Does Buddhism require a belief in the supernatural?

And your post is your cite again.

You are not required to believe in a soul to be a Buddhist.

Yeah, that’s pretty well my opinion.

The point of Theravada Buddhism is to get off the cycle by following the Eightfold Path. The existence of the cycle presupposes a supernatural background.

The techniques or steps of the Path may be good in-and-of themselves, and followed by those without any belief in the supernatural, but the ultmate goal of liberation from the cycle does presuppose a supernatural background.

What you posted is not what the Eightfold Path actually says. This is only that author’s paraphrase/interpretation. That part about “seccasaion of dukka” is not part of the formula. You don’t have the slightest idea what you’re talking about.

Yes, and you can follow the Ten Commandments and believe in the wisdom of the Beatitudes without accepting God’s existence or Christ’s divinity, too.

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.

There is no presumption of a cycle in the formula. That is a misrepresentation.

Yes, it is. I’m right and you’re wrong.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha.

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…

You’re making yourself look like an idiot. You TRULY don’t don’t know what you’re talking about.

Number of posts made by Diogenes so far: five.

Number of cites that are not his posts, but refer to some other authority: zero.

I’m not schooled in the foundational texts of Buddhism. You’ve given us a website written by a contemporary author, but can you do me the favor of citing “chapter and verse” where in a foundational text (i.e. one universally accepted by Therevada buddhist sects–since Therevada seems to be your target here) the Buddha is portrayed as teaching tha that the way to end dukkha is to end tanha, thereby ending samsara?

The point of following the Eightfold Path is to, eventually, get off the cycle of Samsara.

The existence of that cycle seems to qualify as a supernatural belief to me, and it’s pretty basic to Theravada Buddhism.

Cite to original Pali script:

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.

Yes. Cite.

Why don’t you ask Diogenes for some cites?

The actual words of the Buddha from the actual sutta:

The Buddha taught the Eightfold Path as a cessation to suffering. He did not say you have to believe in samasara. That’s bullshit.

No it isn’t. The point of the Path is to end suffering.

Heh, from two posts above yours:

Same difference. In Theravada Buddhism, one ends suffering by escaping the cycle (and only by escaping the cycle) - and one does that by following the Path.

It is not necessary to believe in samsara. Bottom line. The Buddha never made that part of the doctrine. I just quoted the actual text of the Sutra. This debate is over.

Wow. A link.

And even in your link, he doesn’t limit himself to the cessation of suffering:

But wait – there’s more:

From the cessation of birth.

What exactly does the Buddha mean? Was he advising Kassapa the clothless ascetic to turn back time and not be born?

Or was he advising him to not be reborn?

What did he mean, there, Diogenes?