My previous interactions with you have shown someone who is willing to state authoritatively that a claim is true without providing much in the way of a cite.
Even here, you don’t say why my claim is wrong, just that I don’t know what I’m talking about.
But since I provided a link to a description of Theravada Buddhism and how central the belief in rebirth was, and you have provided no links at all, I’m not remotely convinced.
Theravada Buddhists don’t believe in reincarnation, but rebirth. I assume(d) that someone with your claimed expertise would know the difference.
If you’re simply saying that your particular practice, or what you take from the Buddhist teachings, doesn’t require belief in the supernatural, then of course I have no argument – only you know what those things might be, and only you are the authority on the subject.
But when you speak of Buddhism in general, and Theravada Buddhism in particular, then you better bring some cites. Because simply announcing that you know this, and every reader should believe you instead of cited resources, isn’t going to fly.
We could claim that Christianity doesn’t require supernatural beliefs, then. Is that the meaning of “require” we’re going with?
To be a Theravada Buddhist requires that you accept the truth of rebirth. The Four Noble Truths require it – specifically the Fourth Noble Truth, which says that the way to end suffering and rebirth is by practice of the Eightfold Path. It’s hard to imagine what could be a more central “truth” to the practice.
Of course, you could say that practicing the Eightfold Path is a great way to live, even without rebirth… just as you could say that following Christ’s teachings is a great way to live, even if He wasn’t divine and there is no Heaven. But I don’t think too many people would agree with the formulation that Christianity does not require belief in the supernatural, even though we’d all agree that an individual can take some teachings of Christ he finds agreeable without believing in the supernatural.
And if Christianity does, then Theravada Buddhism does.
But if you want to parse “require” in such a way that we can say Christianty does not require a belief in the supernatural, then I agree Theravada Buddhism does not either.
What’s supernatural about it? The Buddha state is simply a naturally achieved state of cognitive awareness. It isn’t magic. It isn’t supernatural. It’s just a state of mind.
There is no “THE practice” when it comes to Buddhism. At its most elemental (and Zen is Buddhism at its most elemental), its just a cognitive discipline. Buddhism allows for superatural beliefs, and even god worship (you can even be a Christian), it just doesn’t require any of it. The closest thing Buddhism has to a creed is the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path, none of which require any supernatural beliefs.
Rebirth and reincarnation are the same thing, by the way.
My point was that the would “require” does not exclude the possibility of having these beliefs, but that one does not have to have them to identify as Buddhist.
Simply put, are there denominations of Buddhism that do not require a belief in the supernatural? If so, then to be a Buddhist does not require it. You simply choose a denomination that matches your beliefs. For example, Reconstructionist Judaism does not require a statement of faith when converting, while Conservative/Orthodox do. So, to be Jewish doesn’t require belief in supernatural events, just choose to follow Reconstructionist Judaism. Now forgive my ignorance, but is the type of Buddhism you are referring to the only type of Buddhism? If not, then perhaps you are overlooking the intended way the word require is being used.
I don’t mean to speak for Dio, he can argue his point just fine, but had he said Buddhism never requires belief in the supernatural you may have point. But he didn’t. It seems his statement is factually accurate.
I do not want to hijack Dio’s thread, so I probably shouldn’t keep this going- this could be an interesting thread on it’s own.
Did you read that? Did you see where right from the beginning I anticipated the issue of different Buddhist practices, and so I specified THERAVADA BUDDHISM?
I even asked what Zen Buddhism requires. I was fully prepared to hear that Zen Buddhism did not require buddhatta or something similar, or if it did, that the Buddha nature did not imply a cessation of rebirth.
But (so far) that has not been the answer.
Now my question to you, Ivory, is: how could you post about denominations? Did you not read my post? Did you not understand that I was discussing a very specific demonination?
Yes, I did read it but I was confused and thought I must have misunderstood what I read as you were persisting on this point long after Dio’s point was well clarified.
I you agree that his original statement is factually correct, then I have nothing more to contribute to this hijack and remain confused why the significance of your point was.
We’re in a similar situation - my husband’s an atheist, I blow between atheist and agnostic. My family knows, and his father and sister know, but we’ll likely never tell his mother. It’ll just cause her pain and angst. More importantly, she might tell Mr. Snicks’s grandparents, and that’s something we *really *don’t want (and is likely the real reason we haven’t told her). They’re very religious and it would just destroy them. Since it’s easy to keep them from that pain, we just don’t mention it. Sure, it’s a lie of omission, but it’s kindly meant.
Mr. Snicks has a complicated relationship with his mother. Sometimes when she’s pissed him off, he’ll mention that he’s going to tell her as soon as his grandparents kick off, just to be spiteful. It’s kind of funny.
Done.Diogenes and all other persons interested in whether, in Theravada Buddhism “rebirth” and “reincarnation” are the same thing or different things, and what schools of Buddhist thought may require a belief in the supernatural, are cordially invited to join the discussion in the thread link above.
My mother has never been entirely happy with my atheism (my theory is that she doesn’t want to admit to herself that she’s really an atheist at heart), but no matter how much I thought it would disappoint her, I would never protect her from that. She’s my mother – if she couldn’t handle knowing that about me, I’d think less of her as a mother.
And here is a wonderful example of how religion poisons, if not everything, than at least enough to make open and honest discussion between adults awkward, if not downright painful.
I’m not having a go at you, your family or your decisions but I think it is just a damn shame that anyone has to deal with that.
And what does it say about the religion being followed? it is so intolerant that to not be a follower means one is…what? evil? dammed? For crying out loud surely an adult is able to judge the worth of a person without reference to religious dogma aren’t they?
Blows my mind it does. I’ve managed to live my full life without ever knowing or caring whether my parents or siblings actually believe in god or not. It just never comes up thankfully.
Religion isn’t the poison, its not respecting differences. Families have the same issues on politics, on sexuality, on being vegetarian, on all sorts of issues.
I have a friend who had a similar household crisis. He and his wife agreed that their household was vegetarian, but my friend remained a omnivore when not with the family. The kids had never seen him eat meat, and assumed that he was a vegetarian. When they kids discovered (sometime in elementary school) that he wasn’t a vegetarian, there was a certain amount of betrayal felt (maybe driven by years of having given up bacon ;)). The kids were then allowed to make their own choices - one chose to start eating meat, one is still a vegetarian. But several years later, the meat eater will tell you she was “cheated” out of years of meat.
We chose a different path than Dio and his wife (deist married to atheist) - we went the UU route - and the UU route with blunt honesty. Dad is an atheist, we have never pretended anything different. But, the chances of raising religious children in a household where atheism is an option - I haven’t seen too many kids raised that way embrace the idea of God (I teach UU Sunday school, this is a COMMON UU scenario, and its usually “Mom is some form of fairly liberal Christian or cafeteria Catholic, Dad is a non-believer” - though there is one case in our congregation where Dad is Muslim and Mom is the non-believer, so it happens in multiple flavors). So if a positive belief in God is important to one spouse, the route Dio took is risky (the risk being the one he ran into) but the most likely one to result in a positive belief in God for the kids.
