Here’s an interesting Slate article on topic:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Then why did you open my other thread at all?
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.
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.
I thought I might, but reading your thread cured me of the interest.
I agree.
Which is why my very first post in the original MPSIMS thread went like this:
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.
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.
I don’t think the Buddha would approve of this thread - quite aside from the supernatural/no supernatural debate. 
Theravada Buddhism does not require any supernatural beliefs. You are misinformed.
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.
I don’t know as much about Theravada, but in Mahayana…
Well, from the Vimalakirti Nirdesa Sutra, which is a Mahayana Sutra:
And from the Mahayana “Larger Pure Land” sutra, also called the “Infinite Life” Sutra.
You don’t have to believe any of that stuff to be a Buddhist. It’s highly allegorical anyway.
What exactly do you need to believe in to be a Buddhist?
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?
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:
http://iamhome.org/articles/karma4.php
Even the Genjo Koan, written by the founder of Soto Zen, Dogen says this:
The Heart Sutra says this:
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 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.
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.
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.
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.