I note that the title of the thread is : “Does Buddhism require a belief in the supernatural?” (not “Does Theravada Buddhism…”) and it begins:
Since the first reference was to Zen, I assumed this was an invitation to those who are familiar with Zen to chime in with views the OP’er was not as familiar with.
So would you please clarify, Bricker? Was your intent to cover Buddhism in general? Or just Theravada?
Thanks…
I don’t think it’s an answerable question, given the difficulty of assigning motives to historical figures, whether original Buddhism required belief in the supernatural phenomena mentioned or whether it was expected that those supernatural phenomena would be understood as metaphors for currently extant things.
Certainly it’s true that Zen from the earliest elected to treat discussions of gods, bodhisattvas, the net of Indra, and all the assorted whatnot that goes with them as strictly metaphorical and at best tools to help visualize important concepts.
Thanks for the reference, CarnalK. Interesting that there is a Theravada school of Secular Buddhism.
Hanging out, as I do, with the Secular Buddhist community (though I consider myself to be a religious Buddhist, not strictly secular) I’d venture to say that the Buddha’s example has Ananda having his own group of disciples, and as we “know” (in the “having read widely in the Pali Canon sense of ‘know’”) Ananda was not an arahant. Going by the Buddha’s example, one who teaches the dhamma does not need to be fully enlightened.
Further, the Buddha in his last days did suggest that each of us must ultimately rely on our own selves, did he not?
What I find in Secular Buddhism is a bunch of people who encourage others to take up the practice, and to study broadly, but mostly to practice, practice, practice.
As for limiting one’s pool of teachers to fully enlightened arahants… how many of those are there in the world today? Anyone know where I can find a list?
I don’t find the terms “once returner” and “non returner” hard to map without rebirth. I see that the Buddha was using the metaphor of rebirth as a framework to convey something that the limits of language and conventions in his day prevented him from saying in any other useful way. My current understanding of what he’s saying with his returns is about how stable our practice of the path is (not simply meditation): How much have we seen and understood and to what degree are we able to put it into practice in the world? Achieving meditative states may well be a part of reaching those insights, but certainly simply achieving higher mind-states isn’t what’s critical (or he’d have stayed with his original pre-enlightenment teachers). Bottom line for the Buddha is always about how successfully our intentions have changed the kind of behavior that affects others.
I would not even try to precisely map the Buddha’s vision of the accomplishments of various levels and returner-ness into modern practice because, firstly, the system’s descriptions are too archaic and would require a really sound understanding of what the perception of the states used as metaphors for levels of practice meant in the day and, secondly, all it really achieves is to foster an obsessive interest in gamesmanship that’s not going to do much to reduce dukkha because it only strengthens that “I am”… “I am a level three teacher of the dhamma!”
A much more useful standard for judging how good a teacher is, is given by the Buddha in MN 47, which in essence tells us to examine their behavior. After that we can go with the Buddha’s descriptions of how to tell who is wise (as given to King Pasenadi) and that does take time.
But if I’m not mistaken “arahant” is the highest level of noble, “Ariyapuggala” refers to any of the top 4.
But the Buddha went around teaching because people are unlikely to stumble upon the proper meditation technique and I don’t think it’s out of line to say some novice isn’t the one to be passing on the teaching.
Except, of course, that the stated purpose of relieving suffering was to stop the cycle of rebirths.
No, that is not the stated purpose. The purpose is the cessation of dukkha.
Suffering=dukkha. The stated purpose of cessation of dukkha is to stop the cycle of rebirths.
No, the cessation of dukkha is the goal in itself.
No, that would be pointless. There’s a reason why the title of the Noble persons includes how many times they are going to return. While Buddha says “Don’t worry about it”, because that worry will only get in your way, he was helping people not come back “in the womb of an animal” etc.
No, cessation of dukkha IS the point. That is stated in the 4 Noble truths.
OK. So why do you think there are "no returner"s and “once returners” as levels of achievement in the practice?
Those are esoteric metaphors for certain meditative plateaus.
Do you really think that Buddha thought that?
The Buddha didn’t talk about that stuff. The Truths and the Path don’t mention it.
So you ignore or don’t take as authentic anything other than the 4+8? I guess we can drop it there then.
Well that and the fact that the Buddha explicitly said it didn’t matter whether you believed in rebirth or not.
Buddhism is the 4 and the 8, though. Everything else is commentary.
I don’t think you can say with certainty that anything but the 4+8 was intended to be taken literally as opposed to metaphorically. As has been said, there are historical sects of Buddhism that did the latter and have been doing so for hundreds of years.
Well, if we only take those specific passages, there is nothing to let us know that Buddha was advocating a sitting concentration/awareness meditation method rather something merely contemplative. Nor what his specific method might entail.
I concur.
OK, so why in your mind is the 4+8 exempt from this? Why the certainty there?
eta: to that, though I’m not remotely enough of a scholar to delve too deeply, according to wikipedia
“Going further, some versions of the Dharmacakra Pravartana Sutra contain definitions of the Four Noble Truths while others do not.”