# 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:** 5
**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, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-buddhism-require-a-belief-in-the-supernatural/583427/81 "2011-05-27T18:42:00Z")
Here’s an interesting Slate article on topic: > **[ Why I ditched Buddhism.](https://slate.com/culture/2003/02/why-i-ditched-buddhism.html)** > > For a 2,500-year-old religion, Buddhism seems remarkably compatible with our scientifically oriented culture, which may explain its surging popularity... ---
**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, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-buddhism-require-a-belief-in-the-supernatural/583427/82 "2011-05-27T18:54:06Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > Here’s an interesting Slate article on topic: > > [ Why I ditched Buddhism.](http://www.slate.com/id/2078486/) From your article: > [@John Horgan](#): > > Buddhism is functionally theistic, even if it avoids the “G” word. Like its parent religion Hinduism, Buddhism espouses reincarnation, which holds that after death our souls are re-instantiated in new bodies, and karma, the law of moral cause and effect. Together, these tenets imply the existence of some cosmic judge who, like Santa Claus, tallies up our naughtiness and niceness before rewarding us with rebirth as a cockroach or as a saintly lama. I strongly disagree with Horgan’s characterization that Buddhism is “functionally theistic.” The Law of Karma is no more theistic than the Law of Gravity. If you jump off a cliff, it’s going to hurt. It doesn’t mean that a deity is punishing you for doing so. ---
**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, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-buddhism-require-a-belief-in-the-supernatural/583427/83 "2011-05-27T19:04:44Z")
> [@Blalron](#): > > From your article: > > I have to strongly disagree with Horgan’s characterization that Buddhism is “functionally theistic.” The Law of Karma is no more theistic than the Law of Gravity. If you jump off a cliff, it’s going to hurt. It doesn’t mean that a deity is punishing you for doing so. He’s misusing the word “theistic”, I agree. No gods are involved, and theism, as I understand it, requires gods. If he stuck to the topic of this thread - that Buddhism functionally requires belief in the supernatural - he’s be on the money. The Law of Karma, like the cycle of rebirth, are supernatural beliefs, albeit ones which do not require a god to operate. ---
**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, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-buddhism-require-a-belief-in-the-supernatural/583427/84 "2011-05-27T19:05:50Z")
> [@Blalron](#): > > From your article: > > I strongly disagree with Horgan’s characterization that Buddhism is “functionally theistic.” The Law of Karma is no more theistic than the Law of Gravity. If you jump off a cliff, it’s going to hurt. It doesn’t mean that a deity is punishing you for doing so. This is why I stayed away from theism and stuck with ‘supernatural.’ There may not be a diety involved, but if karma is true, then there is a supernatural force involved. ---
**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, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-buddhism-require-a-belief-in-the-supernatural/583427/85 "2011-05-27T19:09:32Z")
> [@treis](#): > > There is absolutely no doubt and no room for interpretation. Buddha is speaking about the concept of Samsara, and the entire point of his teaching is to stop that cycle. If you don’t accept that, you simply are not following the teachings of the Buddha, and are not a Buddhist by any reasonable definition. > [@](#): > > There is no doubt that there is 2000 years of deviation, reevaluation, modification, elaboration, or whichever term you like on the Buddha’s teaching. The point is that at some point when you cease to follow the basic teachings of Buddha that you can’t be reasonably called a Buddhist. That doesn’t mean your beliefs are not valid, or less correct than the Buddha’s teachings. It simply means that you are practicing another belief system, distinct from Buddhism. There is a huge amount of deviation. I’d say even more than Christianity. For example, read a little bit about Pureland Buddhism or the various Tibetan sects. The reason is that the Buddha is not a god, so the scriptures are not the word of god and he himself stressed self experience. The whole concept of “being a Buddhist” itself would be ridiculous to the Buddha, IMO. Again, there are fundamentalist Buddhists who focus on scriptures and rituals, just like any fundamentalist. But the point is not to “be a Buddhist or claim that something is Buddhist or not” The Buddha himself came up with his concepts by watching a plow when he was a kid, heading out to observe life, tried a bunch religious self-sacrifice and then later sitting under the Bodhi tree. He just sat there, battled his desires and achieved enlightenment. That’s it. The Pali Canon was not written by him and was actually written long after he died without his divine input. > [@Bricker](#): > > While I studied Theravada extensively, I agree I never practiced it. > > I disagree that this leaves me unqualified to make basic statements about factual elements of the Buddha’s teachings as understood by Theravada Buiddhism. Sorry, I didn’t mean to make it sound like you didn’t study it. But with absolute statements, I could guess that you never practiced. You are not necessarily wrong but neither is Dio. And I agree with Dio much more that, unlike Christianity, practice is emphasized over dogma. ---
**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, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-buddhism-require-a-belief-in-the-supernatural/583427/86 "2011-05-27T19:11:25Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I have no interest in your family issue. Then why did you open my other thread at all? > [@](#): > > You made a sweeping statement about Buddhism that I knew to be false as applied to Theravada Buddhism. I asked you about it. It’s not false even as applied to Theravada, but even if it were, your objection would still be stupid. If Zen doesn’t require any supernatural beliefs, and Zen is Buddhist, then QED, one can be Buddhist without supernatural beliefs. > [@](#): > > But it’s not so for the Theravada school. Yes it is. You’re simply wrong, and you shit in my thread about a personal family issue to pick an irrelevant and uninformed fight. Once again, even if Theravada _required_ any supernatural beliefs, that wouldn’t mean that “Buddhism” does, any more than “Christianity” requires specifically Catholic beliefs. ---
**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, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-buddhism-require-a-belief-in-the-supernatural/583427/87 "2011-05-27T19:19:38Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Then why did you open my other thread at all? I thought I might, but reading your thread cured me of the interest. > [@](#): > > It’s not false eve as applied to Theravada, but even if it were, you’re objection would still be stupid. If Zen doesn’t require any supernatural beliefs, and Zen is Buddhist, then QED, one can be Buddhist without supernatural beliefs. I agree. Which is why my very first post in the original MPSIMS thread went like this: > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Buddhism doesn’t require any supernatural beliefs. > [@Bricker](#): > > Theravada Buddhism does. I then go on to ask you about Zen and Mahayana, trusting (foolishly, I now know) to be able to provide factual information about those practices. > [@](#): > > Yes it is. You don’t know what you’re talking about, and you shit in my thread about a personal family issue to pick an irrelevant and uninformed fight. I thought it was going to be a very quick answer, but when you persisted in claiming that even Theravada Buddhism had no supernatural required component, I continued the discussion. It’s true that this was off topic from your thread, but frankly, given your posting history, it seemed to me that you of all people would understand and welcome a thread’s turning in a different direction. ---
**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, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-buddhism-require-a-belief-in-the-supernatural/583427/88 "2011-05-27T19:23:07Z")
I don’t think the Buddha would approve of this thread - quite aside from the supernatural/no supernatural debate. 😉 ---
**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, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-buddhism-require-a-belief-in-the-supernatural/583427/89 "2011-05-27T19:24:29Z")
Theravada Buddhism does not require any supernatural beliefs. You are misinformed. ---
**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, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-buddhism-require-a-belief-in-the-supernatural/583427/90 "2011-05-27T19:50:41Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > I don’t think the Buddha would approve of this thread - quite aside from the supernatural/no supernatural debate. 😉 This thread is emptiness and emptiness is this thread. The Straight Dope cannot fight ignorance because there is no ignorance and no end to ignorance. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2011, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-buddhism-require-a-belief-in-the-supernatural/583427/91 "2011-05-27T21:22:56Z")
I don’t know as much about Theravada, but in Mahayana… Well, from the Vimalakirti Nirdesa Sutra, which is a Mahayana Sutra: > [@](#): > > Those bodhisattvas then asked the Licchavi Vimalakirti, “How does the Buddha Sakyamuni teach the Dharma?” > > Vimalakirti replied, "Good sirs, these living beings here are hard to discipline. Therefore, he teaches them with discourses appropriate for the disciplining of the wild and uncivilized. How does he discipline the wild and uncivilized? What discourses are appropriate? Here they are: > > "‘This is hell. This is the animal world. This is the world of the lord of death. These are the adversities. These are the rebirths with crippled faculties. These are physical misdeeds, and these are the retributions for physical misdeeds. These are verbal misdeeds, and these are the retributions for verbal misdeeds. These are mental misdeeds, and these are the retributions for mental misdeeds. This is killing. This is stealing. This is sexual misconduct. This is lying. This is backbiting. This is harsh speech. This is frivolous speech. This is covetousness. This is malice. This is false view. These are their retributions. This is miserliness, and this is its effect. This is immorality. This is hatred. This is sloth. This is the fruit of sloth. This is false wisdom and this is the fruit of false wisdom. These are the transgressions of the precepts. This is the vow of personal liberation. This should be done and that should not be done. This is proper and that should be abandoned. This is an obscuration and that is without obscuration. This is sin and that rises above sin. This is the path and that is the wrong path. This is virtue and that is evil. This is blameworthy and that is blameless. This is defiled and that is immaculate. This is mundane and that is transcendental. This is compounded and that is uncompounded. This is passion and that is purification. This is life and that is liberation.’ > > “Thus, by means of these varied explanations of the Dharma, the Buddha trains the minds of those living beings who are just like wild horses. Just as wild horses or wild elephants will not be tamed unless the goad pierces them to the marrow, so living beings who are wild and hard to civilize are disciplined only by means of discourses about all kinds of miseries.” > > The bodhisattvas said, “Thus is established the greatness of the Buddha Sakyamuni! It is marvelous how, concealing his miraculous power, he civilizes the wild living beings who are poor and inferior. And the bodhisattvas who settle in a buddha-field of such intense hardships must have inconceivably great compassion!” > > The Licchavi Vimalakirti declared, “So be it, good sirs! It is as you say. The great compassion of the bodhisattvas who reincarnate here is extremely firm. In a single lifetime in this universe, they accomplish much benefit for living beings. So much benefit for living beings could not be accomplished in the universe Sarvagandhasugandha even in one hundred thousand aeons. Why? Good sirs, in this Saha universe, there are ten virtuous practices which do not exist in any other buddha-field. What are these ten? Here they are: to win the poor by generosity; to win the immoral by morality; to win the hateful by means of tolerance; to win the lazy by means of effort; to win the mentally troubled by means of concentration; to win the falsely wise by means of true wisdom; to show those suffering from the eight adversities how to rise above them; to teach the Mahayana to those of narrow-minded behavior; to win those who have not produced the roots of virtue by means of the roots of virtue; and to develop living beings without interruption through the four means of unification. Those who engage in these ten virtuous practices do not exist in any other buddha-field.” > > Again the bodhisattvas asked, “How many qualities must a bodhisattva have, to go safe and sound to a pure buddha-field after he transmigrates at death away from this Saha universe?” > > Vimalakirti replied, "After he transmigrates at death away from this Saha universe, a bodhisattva must have eight qualities to reach a pure buddha-field safe and sound. What are the eight? He must resolve to himself: ‘I must benefit all living beings, without seeking even the slightest benefit for myself. I must bear all the miseries of all living beings and give all my accumulated roots of virtue to all living beings. I must have no resentment toward any living being. I must rejoice in all bodhisattvas as if they were the Teacher. I must not neglect any teachings, whether or not I have heard them before. I must control my mind, without coveting the gains of others, and without taking pride in gains of my own. I must examine my own faults and not blame others for their faults. I must take pleasure in being consciously aware and must truly undertake all virtues.’ > > “If a bodhisattva has these eight qualities, when he transmigrates at death away from the Saha universe, he will go safe and sound to a pure buddha-field.” > > When the Licchavi Vimalakirti and the crown prince Manjusri had thus taught the Dharma to the multitude gathered there, one hundred thousand living beings conceived the spirit of unexcelled, perfect enlightenment, and ten thousand bodhisattvas attained the tolerance of the birthlessness of things. And from the Mahayana “Larger Pure Land” sutra, also called the “Infinite Life” Sutra. > [@](#): > > The Buddha said to Ananda, “If a beggar in extreme poverty sits by the side of a king, how can their appearances be compared?” > Ananda replied, "If such a man sits by the side of a king, his emaciated, mean and ragged appearance cannot be compared with the king’s. His appearance is a thousand million kotis or even incalculable times inferior to the king’s. What is the reason for this? The conditions of a beggar in extreme poverty–being at the lowest social level, with barely enough clothes to cover his body, scarcely enough food to sustain his life, with hunger and cold always tormenting him, and having almost lost in human contact – are all the result of his misdeeds in former lives. In the past he did not cultivate roots of virtue, but instead, accumulated riches without giving anything to others. He became more miserly as his wealth increased, desired to obtain more, insatiably hankered after further acquisitions and gave no thought to good actions. Thus he piled up a mountain of evil karma. When his life ended, all his wealth was gone, and what he had accumulated with great toil and worry was of no avail to him; all passed in vain into the possession of others. Having no stock of merit on which to depend and no virtue on which to rely, after death he fell into one of the evil realms, where he suffered pain for a long period. When his karmic retributions ended, he was able to escape, but was reborn into a lower class; being foolish, base and inferior, he barely maintains the appearance of a human being. > “The king of a country is the most Honored of all men. This is the reward for virtues accumulated in former lives, in which he, with a compassionate heart, gave generously to many, saved people from suffering through kindness and benevolence, performed good deeds with sincerity, and never disputed with others. When that life ended, he was rewarded by rebirth into a higher state. Born in a heavenly realm, he enjoyed bliss and happiness. His accumulated virtues produced such a surplus of goodness that, when he was reborn as a man in this life, his birth was, deservedly, into a royal family. Being naturally noble, his dignified and majestic demeanor commands the respect of his people, and superb clothes and sumptuous food are prepared and served to him as he pleases. All this is a reward for virtues from his past lives.” > > The Buddha said to Ananda, “What you say is true. Even though a king is the noblest of all men and has a regal countenance, if he is compared with a wheel-turning monarch, he will appear as base and inferior as a beggar beside a king. Likewise, however excellent and unrivaled the majestic appearance of such a monarch may be, if he is compared with the lord of the Heaven of the Thirty-three Gods, he will also appear incomparably inferior, even ten thousands kotis of times more so. Again, if this heavenly lord is compared with the lord of the Sixth Heaven, he will appear a hundred thousand kotis of times inferior. If the lord of the Sixth Heaven is compared with a bodhisattva or a shravaka dwelling in the land of Amitayus, his countenance and appearance will be far from matching those of the bodhisattva or shravaka, being a thousand million kotis of times or even incalculable times inferior.” ---
**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, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-buddhism-require-a-belief-in-the-supernatural/583427/92 "2011-05-27T21:25:38Z")
You don’t have to believe any of that stuff to be a Buddhist. It’s highly allegorical anyway. ---
**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, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-buddhism-require-a-belief-in-the-supernatural/583427/93 "2011-05-27T21:37:51Z")
What exactly do you need to believe in to be a Buddhist? ---
**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, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-buddhism-require-a-belief-in-the-supernatural/583427/94 "2011-05-27T21:49:59Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > You don’t have to believe any of that stuff to be a Buddhist. It’s highly allegorical anyway. Right, another detailed, quoted cite derailed by your definitive statement. Diogenes, get this through your head: I doubt anyone here is convinced because Diogenes Said So. If you can’t cite it, then as far as I’m concerned, you’re making shit up. And given how frequently your pronouncements run counter to the cited material, you’re doing a crappy job of making shit up. And I have to believe that since I started needling you for cites, you’ve been desperately searching for some. And coming up empty. Right? ---
**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, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-buddhism-require-a-belief-in-the-supernatural/583427/95 "2011-05-27T21:58:06Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > There IS no difference. You were wrong, and you continue to make yourself look like a buffoon by insisting that there is. Neither one of those words has any translation into Pali. They are English approximations of the same Pali word. In [this post](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13850242&postcount=9), I cited THREE different Pali words. Cited. C-I-T-E-D. CEE-EYE-TEE-EEE-DEE. ---
**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 28, 2011, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-buddhism-require-a-belief-in-the-supernatural/583427/96 "2011-05-28T00:33:35Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > You don’t have to believe any of that stuff to be a Buddhist. It’s highly allegorical anyway. Do you think that a Pure Land Buddhist doesn’t have to believe in the supernatural? Because I would say flat out, if he doesn’t then he’s some other kind of Buddhist. Do you know of any Zen masters who declare they don’t believe in a non-metaphorical rebirth cycle? This one I would be surprised to find, but I’m open to it. ---
**Author:** ![heatmiserfl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/df705f/32.png) [@heatmiserfl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/heatmiserfl)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2011, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-buddhism-require-a-belief-in-the-supernatural/583427/97 "2011-05-28T02:22:41Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > Do you think that a Pure Land Buddhist doesn’t have to believe in the supernatural? Because I would say flat out, if he doesn’t then he’s some other kind of Buddhist. > > Do you know of any Zen masters who declare they don’t believe in a non-metaphorical rebirth cycle? This one I would be surprised to find, but I’m open to it. Pureland Buddhism is extremely unique in that it seems to have a sort of Buddhist Jesus figure who helps people get to the Pure Land (an actual place “in the West” like paradise). But I don’t know much about it. Here’s the problem with samsara and no-self. If there is no self, what is reborn? When you meditate, you realize that your mind state or thoughts or conditions are reborn all the time because nothing is permanent. Likewise, the modern Zen masters (20th century, onward) tend avoid talking about rebirth all together. They focus on zazen. Take Shunryu Suzuki for example. I have the audio, “Zen Mind Beginner’s Mind” and I can’t remember him mentioning rebirth at all. It was all Buddha nature and zazen. You read things from the San Francisco Zen Center and no rebirth. Gudo Wafu Nishijima, OTOH, flat out rejects literal rebirth. AFAIK, all the teachers in his lineage agree with him. Thich Nhat Hanh is coy but basically says that what’s reborn is thoughts/conditions/etc. which is what **Frylock** was describing and what I was taught: > [@](#): > > Most people think of reincarnation in terms of a permanent soul. This is popular Buddhism. But we have to rise to the level of right view. Continuation is a necessity, it is a truth. But this continuation must be seen in the light of non-self, of impermanence. > > If, for example, you want to recognize my continuation, do not look in this direction. [Thay points to himself.] There is a part of my continuation in this direction, but when you look all around you, you will see other forms of the continuation. So don’t wait for the body to decompose. We’ve already begun our continuation. You know that you have the power to change. You can ensure a beautiful continuation. Let’s suppose that yesterday you produced a thought that was not worthy of you, and today you’re sorry. You think, “I don’t want to be continued in that way.” You can correct it, you can transform that continuation. > > If you have touched right view, you will be able to produce a different thought, a thought that is worthy of you today, a thought that carries within it understanding, compassion, and non-discrimination. The moment you produce this wonderful thought, it will go out and catch the other thought that you produced yesterday. And in the space of half a second it will be able to transform that thought. [http://iamhome.org/articles/karma4.php](http://iamhome.org/articles/karma4.php) Even the Genjo Koan, written by the founder of Soto Zen, Dogen says this: > [@](#): > > Firewood becomes ash; it can never go back to being firewood. Nevertheless, we should not take the view that ash is its future and firewood is its past. We should recognize that firewood occupies its place in the Universe as firewood, and it has its past moment and its future moment. And although we can say that it has its past and its future, the past moment and the future moment are cut off. Ash exists in its place in the Universe as ash, and it has its past moment and its future moment. Just as firewood can never again be firewood after becoming ash, human beings cannot live again after their death. So it is a rule in Buddhism not to say that life turns into death. This is why we speak of “no appearance.” And it is Buddhist teaching as established in the preaching of Gautama Buddha that death does not turn into life. This is why we speak of “no disappearance.” Life is an instantaneous situation, and death is also an instantaneous situation. It is the same, for example, with winter and spring. We do not think that winter becomes spring, and we do not say that spring becomes summer. > **[thezensite: English Translations of Genjokoan](http://www.thezensite.com/ZenTeachings/Dogen_Teachings/GenjoKoan8.htm#nish6)** > > 8 translations of Dogen's GenjoKoan by Aitken, Abe, Waddell, Jaffe, Nishijima, Cook, Cleary, Masunaga, and Stevens The Heart Sutra says this: > [@](#): > > All things are empty: > Nothing is born, nothing dies, > nothing is pure, nothing is stained, > nothing increases and nothing decreases. > **[The Heart Sutra](http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/heartsutra.html)** ---
**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 28, 2011, 4:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-buddhism-require-a-belief-in-the-supernatural/583427/98 "2011-05-28T04:12:46Z")
The OP poses a good question, even if it has devolved into something of an ego bout. I struggled with it for over an hour with only partial success. Please be advised that my understanding of Buddhism is most incomplete. **Thus have I heard** Most Asian Buddhists practice a post-Theravada faith. The teachings of most Asian schools have a supernatural aspect. I recall a Mahayana text that addressed the OP fairly directly, but I can’t locate it and I read it over 15 years ago. Worse, my recollection is vague, but I seem to recall the Buddha considering a situation where reincarnation in fact does not obtain. He assures his audience that the Dharma will still provide a worthwhile life. Maybe I’ll put out a feeler in GQ. According to Theravada texts, the Buddha expressed an opinion on the permanence of the soul. He disagreed with his contemporaries who stated that the soul was eternal. He disagreed with his contemporaries who espoused annihilationism, that the soul perished with the body. The Buddha sought a middle path between these two extremes. The Buddhist master Bhante Nagasena also assures us in an ancient Pali text that, “Rebirth takes place without anything transmigrating,” and provides 2 metaphors for how such a thing could take place. [1] That said, the Buddha was wary of such metaphysical speculations, as he believed that they weren’t always effective means of ameliorating suffering. Permit me to quote from the Majjhima-Nikaya, Sutta 63, _Questions Which Tend Not to Edification_: > [@The Buddha](#): > > The religious life, Malunkyaputta, does not depend on the dogma that the saint both exists and does not exist after death; nor does the religious life, Malunkyaputta, depend upon the dogma that the saint neither exists nor does not exist after death. Whether the dogma obtain, Malunkyaputta, that the saint both exists and does not exist after death, or that the saint neither exists nor does not exist after death, there still remain birth, old age, death, sorrow, lamentation, misery, grief, and despair, for the extinction of which in the present life I am prescribing. The Buddha continues on in this vein. The Buddha appeared not to think that one’s opinion of the afterlife was of primary importance. In contrast, Jesus of Nazareth commanded his followers in Matthew to love God with all their heart (as he quoted from Deuteronomy). This requires belief in a supernatural entity. * * * So much for doctrine. What of practice? As I said, Asian Buddhist belief typically has supernatural aspects. But many Westerners practice a secular Buddhism, since their culture doesn’t have as much of a tradition supporting reincarnation. Now there are also atheistic Christians - I’ve seen their website! But their influence and traction is small. So in practice, Buddhism is reasonably friendly of seculars. * * * I still haven’t addressed the core issues. To wit, what is left of Buddhism when one extracts the supernatural elements? How does this contrast with Christianity? Such a discussion is beyond the scope of this post, not to mention my mastery. But surely human endeavors to ameliorate suffering are not dependent upon belief in an afterlife. [1] All quotes from an 1896 translation of Theravada texts by Henry Clarke Warren, Harvard University Press. Reprinted by Athenium Press. I find Nagasena’s treatment plausible. ---
**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 28, 2011, 4:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-buddhism-require-a-belief-in-the-supernatural/583427/99 "2011-05-28T04:30:34Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > Do you think that a Pure Land Buddhist doesn’t have to believe in the supernatural? Of course it does. So does Tibetan Buddhism. I didn’t say no school of Buddhism had any suoernatural beliefs, I said that you aren’t required to have supernatural beliuefs in order to be a Buddhist. Even the schools that have supernatural beliefs don’t place any emphasis on acepting them as credal. Buuddhism is a religion of practice, not belief. > [@](#): > > Do you know of any Zen masters who declare they don’t believe in a non-metaphorical rebirth cycle? This one I would be surprised to find, but I’m open to it. Zen Masters (at least the ones I’ve read. I don’t know any personally) don’t tend to talk about rebirth at all, and when they do, it’s not in literal terms. Thich Nhat Hanh, for instance who was referenced by **heatmiserfl** above, talks a lot about death, and the fear of death, and says that death isn’t real, but he desn’t speak in terms of a surviving consciousness or soul, but in more naturalistic terms about nothing really being created or destroyed. One of the things that **heatmiserfl** tried to explain was that a lot of the language used is highly abstract and metaphorical, and is meant to be evocative on a non-verbal, non-intellectual level. They’re never literally telling you what they’re telling you. They’re trying to trigger changes in consciousness, often by using irrational puzzles and metaphors (koans) to shock the subject of of conventional thought patterns. _Samsara_ and "transmigration are ongoing and constant. Every second is different from the one before it. Every moment is a death and rebirth. By the way, if you go to a Zen temple or meditation center and ask a bunch of questions about rebirth, they’ll tell to STFU and meditate. Zen is all about the meditation. All zen is zazen. If you think you’re supposed to believe anything, you’re doing it wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2011, 5:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-buddhism-require-a-belief-in-the-supernatural/583427/100 "2011-05-28T05:20:32Z")
> [@The Buddha](#): > > The religious life, Malunkyaputta, does not depend on the dogma that the saint both exists and does not exist after death; nor does the religious life, Malunkyaputta, depend upon the dogma that the saint neither exists nor does not exist after death. Whether the dogma obtain, Malunkyaputta, that the saint both exists and does not exist after death, or that the saint neither exists nor does not exist after death, there still remain birth, old age, death, sorrow, lamentation, misery, grief, and despair, for the extinction of which in the present life I am prescribing. AFAICT, this is highly persuasive for DtC’s claim. Personally I mistrust any claim that any particular religious system “requires” a particular dogma, unless the religion is purely hierarchical, like Catholicism or Scientology. It’s a bright line in an area where bright lines don’t really serve. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-buddhism-require-a-belief-in-the-supernatural/583427.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-buddhism-require-a-belief-in-the-supernatural/583427.md?page=6)