# 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:** 6
**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, 1:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-buddhism-require-a-belief-in-the-supernatural/583427/101 "2011-05-28T13:59:58Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > 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. I really do agree that the practice is the thing in Buddhism. I always found it interesting that Zen and Tibetan Buddhism both became popular in the West since they are so different in the way under discussion. When I was quite interested in Buddhism years ago I sort of shied away from both, I just found Theravada style much more compelling. I thought koans were silly and I didn’t like the lama dynasty crap in Tibetan. I seem to remember reading how the discovery of Tibetan Buddhism was a bit of a double shock to the outside Buddhist world. As in “Wow, they have preserved the oldest copies of the Pali Canon all these years” and “Wow, what an abomination!” with their far more literal views on re-birth. Thanks, **heatmiserfl** , for those passages. ---
**Author:** ![John\_DiFool](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_difool/32/19543_2.png) [@John\_DiFool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_DiFool)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2011, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-buddhism-require-a-belief-in-the-supernatural/583427/102 "2011-05-28T18:25:44Z")
> [@heatmiserfl](#): > > 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. Right-your desires “drag you down” each and every passing moment. The mistake is in thinking that “rebirth” is something that I have to wait for in the “future”. Don’t get this confused with the transformation necessary to attain enlightenment-that is a sort of rebirth, but in the upward direction. The question then becomes: can anyone attain buddha-hood/nature in just one lifetime, if we assume no prior lifetimes, you start as a zygote, there was nothing before (not even Nothing)? ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2011, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-buddhism-require-a-belief-in-the-supernatural/583427/103 "2011-05-28T18:52:38Z")
Any particular reason it be out of the realm of the possible ? ---
**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, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-buddhism-require-a-belief-in-the-supernatural/583427/104 "2011-05-28T18:57:32Z")
> [@John\_DiFool](#): > > The question then becomes: can anyone attain buddha-hood/nature in just one lifetime, if we assume no prior lifetimes, you start as a zygote, there was nothing before (not even Nothing)? Highly unlikely, in my view. Luckily, many lifetimes precede us: just visit any graveyard. As it is, we all inherit influences from the past: culture is intrinsic to the human condition. The Buddha grappled with some knotty philosophical issues, as well as the reality that an understanding of them was necessary but not sufficient to relieve our burdens. A rigorous treatment of the self would have started with something like [this](http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/identity/), but 99% of his audience wouldn’t have cared and the remainder wouldn’t have proceeded much closer to enlightenment, as the Buddha conceived it. At any rate, it’s not surprising that Buddhism would develop a multitiered practice. ---
**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, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-buddhism-require-a-belief-in-the-supernatural/583427/105 "2011-05-28T19:27:30Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I don’t know much about Zen Buddhism, but Theravada Buddhism requires a belief in the supernatural in much the same way that Christianity requires a belief in the supernatural – that is, one could presumably say, “I follow the teachings of Christ because they lead to good results for me and others, but I reject the idea that Jesus had a divine nature or rose from the dead,” but that’s a personal “take” on Christianity that doesn’t comport with the wide understanding or practice. So in the ordinary sense of the word “require,” it’s fair to say that Christianity requires belief in the supernatural. > > By the same standard, Theravada Buddhism does as well. I lack a thorough understanding of Buddhism. But AFAIK, one can meaningfully attend Buddhist services, meditate and accept the 4 holy truths as elaborated upon by other Theravada texts, without believing in a permanent self or even in one that hops in full form from one body to another. In contrast, it is difficult to pray if you believe that God does not exist. ---
**Author:** ![heatmiserfl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/df705f/32.png) [@heatmiserfl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/heatmiserfl)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2011, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-buddhism-require-a-belief-in-the-supernatural/583427/106 "2011-05-29T01:37:48Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > Thanks, **heatmiserfl** , for those passages. Sure! BTW, almost all Buddhist sects have offshoots that cater to Westerners with much less supernatural elements. Tibetan Buddhism has Shambhala, for example. I’ve watched some lectures by Pema Chodron and she’s wonderful. > [@John\_DiFool](#): > > Right-your desires “drag you down” each and every passing moment. The mistake is in thinking that “rebirth” is something that I have to wait for in the “future”. Don’t get this confused with the transformation necessary to attain enlightenment-that is a sort of rebirth, but in the upward direction. > > The question then becomes: can anyone attain buddha-hood/nature in just one lifetime, if we assume no prior lifetimes, you start as a zygote, there was nothing before (not even Nothing)? Not so much your desires dragging you down but how you act upon them and how you view them. Acting on desires creates karma or karma itself means action. Also, desires can create anxiety, dissatisfaction, disappointment, etc. That’s dukka which is more than simply suffering. I agree that rebirth is happening constantly. Enlightenment? Well, I like to be goal-less. That’s why I gravitated to Soto Zen as opposed to Rinzai. Some people think the buddha nature is already there, we just can’t see it. I remember something about dust on a mirror and you need to clean it off to see your true self. I suppose you could reach enlightenment in your life. Rinzai buddhists certainly try hard for it. They also stress having series of kenshos or mini-enlightenments that are transient but eventually stick around. Epiphany moments. Soto zen is just the opposite. Attaining enlightenment is not even stressed because then you start focusing on yourself which doesn’t exist. The part of the Genjo Koan, at least how I understand it, is that enlightenment is not a huge event. Nothing changes. It just is what it is. > [@](#): > > To study the Buddha way is to study oneself. To study oneself is to forget oneself. To forget oneself is to be enlightened by the myriad dharmas. To be enlightened by the myriad dharmas is to bring about the dropping away of body and mind of both oneself and others. The traces of enlightenment come to an end, and this traceless enlightenment is continued endlessly. When a person starts to search out the dharma, he separates himself far from the dharma. When the dharma has already been rightly transmitted in oneself, just then one is one’s original self. > [@](#): > > A person getting enlightened is like the moon reflecting in the water. The moon does not get wet, the water is not disturbed. Though it is a great expanse of light, it reflects in a little bit of water; the whole moon and the whole sky reflect even in the dew on the grass; they reflect even in a single drop of water. Enlightenment not disturbing the person is like the moon not piercing the water. A person not obstructing enlightenment is like the dewdrop not obstructing the heavens. The depth is the measure of the height. As for the length or brevity of the time [of the reflection], one ought to examine whether the water is large or small and discern whether the sky and moon are wide or narrow. ---
**Author:** ![heatmiserfl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/df705f/32.png) [@heatmiserfl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/heatmiserfl)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2011, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-buddhism-require-a-belief-in-the-supernatural/583427/107 "2011-05-29T01:41:05Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > I lack a thorough understanding of Buddhism. But AFAIK, one can meaningfully attend Buddhist services, meditate and accept the 4 holy truths as elaborated upon by other Theravada texts, without believing in a permanent self or even in one that hops in full form from one body to another. In contrast, it is difficult to pray if you believe that God does not exist. The 4 Noble Truths are the only thing that I saw that all the sects agree upon. The text of the 8-fold path is common but there is obviously huge debate on what is right speech, right livelihood, etc. and whether it should pertain to everyone or just monks and so on. ---
**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 29, 2011, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-buddhism-require-a-belief-in-the-supernatural/583427/108 "2011-05-29T01:45:38Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > Any particular reason it be out of the realm of the possible ? No. Theoretically it can happen to anybody at any time. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2011, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-buddhism-require-a-belief-in-the-supernatural/583427/109 "2011-05-30T02:08:45Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > 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. Actually, that’s not quite how the conversation went. If you had responded to my initial statement about Theravada Buddhism with the line above, this entire thread would not exist. But you did not, and I understand why you now want to slightly rewrite history to give yourself a reasonable position. Also notice that the question you declared definitively settled: that there’s no difference between rebirth and reincarnation – has somehow escaped further discussion. ---
**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 30, 2011, 2:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-buddhism-require-a-belief-in-the-supernatural/583427/110 "2011-05-30T02:29:33Z")
According to my understanding of this thread, you aren’t required to have supernatural beliefs in order to be a Buddhist in a Theravada tradition. See posts 98, 100, 105 and 106. I have studied Buddhism, but my knowledge is less than extensive though. ---
**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 30, 2011, 4:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-buddhism-require-a-belief-in-the-supernatural/583427/111 "2011-05-30T04:06:54Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Actually, that’s not quite how the conversation went. Yeah, that’s pretty much exactly how it went. Any confusion is on your part, not mine. > [@](#): > > If you had responded to my initial statement about Theravada Buddhism with the line above, this entire thread would not exist. Theravada Buddhism does not require any supernatural beliefs, so I don’t know what you think your point is. > [@](#): > > Also notice that the question you declared definitively settled: that there’s no difference between rebirth and reincarnation – has somehow escaped further discussion. There is no difference. You are simply confused, and don’t understand most of what you are reading. There is no reason for further dicussion. Those words have no distinction in Pali. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2011, 1:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-buddhism-require-a-belief-in-the-supernatural/583427/112 "2011-05-30T13:29:24Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > I lack a thorough understanding of Buddhism. But AFAIK, one can meaningfully attend Buddhist services, meditate and accept the 4 holy truths as elaborated upon by other Theravada texts, without believing in a permanent self or even in one that hops in full form from one body to another. In contrast, it is difficult to pray if you believe that God does not exist. How is it possible to accept the Fourth Noble Truth without believing in rebirth? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2011, 1:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-buddhism-require-a-belief-in-the-supernatural/583427/113 "2011-05-30T13:32:25Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > There is no difference. You are simply confused, and don’t understand most of what you are reading. There is no reason for further dicussion. Those words have no distinction in Pali. No cite, no dice. I cited sevaral different Pali words that are used for the concept, shredding your claim that rebirth and reincarnation are the same thing because they are the same Pali word. You have not cited a single thing to support that claim, and have done a reasonably good job at trying to set the tone that for this discussion, cites show the lack of knowledge, and only practice has any credibility. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2011, 2:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-buddhism-require-a-belief-in-the-supernatural/583427/114 "2011-05-30T14:02:45Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > How is it possible to accept the Fourth Noble Truth without believing in rebirth? What? What’s believing in rebirth got to do with the Middle way? Where is rebirth in right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration ---
**Author:** ![brocks](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7feea3/32.png) [@brocks](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brocks)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2011, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-buddhism-require-a-belief-in-the-supernatural/583427/115 "2011-05-30T14:37:46Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > you’re obviously unclear about how critical _samsara_ is to attaining _nibbana_. In short, you’re no “expert,” This raises the question: Why would anyone want to be an expert on bullshit? Anybody who claims to know anything about any kind of life after death is peddling bullshit. And no, I don’t have a cite for that. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2011, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-buddhism-require-a-belief-in-the-supernatural/583427/116 "2011-05-30T14:51:22Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > What? What’s believing in rebirth got to do with the Middle way? > > Where is rebirth in right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration Without the purpose of relieving suffering through ending the cycle of Samsara, there is no particular _point_ to following the eightfold path. It is much the same as if an athiest were to follow one of the devotional branches of Hinduism, that prescribes repeating the name of Krishna, because it settles the mind and feels good. You can do it, sure, but it is really no better than doing something else that has a similar effect. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2011, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-buddhism-require-a-belief-in-the-supernatural/583427/117 "2011-05-30T15:02:09Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > What? What’s believing in rebirth got to do with the Middle way? > > Where is rebirth in right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration The way to relieve, end, rebirth is right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration, according to the Fourth Noble Truth. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2011, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-buddhism-require-a-belief-in-the-supernatural/583427/118 "2011-05-30T15:17:01Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > Without the purpose of relieving suffering through ending the cycle of Samsara, there is no particular _point_ to following the eightfold path. The point is to relive suffering immediately, in _this_ life. Rebirth (while accepted by most devotees, I think) isn’t necessary, and focusing on it would certainly come under the heading of “distracting”, IMO. There’s a problem here with conflating _Saṃsāra_-as-rebirth-cycle with _Saṃsāra_-as-current-experience. It can have both meanings, but one can focus on one or the other in practice, even to the exclusion of the other. I think Saṃsāra finds an analogue in the Islamic notion of _Jihad_ - it could mean holy war, sure, but it could also just mean the daily struggle to make your way in the world as a righteous Muslim. I’m not denying that _Saṃsāra_-as-cycle is the usual (Therevada, at least) Buddhist view (so I’m in agreement with \*\*Bricker \*\*there), but it’s entirely possible to construct a consistent Buddhist worldview that doesn’t include it, and still follows the Middle Way as it’s laid down in the Pali Canon (and so be reasonably thought part of the Therevada school as opposed to another).(So I guess I agree with **DtC** there). ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2011, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-buddhism-require-a-belief-in-the-supernatural/583427/119 "2011-05-30T15:34:01Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > The point is to relive suffering immediately, in _this_ life. Rebirth (while accepted by most devotees, I think) isn’t necessary, and focusing on it would certainly come under the heading of “distracting”, IMO. There’s a problem here with conflating _Saṃsāra_-as-rebirth-cycle with _Saṃsāra_-as-current-experience. It can have both meanings, but one can focus on one or the other in practice, even to the exclusion of the other. I think Saṃsāra finds an analogue in the Islamic notion of _Jihad_ - it could mean holy war, sure, but it could also just mean the daily struggle to make your way in the world as a righteous Muslim. > > I’m not denying that _Saṃsāra_-as-cycle is the usual (Therevada, at least) Buddhist view (so I’m in agreement with \*\*Bricker \*\*there), but it’s entirely possible to construct a consistent Buddhist worldview that doesn’t include it, and still follows the Middle Way as it’s laid down in the Pali Canon (and so be reasonably thought part of the Therevada school as opposed to another).(So I guess I agree with **DtC** there). The Pali canon is pretty explicit on the meaning of the cycle (see the suttas quoted upthread), and it’s understood as meaning that by the vast majority of Theravada devotees. I have no doubt that Buddhism is expansive enough a philosophy to embrace non-supernatural interpretations, just as many if not most religious/philosophical traditions - Taoism, Shamanism, Buddhism, Judaism, Hinduism all have non-supernatural adherents. Even Islam, of some Western Sufi schools, is more pantheistic (and, ultimately, atheistic) than otherwise. However, in all cases, the non-supernatural (while possible) wasn’t the original. That is, I think, because when the original was created the distinction between the supernatural and non-supernatural wasn’t evident to their creators - who simply took the supernatural for granted. The philosophy of the Buddha was such. He wasn’t particularly interested in theorizing about origins and the afterlife (the anecdote about being a medico on a battlefield, removing an arrow - the job is to relieve suffering, take out the arrow, not wonder where it came from). He took the world as being basically what was commonly believed by Indians of his time - complete with gods, rebirth, demons, the whole nine yards. Which was woven into his philosophy (I particularly liked the part where being a god was actually a bad idea - so much more bound to the world of illusion if you have such powers!). Certainly, one can redefine terms and arrange matters to suit a Western audience that does not wish to believe the whole set of background assumptions on which Buddhism is predicated upon, but what you get is something rather different from the original Theravada Buddhism. Mind you, the same road was already traveled by some Mahayana strands (while some became much more akin to devotional religions like Chistianity). ---
**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 30, 2011, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-buddhism-require-a-belief-in-the-supernatural/583427/120 "2011-05-30T16:02:01Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > How is it possible to accept the Fourth Noble Truth without believing in rebirth? Because the Four Noble truths say nothing about it and have nothing to do with it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-buddhism-require-a-belief-in-the-supernatural/583427.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-buddhism-require-a-belief-in-the-supernatural/583427.md?page=7)