to free them", etc.

[nowheat]

"In exactly the same way, your majesty, although the name and form which is born into existence is not the name and form which is to end at death, nevertheless, it is sprung from it. Therefore one is not freed from one's evil deeds."

In the above text, the Buddha is quite adimantly stating that this "something" that passes through rebirth is, in a way, you - of course not some eternal and unchanging "you", but as much "you" as a young girl who grows up to be a middle-aged woman is the same woman (he uses that exact analogy!).



But it's not the Buddha speaking.


The Milinda Panha is a Buddhist text which dates from approximately 100 BCE...It purports to record a dialogue in which the Indo-Greek king Menander I (Milinda in Pali) of Bactria, who reigned in the 2nd century BCE, poses questions on Buddhism to the sage Nāgasena.


In trying to sort out what the Buddha was describing I've found it's important not to confuse what later interpretations say he meant with what he actually said. What he actually *said* is confusing enough without it getting pulled in all directions by others' views.

[nowheat]

and all the usual caveats apply to "what he actually said" (we don't have the literal words, etc etc) but taking what's in the Pali canon as most representative of what he said.

[Sandwich]

A religious movement with temples, scriptures, saints, monks, priests, rituals, vows, faith, rebirth and valuable spiritual insights, which is inscrutable to outsiders who don't study the canon and practise the, uh, practice. No supernatural beliefs required!

Uh-huh.

You'll forgive me, I hope, if I categorise Buddhists as 'religious' rather than 'atheist'? If it bothers you, try to chant smarter not harder, and remember I don't really exist. That is the path to freedom from suffering.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

A religious movement with temples, scriptures, saints, monks, priests, rituals, vows, faith, rebirth and valuable spiritual insights, which is inscrutable to outsiders who don't study the canon and practise the, uh, practice. No supernatural beliefs required!There is no "faith." There are no supernatural beliefs required.
You'll forgive me, I hope, if I categorise Buddhists as 'religious' rather than 'atheist'?
What's theistic about it?
If it bothers you, try to chant smarter not harder, and remember I don't really exist. That is the path to freedom from suffering.
Why should your ignorance bother Buddhists?

[Blalron]

However, the nature of karma and the cycle of rebirth is quite essential, important and significant to Theravada Buddhist thought. Many of the Pali texts focus on that very subject.


Indeed. For example, a soldier asks the Buddha what's going to happen to him if he dies after exerting himself in battle (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn42/sn42.003.than.html):

Then Yodhajiva[1] the headman went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there he said to the Blessed One: "Lord, I have heard that it has been passed down by the ancient teaching lineage of warriors that 'When a warrior strives & exerts himself in battle, if others then strike him down & slay him while he is striving & exerting himself in battle, then with the breakup of the body, after death, he is reborn in the company of devas slain in battle.' What does the Blessed One have to say about that?"

"Enough, headman, put that aside. Don't ask me that."

A second time... A third time Yodhajiva the headman said: "Lord, I have heard that it has been passed down by the ancient teaching lineage of warriors that 'When a warrior strives & exerts himself in battle, if others then strike him down & slay him while he is striving & exerting himself in battle, then with the breakup of the body, after death, he is reborn in the company of devas slain in battle.' What does the Blessed One have to say about that?"

"Apparently, headman, I haven't been able to get past you by saying, 'Enough, headman, put that aside. Don't ask me that.' So I will simply answer you. When a warrior strives & exerts himself in battle, his mind is already seized, debased, & misdirected by the thought: 'May these beings be struck down or slaughtered or annihilated or destroyed. May they not exist.' If others then strike him down & slay him while he is thus striving & exerting himself in battle, then with the breakup of the body, after death, he is reborn in the hell called the realm of those slain in battle. But if he holds such a view as this: 'When a warrior strives & exerts himself in battle, if others then strike him down & slay him while he is striving & exerting himself in battle, then with the breakup of the body, after death, he is reborn in the company of devas slain in battle,' that is his wrong view. Now, there are two destinations for a person with wrong view, I tell you: either hell or the animal womb."

[Diogenes the Cynic]

I don't think that passage signifies what you think it signifies.

One more for the record, Buddha explicitly said that beliefs about rebirth were irrelevant.

[Malthus]

But it's not the Buddha speaking.



In trying to sort out what the Buddha was describing I've found it's important not to confuse what later interpretations say he meant with what he actually said. What he actually *said* is confusing enough without it getting pulled in all directions by others' views.


Fair enough, but rather irrelevant: first because there is obviously no such thing as a record of "what the Buddha actually said" - what we have is texts purporting to be such (as you note), and secondly and more importantly because even with that caveat in mind, the sage Nāgasena is an arahant, meaning he's as enlightened as the original Buddha, and so his description stands as well as that of the Buddha's own in determining what is or is not important to Theravada Buddhism.

[Zeriel]

nvm

[Zeriel]

Evidence that by using the teachings of Budda to enter that altered physiological and psychological state is causative of some higher level of knowledge that allows them to reduce suffering in the world.

A religious movement with temples, scriptures, saints, monks, priests, rituals, vows, faith, rebirth and valuable spiritual insights, which is inscrutable to outsiders who don't study the canon and practise the, uh, practice. No supernatural beliefs required!

These two things struck me as essentially dealing with the same bit of Zen Buddhism (which I practice myself--and I gotta admit, it's odd thinking of Dio doing it).

The only REQUIRED bit of Zen Buddhism that's arguably supernatural is the idea that the practice leads to a transcendent awareness. At the same time, as far as I can tell, that "transcendent awareness" as described by my roshi is fundamentally the same thing as Kant's a priori knowledge. That is, rat avatar's higher level of knowledge has been discussed in a raw philosophical context that's divorced (or as much as Kant can be divorced) from any specific belief structures.

All of Sandwich's monks, priests, and scriptures are window dressing to Zen. Ultimately it's exactly as supernatural as yoga--you are using a set of techniques originally devised to exercise your physical being in such a way as to induce a specific mental state.

[heatmiserfl]

The only REQUIRED bit of Zen Buddhism that's arguably supernatural is the idea that the practice leads to a transcendent awareness. At the same time, as far as I can tell, that "transcendent awareness" as described by my roshi is fundamentally the same thing as Kant's a priori knowledge.

Now this I can definitely agree upon. Even Soto Zen which downplays the race for kenshos and enlightenment, you're still expected to achieve enlightenment. Then Dogen plays a fast one on you and basically says, "Well, it's not a big deal when you become enlightened. It's so much not a big deal, that you won't even notice it!" That's what I got out of his writings.

[Zeriel]

Now this I can definitely agree upon. Even Soto Zen which downplays the race for kenshos and enlightenment, you're still expected to achieve enlightenment. Then Dogen plays a fast one on you and basically says, "Well, it's not a big deal when you become enlightened. It's so much not a big deal, that you won't even notice it!" That's what I got out of his writings.

Or the "climbing past the end of the rope" koans, whereby one is reminded that being attached to enlightenment is still ultimately being attached, and you are expected to dispassionately not care that you have reached that state.

[Measure for Measure]

If that is the general framework we accept, then I agree that being a Buddhist does not require a belief in anything supernatural.

I just don't believe that's a particularly useful model, because the value of language is a common framework of communication. I believe I'm using the terms in the common sense. Shifting a little, if there's a large church that calls itself Christian and most other churches accept it as Christian, then it is Christian regardless of how much its beliefs coincide with the others. A religious movement with temples, scriptures, saints, monks, priests, rituals, vows, faith, rebirth and valuable spiritual insights, which is inscrutable to outsiders who don't study the canon and practice the, uh, practice. No supernatural beliefs required! I have studied the canon but never practiced it. I don't find it inscrutable. I would find Shakespeare without annotations far more difficult to interpret.

Maybe physics is a religion: it's inscrutable unless you've studied it, right? You'll forgive me, I hope, if I categorize Buddhists as 'religious' rather than 'atheist'? No problem. Most Asian Buddhists believe in Buddhism's supernatural aspects, which nobody is denying exist. But its not uncommon for others to adopt some of Buddhism's techniques and conceptual frameworks in a more secular context. Dialectical behavioral therapy is one example. To this, I cannot agree (at least, if we are talking Theravada here). ...

However, the nature of karma and the cycle of rebirth is quite essential, important and significant to Theravada Buddhist thought. Many of the Pali texts focus on that very subject. I have shown Buddhist texts that indicate that the Buddha took a dim view on metaphysical wrangling. So there is that strand of evidence. But there are other strands as well, and I lack sufficient familiarity with form a definitive opinion. That said: sure, " the nature of karma and the cycle of rebirth is quite essential, important and significant to Theravada Buddhist thought." But all that occurs during a single lifetime anyway, right?
------------------------------------------------------
Sociologically Speaking
Thinking this over: Look. All I really need to do is locate a secular-friendly Theravada temple. Then the OP's POV would either have to shift in light of new evidence, or take refuge in a True Scotsman argument.

Recall that "Mahayana" and "Theravada" are pretty wide categories. Theravadabuddhism.org (http://www.theravadabuddhism.org/) claims that Theravada Buddhism takes 4 forms in the West: The Secular Buddhist Society Model, The Original London Vihara Model, The Lankarama Model, and The Meditation Centre Mode, FWIW. Number 3 is an ethnic temple. (The text appears to be lifted from this essay (http://www.vgweb.org/bsq/ethnicbud.htm).)

Here's a webpage of the Secular Buddhist Society. They focus on study of the Pali canon.
http://www.thesecularbuddhist.com/about_mission.php

Here's an FAQ of London Vihara: they appear to believe in a traditional Buddhist rebirth
http://www.londonbuddhistvihara.org/qa/qa_kamma.htm
---

So I guess the POV in the OP would want to write off the Secular Buddhist Society. Dr V. A. Gunasekara, author of a number of articles on Buddhism, would disagree. He believes that the Secular Buddhist Society and the London Vihara tradition, "correspond substantially to the Dhamma as expounded in the Pali Canon," while the other 2 variants do not. In his view, Buddhism shouldn't be ethnically limited, nor should it tie itself too closely with the alleged expertise of a given Guru. Metaphysical belief doesn't appear to enter in to his criteria.

[nowheat]

... and more importantly because even with that caveat in mind, the sage Nāgasena is an arahant, meaning he's as enlightened as the original Buddha, and so his description stands as well as that of the Buddha's own in determining what is or is not important to Theravada Buddhism.

Oh, sorry, is this discussion limited to Theravadan Buddhism? I was under the impression that we were talking about Buddhism in general.

Do I understand from the above, then, that you would say that all Theravadan arahants across time were in perfect accord about what the Buddha taught?

You might also want to take note that I didn't say the speaker was wrong -- I would have to read a lot more of the conversation between the two, in order to understand if he's defining things slightly differently than the Buddha did ("name-and-form" in particular) -- I could see *me* saying the very same thing he did, if I framed the argument in a certain way. I was simply stating a fact, to clarify an error in quoting the incorrect source. I hold no opinion on the correctness of his statement.

[Measure for Measure]

Here's a webpage of the Secular Buddhist Society. They focus on study of the Pali canon.
http://www.thesecularbuddhist.com/about_mission.php
No it isn't. It's a guy doing a podcast. But there is "Secular Buddhist Society Model", and the webpage has links to several practice centers around the world.

nowheat: AFAIK, the Bhante Nagasena quote is from a fairly canonical Pali text.

[CarnalK]

So I guess the POV in the OP would want to write off the Secular Buddhist Society. Dr V. A. Gunasekara, author of a number of articles on Buddhism, would disagree. He believes that the Secular Buddhist Society and the London Vihara tradition, "correspond substantially to the Dhamma as expounded in the Pali Canon," while the other 2 variants do not. In his view, Buddhism shouldn't be ethnically limited, nor should it tie itself too closely with the alleged expertise of a given Guru. Metaphysical belief doesn't appear to enter in to his criteria.

I thought I'd look that up for kicks. I found what I assume is the full text (http://www.buddhanet.net/bsq14.htm), and in one of the footnotes he remarks "Indeed it is doubtful whether anyone who is not an Ariyapuggala can be a teacher of the Dhamma." which got me thinking, how exactly do secular Buddhists relate to those designations*? ISTM, that terms like "once returner" and "non returner" are a little hard to map onto a view that karma and nivana being concerned with only this life we are currently living. I guess you could just choose to regard them as as archaic titles for a meditation-mental accomplishment checklist.

The only REQUIRED bit of Zen Buddhism that's arguably supernatural is the idea that the practice leads to a transcendent awareness.
That's what I was getting at when I said "I don't think it's outlandish to say that the true goal is to understand the nature of the universe or your relationship with it at least".


*Sorry if this was already addressed, but if it was I think it was in more general terms.

[Malthus]

I believe I'm using the terms in the common sense. Shifting a little, if there's a large church that calls itself Christian and most other churches accept it as Christian, then it is Christian regardless of how much its beliefs coincide with the others. I have studied the canon but never practiced it. I don't find it inscrutable. I would find Shakespeare without annotations far more difficult to interpret.

Maybe physics is a religion: it's inscrutable unless you've studied it, right? No problem. Most Asian Buddhists believe in Buddhism's supernatural aspects, which nobody is denying exist. But its not uncommon for others to adopt some of Buddhism's techniques and conceptual frameworks in a more secular context. Dialectical behavioral therapy is one example. I have shown Buddhist texts that indicate that the Buddha took a dim view on metaphysical wrangling. So there is that strand of evidence. But there are other strands as well, and I lack sufficient familiarity with form a definitive opinion. That said: sure, " the nature of karma and the cycle of rebirth is quite essential, important and significant to Theravada Buddhist thought." But all that occurs during a single lifetime anyway, right?

The Pali text you yourself cited goes on, in the part you did not cite, to describe the Buddhist concept of rebirth. It stretches the meaning past the breaking point to insist that it means "in this life".

To repeat:

"Behante, if it is not the same name and form that is born into the next existence, is one not freed from one's evil deeds?"

"If one were not born into another existence," said the elder, "one would be feed from one's evil deeds; but, your majesty, insomuch as one is born into another existence, therefore is one not freed from one's evil deeds".

It takes a lot of creative re-interpretation to find that "born into another existence" in this context means "while you are still alive".

[/quote]

------------------------------------------------------
Sociologically Speaking
Thinking this over: Look. All I really need to do is locate a secular-friendly Theravada temple. Then the OP's POV would either have to shift in light of new evidence, or take refuge in a True Scotsman argument.

Recall that "Mahayana" and "Theravada" are pretty wide categories. Theravadabuddhism.org (http://www.theravadabuddhism.org/) claims that Theravada Buddhism takes 4 forms in the West: The Secular Buddhist Society Model, The Original London Vihara Model, The Lankarama Model, and The Meditation Centre Mode, FWIW. Number 3 is an ethnic temple. (The text appears to be lifted from this essay (http://www.vgweb.org/bsq/ethnicbud.htm).)

Here's a webpage of the Secular Buddhist Society. They focus on study of the Pali canon.
http://www.thesecularbuddhist.com/about_mission.php

Here's an FAQ of London Vihara: they appear to believe in a traditional Buddhist rebirth
http://www.londonbuddhistvihara.org/qa/qa_kamma.htm
---

So I guess the POV in the OP would want to write off the Secular Buddhist Society. Dr V. A. Gunasekara, author of a number of articles on Buddhism, would disagree. He believes that the Secular Buddhist Society and the London Vihara tradition, "correspond substantially to the Dhamma as expounded in the Pali Canon," while the other 2 variants do not. In his view, Buddhism shouldn't be ethnically limited, nor should it tie itself too closely with the alleged expertise of a given Guru. Metaphysical belief doesn't appear to enter in to his criteria.

I prefer to reference Dr. V. A. Gunasekara's own works on the subject, rather than some indirect chain of authority such as (to paraphrase) 'Dr. Gunasekara likes the author of this podcast'.

On this site, you can read his own quite comprehensive and informative paper on the subject, entitled "Basic Buddhism: A Modern Introduction to the Buddha's Teaching" (it's a PDF). A relevant exerpt, from the chapter entitled "The Doctrines of Karma and Rebirth":

http://www.theravada-dhamma.org/page2/page139/page139.html

The Buddhist theory of rebirth asserts that the fruits of some kamma may
manifest themselves in "future lives". This brings us to the Buddhist theory of
rebirth. Similar concepts occur in other religious systems - e.g. the Platonic
theory of the "pre-existence of the soul" and the Hindu-Jain theory of reincarnation.

Such reincarnation theory involves the transmigration of a soul. In
Buddhism, however, it is the unripened karmic acts outstanding at the death of
an individual which conditions a new birth. The last moment of consciousness too
is also a conditioning factor, but it is the store of unripened kamma generated by
volitional acts (the sankhâras) of previous existences which generates the
destiny of the new individual. A newly born individual needs not only the genetic
blueprint derived from the genes of the natural parents, but also a kammic
blueprint derived from the volitional acts of a deceased person.

The question has been posed whether the new individual is the same as the
old individual whose kamma it has inherited. The Buddha's answer to this
question was somewhat enigmatic: "It is not the same, yet it is not another" (na
ca so, na ca añño). To understand the Buddha's reply we have to investigate the
criteria which establish personal identity. Is the child the same as the adult it
later becomes? In the Buddhist sense we are making two observations at two
points of time in a constantly changing psycho-physical entity. For legal and
conventional purposes some arbitrary criteria are used, such as physical
continuity over time, or the retention of memory. These define only a
conventional person. Just as it is a conventional or "fictional" persons who lasts
continuously from birth to death, so it is just such a conventional person who
persists from one life to another. In the Buddhist view of rebirth the only links
between two successive lives is the karmic residue carried over and an element
of consciousness, called the re-linking consciousness: (paisandhi viññâna), which
momentarily links the two lives. In Buddhism there is no conception of a
transmigrating soul which inhabits successive material bodies until it unites with
God.

Buddhism uses the Pali term sasâra to denote the "round of births" in various
planes of existence governed by the law of kamma. The acceptance of the
validity of the hypothesis of sasâra is very difficult for some people, while for
others it is the most natural of hypotheses. Some features of the observable
world suggests it. In the Culakammavibhanga Sutta the Buddha is asked: "What
is the reason and the cause for the inequality amongst human beings despite
their being human?" (the context making it clear that it is inequality at birth that
is meant). The Buddha answered: "Beings inherit their kamma, and it is kamma
which divides beings in terms of their inequality". The theistic hypothesis cannot
give a rational answer, except in terms of an iniquitous and unjust "God".

Some support for the theory of rebirth comes from reports of recollections of
past lives, whether spontaneously or under hypnosis, which have been reported
from all parts of the world. While many such reports may be mistaken or even
fraudulent, some are undoubtedly genuine. According to Buddhism individuals
can develop the power of "retrocognition" (i.e. the ability to recall past lives), but
the development of such supernormal powers is usually the accompaniment of
progress along the spiritual path of enlightenment. IT may be possible that some
karmic factors may predispose some individuals towards such experiences.

The authour goes on to note that you can get some good out Buddhism even if one doesn't believe in the cycle, because one can see the cycle in one's own life, and so even the "extreme rationalist" (his words) may get some good out of Buddhism.

But clearly, he's of the opinion that the Samsaric cycle of karma and rebirth is a tenent of Buddhism (and he clearly believes it is true. In speaking of past lives: "While many such reports may be mistaken or even fraudulent, some are undoubtedly genuine").

Note that the very purpose of this booklet is to make Buddhism accessible and comprehensible to Western modern-rationalistic types. Froim the intro:

"This introductory essay is confined to the basic doctrines propounded by the Buddha over 2500 years ago. This message is surprisingly modern, and more in
keeping with the rational-scientific temper of our age than the various theistic
systems to which most of the people of the world owe formal allegiance. A
widespread interest in Buddhism in Australia is relatively recent. It is important
that the original doctrine of the Buddha, divested of the cultural trappings and
metaphysical speculations that has gathered around it during its long sojourn in
a dozen Asian lands, is placed before the public. This booklet is written with that
aim in mind."

That being said, his view of Buddhism is pretty well on all fours with that of London Vihara. Certainly, the samsaric cycle, rebirth and past lives are a part of it.

[Malthus]

Oh, sorry, is this discussion limited to Theravadan Buddhism? I was under the impression that we were talking about Buddhism in general.

Do I understand from the above, then, that you would say that all Theravadan arahants across time were in perfect accord about what the Buddha taught?

You might also want to take note that I didn't say the speaker was wrong -- I would have to read a lot more of the conversation between the two, in order to understand if he's defining things slightly differently than the Buddha did ("name-and-form" in particular) -- I could see *me* saying the very same thing he did, if I framed the argument in a certain way. I was simply stating a fact, to clarify an error in quoting the incorrect source. I hold no opinion on the correctness of his statement.


Yup, we are talking about Theravada alone. From the OP:

I don't know much about Zen Buddhism, but Theravada Buddhism requires a belief in the supernatural in much the same way that Christianity requires a belief in the supernatural -- that is, one could presumably say, "I follow the teachings of Christ because they lead to good results for me and others, but I reject the idea that Jesus had a divine nature or rose from the dead," but that's a personal "take" on Christianity that doesn't comport with the wide understanding or practice. So in the ordinary sense of the word "require," it's fair to say that Christianity requires belief in the supernatural.

By the same standard, Theravada Buddhism does as well.

In determining what Theravada Buddhism is "about", I have no hesitation in referencing the Bhante Nagasena dialogue. While it is true that arhats are not considered all identical, this is as foundational a text as anything in the Pali suttas.

[Zeriel]

I can't say this thread surprises me in the slightest. In a lot of ways I want to compare Buddhism and its variants to Secular/Cultural Judaism--it is secular, it is not secular, depending on your point of view and your needs.

There is the Buddhism that is captured in the techniques (yoga, sitting meditation/zazen, tantric practices of varying kinds, etc.) that is eminently capable of being secular, or even joined to other religions--my introduction to zazen came from a Catholic friar who used it in the course of HIS monastic life.

There is the Buddhism that is captured in the concepts of karma, cycles, dukkha and the reduction thereof, and the Eightfold Way, which is easily seen as either secular or supernatural, much of it dependent on what one views as the "enforcer" of karma.

There is the Buddhism that is captured in the idea of a wheel of reincarnation, and nirvana, and the returning bodhisattvas who sacrifice their own freedom to remain and teach to all. These things are either complete metaphor or supernatural in some sense.

None of these things are the true Buddhism.

[CarnalK]

None of these things are the true Buddhism.
Don't keep us in suspense, dude!

[Zeriel]

Don't keep us in suspense, dude!

Heh, I'm a Zen Buddhist. None of theme is false Buddhism either. :D

[Malthus]

I can't say this thread surprises me in the slightest. In a lot of ways I want to compare Buddhism and its variants to Secular/Cultural Judaism--it is secular, it is not secular, depending on your point of view and your needs.

There is the Buddhism that is captured in the techniques (yoga, sitting meditation/zazen, tantric practices of varying kinds, etc.) that is eminently capable of being secular, or even joined to other religions--my introduction to zazen came from a Catholic friar who used it in the course of HIS monastic life.

There is the Buddhism that is captured in the concepts of karma, cycles, dukkha and the reduction thereof, and the Eightfold Way, which is easily seen as either secular or supernatural, much of it dependent on what one views as the "enforcer" of karma.

There is the Buddhism that is captured in the idea of a wheel of reincarnation, and nirvana, and the returning bodhisattvas who sacrifice their own freedom to remain and teach to all. These things are either complete metaphor or supernatural in some sense.

None of these things are the true Buddhism.

It's an interesting paralell. There are plenty of secular Jews who state that being Jewish is a matter of culture and ethnicity and not religion, and so no belief in the supernatural (in this case, the Jewish god) is necessary to be Jewish ... but there are none who would deny that Judaism was originally theistic.

To my mind, that's sort of the similar to the issue here: when discussing Theravada Buddhism, was it originally a philosophy/belief that embraced the supernatural as part of its essential make-up? Is it one today?

There is no denying that "Buddhism" per se went on to develop sects that differed considerably from the original - some of which being clearly supernatural and even theistic, others of which being more focused on developing an intuitive approach to life and not at all reliant on the supernatural. Buddhists, like Jews, lack any central authority to lay down the laws as to what constitutes "real" Buddhism or not. However, when discussing something like Theravada Buddhism, the content is not infinitely expansive.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Therevada never relied on any literal beliefs in the supernatural. That's incorrect. Some supernatural ideas were sort of taken for granted, but they were incidental to Buddhist practice, not inherent to it or necessary to it.

[nowheat]

I note that the title of the thread is : "Does Buddhism require a belief in the supernatural?" (not "Does Theravada Buddhism...") and it begins:

I don't know much about Zen Buddhism, but Theravada Buddhism...


Since the first reference was to Zen, I assumed this was an invitation to those who are familiar with Zen to chime in with views the OP'er was not as familiar with.

So would you please clarify, Bricker? Was your intent to cover Buddhism in general? Or just Theravada?

Thanks...

[Zeriel]

To my mind, that's sort of the similar to the issue here: when discussing Theravada Buddhism, was it originally a philosophy/belief that embraced the supernatural as part of its essential make-up? Is it one today?

I don't think it's an answerable question, given the difficulty of assigning motives to historical figures, whether original Buddhism required belief in the supernatural phenomena mentioned or whether it was expected that those supernatural phenomena would be understood as metaphors for currently extant things.

Certainly it's true that Zen from the earliest elected to treat discussions of gods, bodhisattvas, the net of Indra, and all the assorted whatnot that goes with them as strictly metaphorical and at best tools to help visualize important concepts.

[nowheat]

Thanks for the reference, CarnalK. Interesting that there is a Theravada school of Secular Buddhism.

...and in one of the footnotes he remarks "Indeed it is doubtful whether anyone who is not an Ariyapuggala can be a teacher of the Dhamma." which got me thinking, how exactly do secular Buddhists relate to those designations*? ISTM, that terms like "once returner" and "non returner" are a little hard to map onto a view that karma and nivana being concerned with only this life we are currently living. I guess you could just choose to regard them as as archaic titles for a meditation-mental accomplishment checklist.


Hanging out, as I do, with the Secular Buddhist community (though I consider myself to be a religious Buddhist, not strictly secular) I'd venture to say that the Buddha's example has Ananda having his own group of disciples, and as we "know" (in the "having read widely in the Pali Canon sense of 'know'") Ananda was not an arahant. Going by the Buddha's example, one who teaches the dhamma does not need to be fully enlightened.

Further, the Buddha in his last days did suggest that each of us must ultimately rely on our own selves, did he not?

What I find in Secular Buddhism is a bunch of people who encourage others to take up the practice, and to study broadly, but mostly to practice, practice, practice.

As for limiting one's pool of teachers to fully enlightened arahants... how many of those are there in the world today? Anyone know where I can find a list?

[nowheat]

...which got me thinking, how exactly do secular Buddhists relate to those designations*? ISTM, that terms like "once returner" and "non returner" are a little hard to map onto a view that karma and nivana being concerned with only this life we are currently living. I guess you could just choose to regard them as as archaic titles for a meditation-mental accomplishment checklist.


I don't find the terms "once returner" and "non returner" hard to map without rebirth. I see that the Buddha was using the metaphor of rebirth as a framework to convey something that the limits of language and conventions in his day prevented him from saying in any other useful way. My current understanding of what he's saying with his returns is about how stable our practice of the path is (not simply meditation): How much have we seen and understood and to what degree are we able to put it into practice in the world? Achieving meditative states may well be a part of reaching those insights, but certainly simply achieving higher mind-states isn't what's critical (or he'd have stayed with his original pre-enlightenment teachers). Bottom line for the Buddha is always about how successfully our intentions have changed the kind of behavior that affects others.

I would not even try to *precisely* map the Buddha's vision of the accomplishments of various levels and returner-ness into modern practice because, firstly, the system's descriptions are too archaic and would require a really sound understanding of what the perception of the states used as metaphors for levels of practice meant in the day and, secondly, all it really achieves is to foster an obsessive interest in gamesmanship that's not going to do much to reduce dukkha because it only strengthens that "I am"... "I am a level three teacher of the dhamma!"

A much more useful standard for judging how good a teacher is, is given by the Buddha in MN 47, which in essence tells us to examine their behavior. After that we can go with the Buddha's descriptions of how to tell who is wise (as given to King Pasenadi) and that does take time.

[CarnalK]

Hanging out, as I do, with the Secular Buddhist community (though I consider myself to be a religious Buddhist, not strictly secular) I'd venture to say that the Buddha's example has Ananda having his own group of disciples, and as we "know" (in the "having read widely in the Pali Canon sense of 'know'") Ananda was not an arahant. Going by the Buddha's example, one who teaches the dhamma does not need to be fully enlightened.
But if I'm not mistaken "arahant" is the highest level of noble, "Ariyapuggala" refers to any of the top 4.

Further, the Buddha in his last days did suggest that each of us must ultimately rely on our own selves, did he not?

What I find in Secular Buddhism is a bunch of people who encourage others to take up the practice, and to study broadly, but mostly to practice, practice, practice.

As for limiting one's pool of teachers to fully enlightened arahants... how many of those are there in the world today? Anyone know where I can find a list?
But the Buddha went around teaching because people are unlikely to stumble upon the proper meditation technique and I don't think it's out of line to say some novice isn't the one to be passing on the teaching.

Therevada never relied on any literal beliefs in the supernatural. That's incorrect. Some supernatural ideas were sort of taken for granted, but they were incidental to Buddhist practice, not inherent to it or necessary to it.
Except, of course, that the stated purpose of relieving suffering was to stop the cycle of rebirths.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

No, that is not the stated purpose. The purpose is the cessation of dukkha.

[CarnalK]

Suffering=dukkha. The stated purpose of cessation of dukkha is to stop the cycle of rebirths.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

No, the cessation of dukkha is the goal in itself.

[CarnalK]

No, that would be pointless. There's a reason why the title of the Noble persons includes how many times they are going to return. While Buddha says "Don't worry about it", because that worry will only get in your way, he was helping people not come back "in the womb of an animal" etc.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

No, that would be pointless.
No, cessation of dukkha IS the point. That is stated in the 4 Noble truths.

[CarnalK]

No, cessation of dukkha IS the point. That is stated in the 4 Noble truths.
OK. So why do you think there are "no returner"s and "once returners" as levels of achievement in the practice?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Those are esoteric metaphors for certain meditative plateaus.

[CarnalK]

Do you really think that Buddha thought that?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

The Buddha didn't talk about that stuff. The Truths and the Path don't mention it.

[CarnalK]

The Buddha didn't talk about that stuff. The Truths and the Path don't mention it.

So you ignore or don't take as authentic anything other than the 4+8? I guess we can drop it there then.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Well that and the fact that the Buddha explicitly said it didn't matter whether you believed in rebirth or not.

Buddhism is the 4 and the 8, though. Everything else is commentary.

[Zeriel]

So you ignore or don't take as authentic anything other than the 4+8? I guess we can drop it there then.

I don't think you can say with certainty that anything but the 4+8 was intended to be taken literally as opposed to metaphorically. As has been said, there are historical sects of Buddhism that did the latter and have been doing so for hundreds of years.

[CarnalK]

I don't think you can say with certainty that anything but the 4+8 was intended to be taken literally as opposed to metaphorically. As has been said, there are historical sects of Buddhism that did the latter and have been doing so for hundreds of years.

Well, if we only take those specific passages, there is nothing to let us know that Buddha was advocating a sitting concentration/awareness meditation method rather something merely contemplative. Nor what his specific method might entail.

[Zeriel]

Well, if we only take those specific passages, there is nothing to let us know that Buddha was advocating a sitting concentration/awareness meditation method rather something merely contemplative. Nor what his specific method might entail.

I concur.

[CarnalK]

I concur.

OK, so why in your mind is the 4+8 exempt from this? Why the certainty there?

eta: to that, though I'm not remotely enough of a scholar to delve too deeply, according to wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Noble_Truths)
"Going further, some versions of the Dharmacakra Pravartana Sutra contain definitions of the Four Noble Truths while others do not."

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Well, if we only take those specific passages, there is nothing to let us know that Buddha was advocating a sitting concentration/awareness meditation method rather something merely contemplative. Nor what his specific method might entail.
That's correct. Mindfulness is what matters, not technique.

[CarnalK]

That's correct. Mindfulness is what matters, not technique.

One eighth of what matters, anyways.

Seriously, this is akin to saying "All we know for sure is that Jesus said 'Blessed are the meek'". Yeah, why is that again?

[Zeriel]

One eighth of what matters, anyways.

Seriously, this is akin to saying "All we know for sure is that Jesus said 'Blessed are the meek'". Yeah, why is that again?

Not commenting specifically on Dio's take, the more general question would be analogous to whether Jesus meant "No man comes to the father but through me" or "Take and eat; This is my body" as a metaphor or literally, and if literally just what the heck those words actually mean.

[nowheat]

But if I'm not mistaken "arahant" is the highest level of noble, "Ariyapuggala" refers to any of the top 4.


Thanks for the correction. That would be, what, any level above stream-entry then? PED online just has it as "(m.) one who has attained higher wisdom."


But the Buddha went around teaching because people are unlikely to stumble upon the proper meditation technique and I don't think it's out of line to say some novice isn't the one to be passing on the teaching.

So then you would have no one say a word about Buddhism (teach, in any form) unless they are at whatever you're defining as Ariyapuggala? That would slow the reduction of dukkha in the world considerably, I think. Where would you draw the line in what those learning about Buddhism can tell others?


Except, of course, that the stated purpose of relieving suffering was to stop the cycle of rebirths.
Except, of course, the stated purposes of the whole path is to end suffering, and any stopping of continued existence is going to be incidental to that/part of the process (rather than its end product). Or perhaps you can quote a sutta in which the Buddha says that relieving suffering is for the purpose of stopping *re*birth? I'd be glad to read such a sutta.

He does talk about ending aging and death, but just as when he talks about how stopping "contact" doesn't mean that nirvana involves climbing into a sensory deprivation tank -- he's talking about a very specific definition of contact, he's talking about a particular way we approach contact -- he doesn't mean literal aging and death either, but how we approach aging and death. All the descriptions of what needs to come to an end to end suffering are descriptions of things we do "voluntarily" (although often unknowingly -- every bit beyond ignorance is sankhara) -- things we do that it is not necessary for us to do or take part in. When he says ending ignorance breaks the cycle, that's an ignorance we don't need (obviously); and when he says ending consciousness breaks the cycle, it's a particular consciousness that's voluntary and unnecessary -- not all consciousness; same for every step in the process in Dependent Origination, up to and including "aging and death" which, in its literal form, is not something we created -- we don't create aging, for example. Aging is not something that is optional in our lives, that we can just stop -- though our attitude toward it is something we apply voluntarily, and can stop.

[Bricker]

I note that the title of the thread is : "Does Buddhism require a belief in the supernatural?" (not "Does Theravada Buddhism...") and it begins:



Since the first reference was to Zen, I assumed this was an invitation to those who are familiar with Zen to chime in with views the OP'er was not as familiar with.

So would you please clarify, Bricker? Was your intent to cover Buddhism in general? Or just Theravada?

Thanks...

My intent was to offer the proposition that Theravada Buddhism meaningfully requires a belief in the supernatural, although acknolwedging the possibility that one might craft a system of following Theravada disciplines without admitting that notion, in the same way one might follow the teachings of Christ without admitting His divinity.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

The answer is no. Theravada does not meaningfully require a belief in the supernatural, and non-supernatural practice is not analogous to non-Trinitarian (or even non-supernatural) Christianity. Belief in the supernatural is irrelevant to all forms of Theravada.

[CarnalK]

Not commenting specifically on Dio's take, the more general question would be analogous to whether Jesus meant "No man comes to the father but through me" or "Take and eat; This is my body" as a metaphor or literally, and if literally just what the heck those words actually mean.

Well, there really is two questions: what do you accept as being straight(as possible) from the Buddha and which lessons are related through metaphor. Personally, since similes are used so heavily throughout Buddhist writing, I don't see why they'd couch so much of the rest in metaphor. Diogenes was specifically saying "We only know he related the 4+8", which seems arbitrary to me.

BTW, Diogenes, in the intro to the Four Noble Truths the Buddha describes his method:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn56/sn56.011.than.html
Avoiding both of these extremes, the middle way realized by the Tathagata — producing vision, producing knowledge — leads to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding.
Note that he doesn't say it "leads to the cessation of dhukka". IMHO, you are simply wrong that it is the end goal and bizarre to me that you would disregard a line like that that comes the paragraph before the "important" part.

So then you would have no one say a word about Buddhism (teach, in any form) unless they are at whatever you're defining as Ariyapuggala? That would slow the reduction of dukkha in the world considerably, I think.
Are we in some kind of a rush? ;) When choosing a teacher my suggestion would be to look over the different school and if you find one you trust, then trust them to point to a qualified teacher, through their own merit system. I'm sure that's not the only way, but as I said, that's what I would suggest. ISTM, I recall reading that there is a tradition in many Korean sanghas to have more of a fraternal approach to learning rather than top down. That might interest you - though I can't find the specific post that made me think that.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Diogenes was specifically saying "We only know he related the 4+8", which seems arbitrary to me.
I didn't say that's all he related, I said that's all that matters to Buddhism. The 4+8 is Buddhism. The rest is commentary.
BTW, Diogenes, in the intro to the Four Noble Truths the Buddha describes his method:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn56/sn56.011.than.html

Note that he doesn't say it "leads to the cessation of dhukka".
"Awakening" IS the cessation of dukkha. They are the same thing. The First Noble Truth is "Life is dukkha." The Eightfold Path is a method to escape dukkha. Literal notions of samsara have fuck all to do with it.

[CarnalK]

I didn't say that's all he related, I said that's all that matters to Buddhism. The 4+8 is Buddhism. The rest is commentary.

"Awakening" IS the cessation of dukkha. They are the same thing. The First Noble Truth is "Life is dukkha." The Eightfold Path is a method to escape dukkha. Literal notions of samsara have fuck all to do with it.
Well, it always seemed to me that the Awakening was a result. Once you cease grasping you are then awakened, you then having perfect insight, you then are unbound from the cycle of suffering. Cessation of suffering is the act of putting on a pair of glasses, metaphorically speaking. ;) Maybe this is merely semantics, but I don't think so.

[Measure for Measure]

CarnalK and Malthus: I had planned to backtrack a little today, in order to distinguish between Theravada Buddhism as traditionally practiced (definitely contains supernatural elements) and requirements of Theravada Buddhism. But I see you did a lot of the work for me. CarnalK makes a reasonable point about some of the challenges that secular Buddhists face. I might note though that Theravada is a convenient place to situate a secular Buddhist practice, as it has less supernatural trappings than that which immediately succeeded it. Zen is another option (see later). I prefer to reference Dr. V. A. Gunasekara's own works on the subject... (Parenthetically, one of my links was to one of Gunasekara's papers). The author goes on to note that you can get some good out Buddhism even if one doesn't believe in the cycle, because one can see the cycle in one's own life, and so even the "extreme rationalist" (his words) may get some good out of Buddhism.

But clearly, he's of the opinion that the Samsaric cycle of karma and rebirth is a tenet of Buddhism (and he clearly believes it is true. In speaking of past lives: "While many such reports may be mistaken or even fraudulent, some are undoubtedly genuine"). I perceive from my limited readings that this a very common view.
-------------

There is a fair amount of discussion in the Western Buddhist community about whether one should believe in rebirth (as conceived by the Buddha). But I frankly don't see any Buddhists arguing that it should be a requirement of the faith. The only people who argue that aren't Buddhists themselves. Let's start with Zen: with apologies to Malthus I'm going to present a hearsay report: Once I saw a group of Zen newbies ask the late John Daido Loori, Roshi, a question about reincarnation, which they were imagining as souls reborn in new bodies. "There is no such thing as reincarnation," he said, flatly. But at another retreat -- a formal sesshin attended only by Zen students -- he said, "There is reincarnation, but it isn't what you think it is." http://buddhism.about.com/od/beginnerbuddhistbooks/a/batchelor-confession_4.htm I could provide a secular take of what reincarnation really is at this point. But as Malthus pointed out, that's really a distortion of the original texts. (All that said, I of course can't say for certain what this possibly apocryphal zen master was getting at.)

My second example comes from a 1997 roundtable with Stephen Batchelor the agnostic (now atheist) Buddhist and Robert Thurman. Both are Buddhist scholars; both "...are longtime Buddhist practitioners and former monks in the Gelugpa order of Tibetan Buddhism." They debated about whether a Buddhist should believe in rebirth (Batchelor said "Not necessarily"; Thurman took the traditional affirmative position.) But Thurman noted twice that, "Anyone has the right to be a Buddhist, no matter what they believe." He didn't see it as a requirement: and indeed I frankly couldn't find any serious case for that on the internet, other than here of course. (To be complete, I'll provide Thurman's followup sentence: "Still, I would maintain that in order to make the kind of evolutionary progress that the Buddha wanted people to make, you would have to be responsible for the sequence of former and future lives.") http://www.tricycle.com/feature/3857-1.html

I don't see any evidence that Stephen Batchelor is treated with suspicion or that anyone knowledgeable accuses him of not being a real Buddhist. This is unsurprising: a tradition where monks of vastly different approaches (Mahayana vs. Theravada) share the same physical temples simply isn't going to get upset about something like this. As they say, "Many paths, one mountain." There are practices that Gunasekara believed were seriously at odds with the Theravada tradition. A secular take on reincarnation wasn't one of them.

[Measure for Measure]

(Parenthetically, one of my links was to one of Gunasekara's papers). ...and another link was what I later realized was probably a domain squatter, or so I suspect. :smack:

[CarnalK]

Except, of course, the stated purposes of the whole path is to end suffering, and any stopping of continued existence is going to be incidental to that/part of the process (rather than its end product). Or perhaps you can quote a sutta in which the Buddha says that relieving suffering is for the purpose of stopping *re*birth? I'd be glad to read such a sutta.

I'm sorry, I should have included you when I posted above:
Avoiding both of these extremes, the middle way realized by the Tathagata — producing vision, producing knowledge — leads to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding.
It seems obvious to me that vision, knowledge, calm, self-awakening and Unbinding are the actual fruits of the 8fold path and cessation of suffering. I have seen "unbinding" being defined as an unbinding from suffering but the Maha-parinibbana Sutta: The Great Discourse on the Total Unbinding (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.16.5-6.than.html) makes it clear that the Unbinding is coming with the Buddha's death. Since we all die without training, from a totally secular world view it would seem like a lot of effort just to die peacefully. From that sutta:
Then the Blessed One addressed the monks, "Now, then, monks, I exhort you: All fabrications are subject to decay. Bring about completion by being heedful." Those were the Tathagata's last words.

Then the Blessed One entered the first jhana. Emerging from that he entered the second jhana. Emerging from that, he entered the third... the fourth jhana... the dimension of the infinitude of space... the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness... the dimension of nothingness... the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception. Emerging from that, he entered the cessation of perception & feeling.

<snip>

Then the Blessed One, emerging from the cessation of perception & feeling, entered the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception. Emerging from that, he entered the dimension of nothingness... the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness... the dimension of the infinitude of space... the fourth jhana... the third... the second... the first jhana. Emerging from the first jhana he entered the second... the third... the fourth jhana. Emerging from the fourth jhana, he immediately was totally Unbound.

eta: though I still accept that one could take all this as mere metaphorical commentary, but I can't really believe that was the original intent.

[heatmiserfl]

Again, the question was whether the supernatural is required to practice Buddhism or to call oneself a Buddhist. Picking out texts in the Pali Canon is not a good way to make that case because one could pick out as many texts that show that the Buddha didn't want to focus on issues like rebirth. Only people who are actively practicing and listening to teachers, going to sanghas, etc. will get a feel for the priorities in Buddhism.

I agree with Dio, Measure for Measure and Zeriel on this. Any Westerner who has extensively practiced Buddhism (which, BTW, also involves intensive study) knows that the 4 Noble Truths are absolutely what is stressed and what is common. Everyone agrees that there is an 8 fold path but try to get someone to narrow down what each of those mean. There will be arguments. However, there's never arguments about the 4 Noble Truths. Every teacher from different sects, either secular or not, describes dukka, attachment and kleshas in the same way, AFAIK.

This is important for Westerners. Many Westerners who have an interest in Buddhism have discarded their own religions because of problems with inconsistencies and a loss in belief in the supernatural. That's why there are many Buddhist sects in the West that are secular. Few skeptics are going to simply pick up a new set of supernatural beliefs. Only the people who become unhappy with Christianity do to some disgruntlement will be willing to accept a new set of superstition. Even those people have a hard time with any concept of rebirth because it has not been shoved into their psyche from an early age like concepts such as Heaven and Hell was. I think that's why some people are having a hard time with rebirth in this thread. They are expecting a linear and chronological progression of a cycle and they are insisting on taking things literally even though the passages in this very thread can be metaphorical particularly when read in context and when trying to take home a message. When you pick out a paragraph or two in a passage, you miss the take home message.

The only thing that may have some supernatural elements is Nirvana. Nirvana is the point of Buddhism. However, as Dio points out, the key aspect of Nirvana is a cessation of suffering. This is explicitly stated in the 3rd Noble Truth. Nirvana in Buddhism is also an awakened or enlightened state. This does NOT necessarily mean that you know quantum mechanics. You are awakened to the facts of the impermanence and emptiness of life. That is not supernatural. Fundamentalist Buddhists think that the Buddha became omniscientt when he was awakened. Obviously this was not true or you'd have read about him suddenly knowing things from the present.

While Nirvana is a state of enlightenment and cessation of suffering, it is also a release from samsara. This is where secular Buddhists break from Buddhist fundamentalists. For fundamentalists this is the end of their birth-sickness-aging-death cycles. For secularists samsara can be the constant cycle of suffering in this life due to delusions, cravings, aversions and the dissatisfaction they cause. So Nirvana is simply being enlightened on the true nature of existence (impermanent and empty). So they can see birth-sickness-aging-death as transient conditions of transient but not really separate beings. You can tell yourself that this is true right now. You know it rationally. But you'll still act as though everything is permanent if you don't train yourself to know it intuitively. You do this by practice and actually remodeling certain parts of your brain by consciously following the 8 fold path. There are studies that show that people can make permanent or at least semi-permanent changes in their brains if they consciously change their behavior and use practices to remind them of the behavior changes.

Why isn't there a bunch of people in Nirvana. Because, unlike other religions, Buddhism is NOT simply a set of beliefs. It is difficult, difficult practice. Just like losing weight or quitting drugs.

[CarnalK]

Yes, well, that question was pretty quickly answered I thought. There are secular groups/sanghas widely and academically considered Buddhist. So logically, belief in the supernatural is not required to be defined as Buddhist. There are other groups where the supernatural is integral to the goals/belief structure, so you can't be a secular Buddhist in those traditions. I thought the conversation had moved on to what kind of interpretations of the Canon were required to arrive at either of those positions.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

You can be secular in any Buddhist tradition. There are no schools where supernatural beliefs are required. Buddhism doesn't work that way. It's not a credal religion. It doesn't matter what you believe. It's all just practice, and the practice is all cognitive.

[CarnalK]

OK, just for Diogenes, I'll recant. No school is going to physically throw you out if you don't believe in the supernatural. But if you didn't, I feel certain that a Pure Land monk would suggest you try another school. IMHO, not following that suggestion would require you being an idiot.

[Malthus]

Again, the question was whether the supernatural is required to practice Buddhism or to call oneself a Buddhist. Picking out texts in the Pali Canon is not a good way to make that case because one could pick out as many texts that show that the Buddha didn't want to focus on issues like rebirth. Only people who are actively practicing and listening to teachers, going to sanghas, etc. will get a feel for the priorities in Buddhism.

It isn't a case of "picking out texts in the Pali Canon", but of reading it as a whole. Doing so, it is obvious that the supernatural (the cycle of rebirth) played an important role in the philosophy. This is reinforced by centuries of religious practice.

Naturally, Western branches of Buddhism de-emphasize this, and for the very good reasons you discuss: it isn't as attractive to Westerners.

I agree with Dio, Measure for Measure and Zeriel on this. Any Westerner who has extensively practiced Buddhism (which, BTW, also involves intensive study) knows that the 4 Noble Truths are absolutely what is stressed and what is common. Everyone agrees that there is an 8 fold path but try to get someone to narrow down what each of those mean. There will be arguments. However, there's never arguments about the 4 Noble Truths. Every teacher from different sects, either secular or not, describes dukka, attachment and kleshas in the same way, AFAIK.

This is important for Westerners. Many Westerners who have an interest in Buddhism have discarded their own religions because of problems with inconsistencies and a loss in belief in the supernatural. That's why there are many Buddhist sects in the West that are secular. Few skeptics are going to simply pick up a new set of supernatural beliefs. Only the people who become unhappy with Christianity do to some disgruntlement will be willing to accept a new set of superstition. Even those people have a hard time with any concept of rebirth because it has not been shoved into their psyche from an early age like concepts such as Heaven and Hell was. I think that's why some people are having a hard time with rebirth in this thread. They are expecting a linear and chronological progression of a cycle and they are insisting on taking things literally even though the passages in this very thread can be metaphorical particularly when read in context and when trying to take home a message. When you pick out a paragraph or two in a passage, you miss the take home message.

I myself don't have a hard time with it. I'm simply viewing the matter more as an amateur interested in history and comparative religions and philosophies, than a practitioner of the faith/philosophy.

Naturally, the texts can be read metaphorically, and interpreted in such a manner as to exclude reference to the irrational or supernatural. But this can be done, and has been done, in many faiths/philosophies. Even as hard-core theists as found in Islam have their rationalist sects, approaching naturalism either through reason (the Mu'tazilites) or through mysticism (some Sufi sects).

The Mu'tazilites are an interesting example of this phenominon - from first principles (that Allah created reason, and so to know God one must use reason) they create the tools that would lead, inevitably, to discarding of supersition (including, in the end, Allah) - this is exactly what their opponents claimed, and the charge had a certain amount of sting (in the Muslim world, it was not good to be called an atheist).

Similarly, from the mystic side, some Sufis posed a mystic and intuitive direct merging with the godhead that clearly drifted in the direction of pantheism of the Spinoza variety, and by way of that, atheism (if everything is "God", that is functionally similar to nothing being "god").

There is, however, nothing inevitable about this process - within Islam, the Mu'tazilites failed to gain traction, and pantheist Sufis are far outnumbered by clearly-theist Sufis. Similarly, in the Buddhist world, rationalist interpreations of Buddhism are the minority - except, of course, among Western practitioners.

One can imagine a world in which the Mu'tazilites had caught on, their philosophy taken to its logical ends, and gained recognition; or, more likely, where Sufi'ism became popular in the West (and to a certain extent, that has actually happened). If so, one could well end up arguing with Western Sufis that belief in the supernatural isn't necessary to Islam ...

The only thing that may have some supernatural elements is Nirvana. Nirvana is the point of Buddhism. However, as Dio points out, the key aspect of Nirvana is a cessation of suffering. This is explicitly stated in the 3rd Noble Truth. Nirvana in Buddhism is also an awakened or enlightened state. This does NOT necessarily mean that you know quantum mechanics. You are awakened to the facts of the impermanence and emptiness of life. That is not supernatural. Fundamentalist Buddhists think that the Buddha became omniscientt when he was awakened. Obviously this was not true or you'd have read about him suddenly knowing things from the present.

While Nirvana is a state of enlightenment and cessation of suffering, it is also a release from samsara. This is where secular Buddhists break from Buddhist fundamentalists. For fundamentalists this is the end of their birth-sickness-aging-death cycles. For secularists samsara can be the constant cycle of suffering in this life due to delusions, cravings, aversions and the dissatisfaction they cause. So Nirvana is simply being enlightened on the true nature of existence (impermanent and empty). So they can see birth-sickness-aging-death as transient conditions of transient but not really separate beings. You can tell yourself that this is true right now. You know it rationally. But you'll still act as though everything is permanent if you don't train yourself to know it intuitively. You do this by practice and actually remodeling certain parts of your brain by consciously following the 8 fold path. There are studies that show that people can make permanent or at least semi-permanent changes in their brains if they consciously change their behavior and use practices to remind them of the behavior changes.

Why isn't there a bunch of people in Nirvana. Because, unlike other religions, Buddhism is NOT simply a set of beliefs. It is difficult, difficult practice. Just like losing weight or quitting drugs.

I have no argument with the fact that many Western Buddhists have a fully secular and rationalistic understanding of Buddhism, or that this understanding is totally legitimate.

I'm merely pointing out that this is a development, a re-interpretation, of what for want of better terms could be called the 'original' version of Theravada, derived from reading the Pali suttas as a whole. It is no more and no less legitimate than the varieties of Mahayana that essentially worship Buddhas as gods and Bodisattvas as saints, and hope to be reborn into paradise ... with this difference: I myself am of the opinion that all religious traditions can converge on common points of reason and intuitive knowledge - and the Western, rationalistic version of Buddhism you describe is closer to what I happen to think is the essential nature of reality, than the "Pure Land" variety is.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

It's not a development or a re-interprtation. The first Buddhist to say that supernatural beliefs were irrelevant was the Buddha himself.

[Zeriel]

It's not a development or a re-interprtation. The first Buddhist to say that supernatural beliefs were irrelevant was the Buddha himself.

Which is ultimately the source of most of the confusion.

It's easy to read the Buddha's teachings as describing supernatural phenomena in places--and contrasting with that is the teaching that says all of that is superstructure, and all that is necessary and sufficient is in the Four Noble Truths and in mindfulness.

Again with the Christian analogies--it's both valid to hang onto the multitudes of Leviticus-based law and rules, and to quote Matthew 22:34-40*. While the Matthew passage argues that the founder's view was that the additional superstructure was not strictly necessary compared to his succinct statement, the existence of the remainder of the books lends a view that A) there was a benefit to describing more for those who wanted or needed it, in the view of the founder and B) the initial followers and those who compiled the important writings of the founder thought those statements and superstructure to be useful/necessary.

One CAN argue that the founder's opinions on what is the minimum necessary are not necessarily equivalent to what the religion that grew from that founder's teachings sees as necessary.

*34 Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. 35 One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: 36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

[Malthus]

Heh. Seems Christianity doesn't 'require' belief in the supernatural, either. ;)

Though I suppose one could well argue that the Buddha was Buddhist more than Christ was Christian.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Christianity has a creed, Buddhism does not.

[Zeriel]

Christianity has a creed, Buddhism does not.

Weren't you arguing that Buddhism was succinctly defined by the 4+8? What are the Four Noble Truths and the Noble Eightfold Path if not a creed (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/creed)--specifically definition 2?

The 4+8 is Buddhism.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

I guess we can argue about whether that's a creed. It's a premise, of sorts, I guess. My point was that being a Buddhist isn't defined by what you believe, but what you do. If you believe the 4+8 but never practice, you aren't a Buddhist, and you can practice without believing it.

[Zeriel]

I guess we can argue about whether that's a creed. It's a premise, of sorts, I guess. My point was that being a Buddhist isn't defined by what you believe, but what you do.

I don't know that I'd necessarily agree with that statement. For one thing, it carries the implication that the practice exists in a vacuum with no purpose or direction, when that's pretty clearly not true. For example, I learned about zazen and other sitting meditation techniques for mindfulness from a Christian friar, who understood the goal of mindfulness to be "closeness to God"--is that Franciscan actually a Buddhist or Buddhist Christian?
For another similar thing, practicing mindfulness with no endpoint in mind being called Buddhism makes as little sense to me as the idea that people who do yoga are in some sense Hindu.

We can call them "Buddhist meditation techniques" in the sense that as far as I know, they were historically pioneered by the Buddhists, but I don't think they represent the sum total.

If you believe the 4+8 but never practice, you aren't a Buddhist

Certainly true, but as one of the roshi I worked with would quote, "Study and practice are not two."

I don't know if I'm even advocating for "belief" so much as "goal" as the other necessary component of Buddhism besides practice (which is, as you say, necessary--I don't think it's sufficient). I'm frankly undecided on it for myself.

[nowheat]

I'm sorry, I should have included you when I posted above:

It seems obvious to me that vision, knowledge, calm, self-awakening and Unbinding are the actual fruits of the 8fold path and cessation of suffering. I have seen "unbinding" being defined as an unbinding from suffering but the Maha-parinibbana Sutta: The Great Discourse on the Total Unbinding (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.16.5-6.than.html) makes it clear that the Unbinding is coming with the Buddha's death. Since we all die without training, from a totally secular world view it would seem like a lot of effort just to die peacefully. From that sutta:


eta: though I still accept that one could take all this as mere metaphorical commentary, but I can't really believe that was the original intent.

The word translated as "unbinding" in SN 56.11 which you quoted above is "nibbana" (and the "total unbinding" is "parinibbana") and "nibbana" is traditionally translated as "liberation" rather than "unbinding" and the question then just goes back to "liberation from what" -- unbinding from what? You say potaytoh (rebirth) and I say potahtoh (dukkha) so that doesn't get us anywhere.

A more useful question -- the one I see you asking -- is "why bother with liberating oneself from suffering if you're just going to die anyway?" Is that what you were saying about "without training... effort just to die peacefully"?

[nowheat]

Emerging from the fourth jhana, he immediately was totally Unbound.

I hadn't noticed that the snippet you quoted wasn't included in my quote so I failed to make the comment I'd wanted to about "liberated" and "completely liberated" (nibbana, parinibbana). If the Buddha upon his enlightenment was liberated from rebirth, how could he be *even more* liberated from rebirth when he died? I can see that liberation from suffering during his lifetime could mean liberation from the suffering we cause ourselves, and "completely liberated" would mean "and from the aches and pains too". But I don't see being liberated from rebirth having an X and an X+.

[Measure for Measure]

To Review:
Should a Buddhist believe that we have past and future lives? Opinions differ, but most Asian Buddhist monks would say "Yes".
Must a Buddhist believe in reincarnation as defined by the Buddha? No, there's no such requirement, and I can't find anybody serious saying such a thing on the internet, outside of this site.

Well, we're doing pretty well as GD goes. But I'd like to drill a little deeper. I'm merely pointing out that this is a development, a re-interpretation, of what for want of better terms could be called the 'original' version of Theravada, derived from reading the Pali suttas as a whole. I think that needs to be recast. My take is that the Buddha accepted a sort of reincarnation, but didn't think issues of metaphysics were particularly important. We've gone through some of the scriptures (and you've properly elaborated upon them I think). Here's another thread of evidence.

Gods certainly aren't important. If they were, Buddhism wouldn't have accepted the local Gods of Tibet, China and Japan without comment. Contrast that to the drama that occurs whenever an Abrahamic religion encounters polytheism: often local practices are even depicted as a manifestation of Satan. Hey, I can't knock it: part of Christianity's success is grounded on its intolerance. Following Gibbon, Bertrand Russell discusses this: The first cause--the inflexibility and intolerance derived from the Jews--may be wholly accepted. We have seen in our own day the advantages of intolerance in propaganda. The Christians, for the most part, believed that they alone would go to heaven, and that the most awful punishments would, in the next world, fall upon the heathen. The other religions which competed for favour during the third century had not this threatening character. The worshippers of the Great Mother, for example, while they had a ceremony --the Taurobolium--which was analogous to baptism, did not teach that those who omitted it would go to hell.

Another way of thinking about a given doctrine is to apply the counterfactual: what happens to the belief system if the aspect in question is removed? Historians use this technique to evaluate the significance of one development or another. Well, apply ultra-skepticism to Buddhism, and quite a bit of philosophy remains: some of it even has a modern flavor. Zen practice is unscathed, as are other traditional meditative techniques AFAIK (I trust there are plentiful exceptions esp in Mahayana). But remove G-d from Christianity and there isn't much left (other than of course historical and sociological investigation). I can imagine a Christian sect that believes that Jesus was a great prophet, the Son of Man, but not the Son of God in a literal way. But it's much harder to strip away the Creator and hope for an afterlife, notwithstanding the efforts of this guy (http://www.atheists-for-jesus.com/about.php). His favored text, the Sermon of the Mount, is packed with supernatural assumption. That said, it's a big world: Bishop Spong (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Shelby_Spong), for example, wants to get away from theism.

It's sometimes claimed that all religions are just different methods of reaching the same thing. I don't think so: I think the core message of Buddhism is different than Christianity, even if all of post-agrarian humanity appears to share a similar underlying moral code.

[CarnalK]

The word translated as "unbinding" in SN 56.11 which you quoted above is "nibbana" (and the "total unbinding" is "parinibbana") and "nibbana" is traditionally translated as "liberation" rather than "unbinding" and the question then just goes back to "liberation from what" -- unbinding from what? You say potaytoh (rebirth) and I say potahtoh (dukkha) so that doesn't get us anywhere.

A more useful question -- the one I see you asking -- is "why bother with liberating oneself from suffering if you're just going to die anyway?" Is that what you were saying about "without training... effort just to die peacefully"?

No, I'm not actually asking that question - I was trying to relate that in a secular world view, death brings a cessation of suffering to everyone, training or no. The translation you are giving is right there in the duel title I posted, so I got that and am pretty sure it DOES say what I think it says: total liberation comes with death, if you are Enlightened. Liberation/Unbinding is one of the fruits of the Middle Way advertised by the Buddha and the fact that the "total" one doesn't come until death, clearly indicates to me that the text is talking about being unbound from suffering in a new reborn form.

That is, if we agree that this is not a metaphorical thing, but his actual death scene.

[nowheat]

No, I'm not actually asking that question - I was trying to relate that in a secular world view, death brings a cessation of suffering to everyone, training or no. The translation you are giving is right there in the duel title I posted, so I got that and am pretty sure it DOES say what I think it says: total liberation comes with death, if you are Enlightened. Liberation/Unbinding is one of the fruits of the Middle Way advertised by the Buddha and the fact that the "total" one doesn't come until death, clearly indicates to me that the text is talking about being unbound from suffering in a new reborn form.

That is, if we agree that this is not a metaphorical thing, but his actual death scene.

I have just been reminded (by Richard Gombrich, whose latest book I am rereading) that "parinibbana" is not used solely to refer to nibbana at death. I find it for example in DN 25 (p 393 of Walshe's translation)


Nigrodha, you are an intelligent man of mature years. Did it never occur to you to think: "The Blessed Lord is enlightened and teaches a doctrine of self-restraint... He has gone beyond [PTS iii 55] and teaches a doctrine of going beyond, he has gained Nibbana and teaches a doctrine for the gaining of Nibbana"?'

"...parinibbuto so bhagavā parinibbānāya dhammaṃ desetī’”ti?"



I would say the "death scene" is not a metaphor, but that doesn't preclude the use of metaphor in the sutta about the death scene.

What you are saying, then, about suffering ending for us all at death is part of an argument that would go something like: "Because in the suttas complete liberation only happens at death, this must mean that normally what happens beyond death is a Big Deal"? And therefore it is a requirement of (Theravada Buddhism) ((or)) (the potential for successful outcome in practice of Theravada Buddhism) ((pick one)) to believe in rebirth?

[Moon Meyers]

There is no presumption of a cycle in the formula. That is a misrepresentation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PratABtyasamutpda