# 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:** 4
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2011, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-buddhism-require-a-belief-in-the-supernatural/583427/61 "2011-05-27T17:39:35Z")
> [@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. If Zen temples don’t accept the basic teaching of the Buddha, then they are not Buddhists by any meaningful definition. ---
**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, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-buddhism-require-a-belief-in-the-supernatural/583427/62 "2011-05-27T17:44:35Z")
> [@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. 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. > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > 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. ---
**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, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-buddhism-require-a-belief-in-the-supernatural/583427/63 "2011-05-27T17:46:34Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Inner\_Stickler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/inner_stickler/32/318_2.png) [@Inner\_Stickler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inner_Stickler)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2011, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-buddhism-require-a-belief-in-the-supernatural/583427/64 "2011-05-27T17:50:38Z")
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.) ---
**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, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-buddhism-require-a-belief-in-the-supernatural/583427/65 "2011-05-27T17:55:33Z")
Why are you so willing to defend his Buddhist practice when he himself says he’s only “sort of” a Buddhist? ---
**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, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-buddhism-require-a-belief-in-the-supernatural/583427/66 "2011-05-27T17:56:28Z")
> [@treis](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Inner\_Stickler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/inner_stickler/32/318_2.png) [@Inner\_Stickler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inner_Stickler)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2011, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-buddhism-require-a-belief-in-the-supernatural/583427/67 "2011-05-27T17:58:39Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2011, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-buddhism-require-a-belief-in-the-supernatural/583427/68 "2011-05-27T18:01:05Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > 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? ---
**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, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-buddhism-require-a-belief-in-the-supernatural/583427/69 "2011-05-27T18:03:10Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > 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. ---
**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, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-buddhism-require-a-belief-in-the-supernatural/583427/70 "2011-05-27T18:13:43Z")
> [@treis](#): > > 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. ---
**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, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-buddhism-require-a-belief-in-the-supernatural/583427/71 "2011-05-27T18:19:04Z")
> [@heatmiserfl](#): > > **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. ---
**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, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-buddhism-require-a-belief-in-the-supernatural/583427/72 "2011-05-27T18:21:42Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2011, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-buddhism-require-a-belief-in-the-supernatural/583427/73 "2011-05-27T18:23:28Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > 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. ---
**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, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-buddhism-require-a-belief-in-the-supernatural/583427/74 "2011-05-27T18:24:10Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 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. ---
**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, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-buddhism-require-a-belief-in-the-supernatural/583427/75 "2011-05-27T18:25:18Z")
> [@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.) :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? ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2011, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-buddhism-require-a-belief-in-the-supernatural/583427/76 "2011-05-27T18:28:20Z")
> [@heatmiserfl](#): > > 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. ---
**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, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-buddhism-require-a-belief-in-the-supernatural/583427/77 "2011-05-27T18:32:48Z")
> [@heatmiserfl](#): > > 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. ---
**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, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-buddhism-require-a-belief-in-the-supernatural/583427/78 "2011-05-27T18:35:39Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 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. ---
**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, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-buddhism-require-a-belief-in-the-supernatural/583427/79 "2011-05-27T18:37:38Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > 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. ---
**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, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-buddhism-require-a-belief-in-the-supernatural/583427/80 "2011-05-27T18:39:20Z")
> [@heatmiserfl](#): > > 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. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-buddhism-require-a-belief-in-the-supernatural/583427.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-buddhism-require-a-belief-in-the-supernatural/583427.md?page=5)