# Does Buddhism require a belief in the supernatural? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 27, 2011, 1:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-buddhism-require-a-belief-in-the-supernatural/583427 "2011-05-27T13:59:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2011, 1:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-buddhism-require-a-belief-in-the-supernatural/583427/1 "2011-05-27T13:59:11Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2011, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-buddhism-require-a-belief-in-the-supernatural/583427/2 "2011-05-27T14:05:07Z")
From a previous discussion that inspired this thread: > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Rebirth and reincarnation are the same thing, by the way. [Quote=Bricker] 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? [/quote] And Diogenes’ response, in full: [Quote=Diogenes the Cynic] Yes they are. [/quote] ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2011, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-buddhism-require-a-belief-in-the-supernatural/583427/3 "2011-05-27T14:05:27Z")
> [@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. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2011, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-buddhism-require-a-belief-in-the-supernatural/583427/4 "2011-05-27T14:11:07Z")
> [@Meatros](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Sparky\_the\_Wonder\_Spirit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/848f3c/32.png) [@Sparky\_the\_Wonder\_Spirit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sparky_the_Wonder_Spirit)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2011, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-buddhism-require-a-belief-in-the-supernatural/583427/5 "2011-05-27T14:13:58Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2011, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-buddhism-require-a-belief-in-the-supernatural/583427/6 "2011-05-27T14:44:32Z")
> [@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. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2011, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-buddhism-require-a-belief-in-the-supernatural/583427/7 "2011-05-27T14:52:00Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2011, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-buddhism-require-a-belief-in-the-supernatural/583427/8 "2011-05-27T15:00:14Z")
> [@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. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2011, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-buddhism-require-a-belief-in-the-supernatural/583427/9 "2011-05-27T15:13:58Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![heatmiserfl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/df705f/32.png) [@heatmiserfl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/heatmiserfl)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2011, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-buddhism-require-a-belief-in-the-supernatural/583427/10 "2011-05-27T15:14:08Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![scule](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/4af34b/32.png) [@scule](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scule)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2011, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-buddhism-require-a-belief-in-the-supernatural/583427/11 "2011-05-27T15:14:29Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![heatmiserfl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/df705f/32.png) [@heatmiserfl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/heatmiserfl)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2011, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-buddhism-require-a-belief-in-the-supernatural/583427/12 "2011-05-27T15:17:32Z")
> [@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. There is no permanent soul in Buddhism. Even fundamentalist Buddhists (although they teeter on describing a soul many times). ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2011, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-buddhism-require-a-belief-in-the-supernatural/583427/13 "2011-05-27T15:18:33Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2011, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-buddhism-require-a-belief-in-the-supernatural/583427/14 "2011-05-27T15:24:07Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![scule](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/4af34b/32.png) [@scule](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scule)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2011, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-buddhism-require-a-belief-in-the-supernatural/583427/15 "2011-05-27T15:24:36Z")
> [@heatmiserfl](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2011, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-buddhism-require-a-belief-in-the-supernatural/583427/16 "2011-05-27T15:29:43Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![heatmiserfl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/df705f/32.png) [@heatmiserfl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/heatmiserfl)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2011, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-buddhism-require-a-belief-in-the-supernatural/583427/17 "2011-05-27T15:33:09Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 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). ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2011, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-buddhism-require-a-belief-in-the-supernatural/583427/18 "2011-05-27T16:04:54Z")
> [@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. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2011, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-buddhism-require-a-belief-in-the-supernatural/583427/19 "2011-05-27T16:21:24Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2011, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-buddhism-require-a-belief-in-the-supernatural/583427/20 "2011-05-27T16:21:39Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 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. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-buddhism-require-a-belief-in-the-supernatural/583427.md?page=2)