# 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:** 10
**Author:** ![Sandwich](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/22d042/32.png) [@Sandwich](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sandwich)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2011, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-buddhism-require-a-belief-in-the-supernatural/583427/181 "2011-05-31T16:45:28Z")
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. ---
**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 31, 2011, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-buddhism-require-a-belief-in-the-supernatural/583427/182 "2011-05-31T16:53:33Z")
> [@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! 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? ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2011, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-buddhism-require-a-belief-in-the-supernatural/583427/183 "2011-05-31T17:06:27Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > 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.” ---
**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 31, 2011, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-buddhism-require-a-belief-in-the-supernatural/583427/184 "2011-05-31T17:10:54Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2011, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-buddhism-require-a-belief-in-the-supernatural/583427/185 "2011-05-31T18:56:10Z")
> [@nowheat](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2011, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-buddhism-require-a-belief-in-the-supernatural/583427/186 "2011-05-31T19:12:12Z")
nvm ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2011, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-buddhism-require-a-belief-in-the-supernatural/583427/187 "2011-05-31T19:30:21Z")
> [@rat\_avatar](#): > > 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. > [@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! 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. ---
**Author:** ![heatmiserfl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/df705f/32.png) [@heatmiserfl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/heatmiserfl)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2011, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-buddhism-require-a-belief-in-the-supernatural/583427/188 "2011-05-31T20:39:51Z")
> [@Zeriel](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2011, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-buddhism-require-a-belief-in-the-supernatural/583427/189 "2011-05-31T20:53:34Z")
> [@heatmiserfl](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2011, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-buddhism-require-a-belief-in-the-supernatural/583427/190 "2011-06-01T01:49:44Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 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. > [@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 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. > [@Malthus](#): > > 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. > **[BENGKEL69 - Perbaikan Slot Pragmatic Play Menuju Kemenangan Fantastis](https://www.shopsimonlimon.com/about/)** > > BENGKEL69 adalah tempat servis slot Pragmatic Play yang dirancang untuk membantu pemain mendapatkan performa permainan terbaik, dengan panduan optimal, informasi pola terbaru, serta pengalaman bermain yang stabil, BENGKEL69 menjadi pusat perbaikan... ## Here’s an FAQ of London Vihara: they appear to believe in a traditional Buddhist rebirth [http://www.londonbuddhistvihara.org/qa/qa\_kamma.htm](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. ---
**Author:** ![nowheat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/eb8c5e/32.png) [@nowheat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nowheat)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2011, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-buddhism-require-a-belief-in-the-supernatural/583427/191 "2011-06-01T01:57:17Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > … 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. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2011, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-buddhism-require-a-belief-in-the-supernatural/583427/192 "2011-06-01T02:21:15Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > Here’s a webpage of the Secular Buddhist Society. They focus on study of the Pali canon. > [NameBright - Coming Soon](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. ---
**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:** [June 1, 2011, 1:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-buddhism-require-a-belief-in-the-supernatural/583427/193 "2011-06-01T13:47:44Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > 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. > [@Zeriel](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2011, 2:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-buddhism-require-a-belief-in-the-supernatural/583427/194 "2011-06-01T14:15:13Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > 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. > [NameBright - Coming Soon](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](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](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. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2011, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-buddhism-require-a-belief-in-the-supernatural/583427/195 "2011-06-01T14:20:47Z")
> [@nowheat](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2011, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-buddhism-require-a-belief-in-the-supernatural/583427/196 "2011-06-01T14:32:12Z")
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. ---
**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:** [June 1, 2011, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-buddhism-require-a-belief-in-the-supernatural/583427/197 "2011-06-01T15:31:54Z")
> [@Zeriel](#): > > None of these things are the true Buddhism. Don’t keep us in suspense, dude! ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2011, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-buddhism-require-a-belief-in-the-supernatural/583427/198 "2011-06-01T15:35:23Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > Don’t keep us in suspense, dude! Heh, I’m a Zen Buddhist. None of theme is false Buddhism either. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2011, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-buddhism-require-a-belief-in-the-supernatural/583427/199 "2011-06-01T15:45:50Z")
> [@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. 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. ---
**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:** [June 1, 2011, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-buddhism-require-a-belief-in-the-supernatural/583427/200 "2011-06-01T15:54:47Z")
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. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-buddhism-require-a-belief-in-the-supernatural/583427.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-buddhism-require-a-belief-in-the-supernatural/583427.md?page=11)