# 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:** 16\ **Page:** 13
**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 2, 2011, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-buddhism-require-a-belief-in-the-supernatural/583427/241 "2011-06-02T18:52:44Z")
Christianity has a creed, Buddhism does not. ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2011, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-buddhism-require-a-belief-in-the-supernatural/583427/242 "2011-06-02T19:31:32Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > 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? > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > The 4+8 is Buddhism. ---
**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 2, 2011, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-buddhism-require-a-belief-in-the-supernatural/583427/243 "2011-06-02T19:43:30Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2011, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-buddhism-require-a-belief-in-the-supernatural/583427/244 "2011-06-02T19:54:26Z")
> [@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. 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. ---
**Author:** ![nowheat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/eb8c5e/32.png) [@nowheat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nowheat)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2011, 4:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-buddhism-require-a-belief-in-the-supernatural/583427/245 "2011-06-03T04:43:03Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > 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”? ---
**Author:** ![nowheat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/eb8c5e/32.png) [@nowheat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nowheat)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2011, 4:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-buddhism-require-a-belief-in-the-supernatural/583427/246 "2011-06-03T04:58:41Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > 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+. ---
**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 3, 2011, 6:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-buddhism-require-a-belief-in-the-supernatural/583427/247 "2011-06-03T06:25:04Z")
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. > [@Malthus](#): > > 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: > [@Bertrand Russell in a History or Western Philosophy (1961](#): > > 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. ---
**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 3, 2011, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-buddhism-require-a-belief-in-the-supernatural/583427/248 "2011-06-03T15:21:00Z")
> [@nowheat](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![nowheat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/eb8c5e/32.png) [@nowheat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nowheat)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2011, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-buddhism-require-a-belief-in-the-supernatural/583427/249 "2011-06-04T23:00:25Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > 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? ---
**Author:** ![Moon\_Meyers](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e47774/32.png) [@Moon\_Meyers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Moon_Meyers)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2013, 1:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-buddhism-require-a-belief-in-the-supernatural/583427/250 "2013-05-10T13:46:44Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > There is no presumption of a cycle in the formula. That is a misrepresentation. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PratABtyasamutpda](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PratABtyasamutpda) ---
**Author:** ![Moon\_Meyers](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e47774/32.png) [@Moon\_Meyers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Moon_Meyers)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2013, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-buddhism-require-a-belief-in-the-supernatural/583427/251 "2013-05-10T15:12:53Z")
It gets very confusing in the West because we have all the strains of Buddhism here. That has never occurred in other cultures. Add to that, Buddhism fits the container it finds itself and you have the basis for a lot of confusion. The Theravadin tradition shares strongly the emphasis on meditation (Right Concentration) with the Zen Tradition. Zen is Mahayana (also Vajrayana) but Pure Land Buddhism, also Mahayana, resembles Christianity in its belief of an interceding Buddha. It is better to think of the different sects of Buddhism as different denominations in which people find themselves based on the needs of their personality, e.g., taken from E. Conze, Theravadin as mystical realism and Zen as realistic mysticism. If you prefer a reliance on the foundational texts, then the Pali Canon has to be your source, but there is another way, Trust Yourself. The foundational teaching of Zen, “Not relying on words or letters, an independent transmission apart from any scripture or teaching, directly pointing to the human mind, awakening one’s original nature, thereby actualizing one’s own Buddhahood” allows more discussion. The term rebirth used in Zen refers to a moment-to-moment rebirth. That understanding allows for an intervention, a place between those moments to experience the ineffable, “body and mind falling away.” That experience can happen with zazen (seated meditation) being the expedient means. ---
**Author:** ![Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/half_man_half_wit/32/21766_2.png) [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Half_Man_Half_Wit)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2013, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-buddhism-require-a-belief-in-the-supernatural/583427/252 "2013-05-10T15:36:30Z")
There’s actually a bit of a movement (or at least, it looks like it to me as an outsider) towards a ‘secular’ or ‘naturalized’ version of Buddhism, spearheaded by [Stephen Batchelor](http://www.amazon.com/Buddhism-Without-Beliefs-Contemporary-Awakening/dp/1573226564/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1368200002&sr=8-1&keywords=Stephen+Batchelor) on the ‘practical’ side of actually being a Buddhist non-believer, and Owen Flanagan, whose attempt to ‘[naturalize Buddhism](http://www.amazon.com/Bodhisattvas-Brain-Buddhism-Naturalized/dp/0262016044/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1368200103&sr=1-1&keywords=the+Boddhisattva%27s+Brain)’ focuses rather on the philosophical side of Buddhist teachings (perhaps Byung-Chul Hans excellent ‘[philosophy of Zen Buddhism](http://www.amazon.com/Philosophie-Zen-Buddhismus-Byung-Chul-Han/dp/3150181852/ref=sr_1_12?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1368200322&sr=1-12&keywords=byung-chul+han)’, which unfortunately doesn’t seem to have been translated into English yet, could be considered to contribute to this latter project, as well). So I guess that there are people who take the idea seriously that one can be a Buddhist in a meaningful way, while disavowing all belief in the supernatural. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2013, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-buddhism-require-a-belief-in-the-supernatural/583427/253 "2013-05-10T15:58:54Z")
Any cultural tradition is going to be a mixture of the ritual, the philosophic, the devotional, the mystic. The emphasis varies. Many Western traditions insist that the devotional is key - thus, you can’t really be a Christian unless you are willing to believe in, and praise, the Christian notion of god. In Judaism, the insistence tends to be on the ritual - it is hard to be a Jew unless one is willing to live the ritual life of a Jew. Being personally devoted to god is secondary. That doesn’t mean that the religion in either case is “only” about that one aspect - there are both Christian and Jewish strains of mysticism, for example (the Hassidic branch of Judaism extols both the mystic and devotional); there is both Christian and Jewish philosophy, some of great significance even outside of their respective traditions–like Maimonedes. But if one was to characterize them with a generality, Christianity is more devotional and Judaism is more ritual. In Buddhism, different schools of Buddhism have different emphasis. Pure Land is devotional, like Christianity. Zen is mystic, but not devotional; the original Canon looks more philosophical, etc. The branches of Buddhism that appeal in the West tend to be those that stress the philosophical and mystic over the devotional. ---
**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:** [May 11, 2013, 3:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-buddhism-require-a-belief-in-the-supernatural/583427/254 "2013-05-11T03:34:36Z")
> [@Moon\_Meyers](#): > > [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PratABtyasamutpda](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PratABtyasamutpda) Corrected link: [Pratītyasamutpāda - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prat%C4%ABtyasamutp%C4%81da) The translation I was taught for this term was “Dependent co-origination.” ---
**Author:** ![Moon\_Meyers](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e47774/32.png) [@Moon\_Meyers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Moon_Meyers)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2013, 11:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-buddhism-require-a-belief-in-the-supernatural/583427/255 "2013-05-12T11:08:45Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > Corrected link: [Pratītyasamutpāda - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prat%C4%ABtyasamutp%C4%81da) > > The translation I was taught for this term was “Dependent co-origination.” Both work. There is a shift when it goes Mahayana, maybe call it, Interdependent Causation. ---
**Author:** ![Moon\_Meyers](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e47774/32.png) [@Moon\_Meyers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Moon_Meyers)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2013, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-buddhism-require-a-belief-in-the-supernatural/583427/256 "2013-05-24T23:39:31Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > Any cultural tradition is going to be a mixture of the ritual, the philosophic, the devotional, the mystic. It occurred to me, someone is going to read this and equate mysticism to supernatural. The opposite is true; mysticism is eminently practical. (Reference available upon request) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-buddhism-require-a-belief-in-the-supernatural/583427.md?page=12)