[Bletlemof]

I was reading this article in the UK press -

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...m-supernatural

- and then I thought I'd put that particular question to the group and ask your opinions : do you think that Buddhism needs the supernatural stuff ?

[occafeVes]

In the Zen tradition the (seeking of, attachment to the) supernatural is actually a distraction from practice. These things are not denied, just considered a waste of time. You could say that zazen is a cause of the supernatural but seeking it is another form of attachment. So I would say that Buddhism does not need the supernatural but the supernatural is a part of it.

This leads in the question of what is the supernatural? Is it really super-natural of is it simply a natural part of the human experience? All people do not experience these phenomena just as all people do not have green eyes.

[Alupleintilla]

As an enthusiatic Dhammabeginner I've been pondering this for a while. I can't refute the existence of supernatural beings but I keep finding passages in Discourses (sorry, can't quote as it'd take me most of the afternoon to find them, I'm sure!) that seem to state what Rhysman has just said that they exist but have nothing of benefit in regards Dhamma.

I'm finding Dhamma wonderful and hugely beneficial in it's own right so I personally don't feel the need to hunt out ghosts and gods to make Buddhism any more mysterious and magical to my everyday life.

I attend a fairly orthodox Vihara where spirits and other such entities are talked of very matter-of-factly and that still throws me a bit. I'm not currently particularly well-disposed towards this aspect of Buddhism but I accept that it is a very real aspect of daily life for these monks who I respect and like immensely.

Possibly going slightly off-topic but I certainly don't see kamma and dependent arising as in anyway supernatural, just 'how things are'. I think I'm beginning to get an understanding that kamma simply states that cause and effect apply to the entire universe, and the bits and bobs of Einstein, Heisenberg and Bohr etc I just about 'get' seem to be describing the same thing. I don't have the confidence in my understanding of such lofty theories to go into any further details about how such Buddha-friendly ideas confirm what I am beginning to get to grips with in regards Dhamma.

I've recently started to be aware of the concept of Dependent Arising talked about on BBC science documentaries, for example, in the language of Quantum Theory. This may be old news to you chaps but it's blown my head once I got the connection. (Not that I can follow or fully understand an entire 1 hour documentary on String Theory!)

[Sadsidioribre]

I consider myself a "secular" Buddhist of sorts. If I was to glimpse any of the supernatural beings or events, I suppose that would change. But not only do I have no knowledge or experience with any of it, but much of it has little to do with the practice.

I mean, reincarnation and Devas and heaven realms might be real. But none of it is going to help me be at peace. To me, it is like going to a medical school and learning how to juggle. Of course, some doctors like juggling and some Buddhists like the supernatural. I don't see any harm in it.

I also agree with Hornet about karma and dependent arising. Cause and effect is fairly obvious in day to day life. If you are a jerk, people withdraw from you. If you are kind, people draw close to you. Even things people do in private eventually leak into public life. Cause and effect.

[Gastonleruanich]

Does Buddhism need the supernatural stuff?

Depends on what kind of Buddhism is practiced and from whom this practice is performed.

Personally I think that the teachings of Gotama Buddha are about a science of mind highly refined through wisdom, ethics and meditation.

It is about and only about Dukkha, its origin and the way to quench it.

[ExpodoDop]

If Buddhism needs the supernatural stuff then I don't know to what purpose.

Other than to provide consolation and myth for the uneducated, unintelligent, or superstitious. I'd have thought there were fewer of those around today than 2500 years ago.

2500 years ago people had a lot less scientific knowledge about how the world around them worked so they needed these kinds of explanations that religion provided, Buddhism just borrowed the common views of the time to provide people with a context that they could relate to. If one understands what is important in the teaching one understands it works just as well within a very different world view.

[Duaceanceksm]

Personally I think that the teachings of Gotama Buddha are about a science of mind highly refined through wisdom, ethics and meditation.

It is about and only about Dukkha, its origin and the way to quench it.

Nicely put. I was ready to make the exact same comment.

[UvjqTVVC]

2500 years ago people had a lot less scientific knowledge about how the world around them worked so they needed these kinds of explanations that religion provided, Buddhism just borrowed the common views of the time to provide people with a context that they could relate to. If one understands what is important in the teaching one understands it works just as well within a very different world view.

Yes, well said Goofaholix.

[anolbom]

well, for me buddhism has been about seeing, it has never been about belief for me. at first i use to view the more supernatural stuff as distraction and perhaps a diluted form of understanding. i feel a bit different about these more imaginative sides to buddist culture now, im quite happy to observe discussion of them and found that when i wasnt either trying to belieive or disbelieve them that sometimes i just enjoy the ride, kind of like watching a film or listening to some music, i dont feel like i have to make a conclusion about them as either nonsense or truth anymore.

i guess now i just feel like stories are stories, facts are facts, discusion is discusion and its all a part of the world buddhist culture. there are so many places to go with buddhism and i tend to find myself attracted to the less fantastical and less imaginative side of things.

but when i think about it there are alot of people gaining insight and understanding from what we would call these "supernatural" parts of buddhist culture so, i guess its great to have paths more suited for different people and there perspective of understanding.

[farmarrl]

If such things as the Divine Eye/Ear and Nibbana exist, then one HAS to posit a metaphysic in Buddhism.

Furthermore, to my understanding of Nibbana, It is a "here and now" state with after death connotations. This much is true from Nikaya readings.

The term "supernatural" has to be defined for any true discussion to continue, in my opinion.

Thank you,
Stefos

[dhrishiasv]

If such things as the Divine Eye/Ear and Nibbana exist, then one HAS to posit a metaphysic in Buddhism.

hi Stefos

in Buddhism, the Divine Eye/Ear are regarded as "supernormal" rather than "supernatural". in other words, the Divine Eye/Ear are natural

whilst not the same, the Divine Eye/Ear are similar to the hearing of dogs or eye sight of birds. dogs can hear sounds the ordinary human being cannot hear and birds can see sights that the ordinary human being cannot see. whilst not the same, the Divine Eye/Ear refer to a heightened capacity of mind rather than something "supernatural"

regards

[Abnorbprootly]

If such things as the Divine Eye/Ear and Nibbana exist, then one HAS to posit a metaphysic in Buddhism.

Nibbana is the unconditioned element (asankhata dhamma). although experienced by mind (nama), Nibbana is not a mental phemomena (nama dhamma), just a tree experienced by mind is not a mental phemomena (nama dhamma) but a physical phenomena (rupa dhamma)

Nibbana is not something metaphysic because it is neither mental (nama) nor physical (rupa)

regards

[Dogxzysl]

Furthermore, to my understanding of Nibbana, It is a "here and now" state with after death connotations. This much is true from Nikaya readings.

Well put.

The term "supernatural" has to be defined for any true discussion to continue, in my opinion.

The dictionary usually works for me, I don't think any of the definitions below apply to the purpose or central teachings of Buddhism.

su·per·nat·u·ral   [soo-per-nach-er-uhl, -nach-ruhl] Show IPA
adjective
1.
of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal.
2.
of, pertaining to, characteristic of, or attributed to God or a deity.
3.
of a superlative degree; preternatural: a missile of supernatural speed.
4.
of, pertaining to, or attributed to ghosts, goblins, or other unearthly beings; eerie; occult.

noun
5.
a being, place, object, occurrence, etc., considered as supernatural or of supernatural origin; that which is supernatural, or outside the natural order.
6.
behavior supposedly caused by the intervention of supernatural beings.
7.
direct influence or action of a deity on earthly affairs.
8.
the supernatural,
a.
supernatural beings, behavior, and occurrences collectively.
b.
supernatural forces and the supernatural plane of existence: a deep fear of the supernatural.

[pooncophy]

in Buddhism, the Divine Eye/Ear are regarded as "supernormal" rather than "supernatural". in other words, the Divine Eye/Ear are natural

whilst not the same, the Divine Eye/Ear are similar to the hearing of dogs or eye sight of birds. dogs can hear sounds the ordinary human being cannot hear and birds can see sights that the ordinary human being cannot see. whilst not the same, the Divine Eye/Ear refer to a heightened capacity of mind rather than something "supernatural"

Agreed, the problem here is in the use of the word "divine" which implies something bestowed from outside by a higher power, there is no such connotation with the iddhis in Buddhism.

[PriniMai]

Well put.

where? here?

Katamā ca, bhikkhave, anupādisesā nibbānadhātu? Idha, bhikkhave, bhikkhu arahaṃ hoti khīṇāsavo vusitavā katakaraṇīyo ohitabhāro anuppattasadattho parikkhīṇabhavasaṃyojano sammadaññā vimutto. Tassa idheva, bhikkhave, sabbavedayitāni anabhinanditāni sīti bhavissanti

Now what, bhikkhus, is the Nibbana-element with no residue left? Here a bhikkhu is an arahant... completely released through final knowledge. For him, here in this very life, all that is experienced, not being delighted in, will be extinguished. That, bhikkhus, is called the Nibbana-element with no residue left.

And what is the Unbinding property with no fuel remaining? There is the case where a monk is an arahant whose fermentations have ended, who has reached fulfillment, finished the task, laid down the burden, attained the true goal, ended the fetter of becoming, and is released through right gnosis. For him, all that is sensed, being unrelished, will grow cold right here.

Itivuttaka: The Group of Twos does it differ from this?

Just as an oil lamp burns in dependence on oil & wick; and from the termination of the oil & wick — and from not being provided any other sustenance — it goes out unnourished; even so, when sensing a feeling limited to the body, one discerns that 'I am sensing a feeling limited to the body.' When sensing a feeling limited to life, one discerns that 'I am sensing a feeling limited to life.'

One discerns that 'With the break-up of the body, after the termination of life, all that is sensed, not being relished, will grow cold right here.'

(Thanissaro Bhikkhu)

MN 140

He understands: 'On the dissolution of the body, with the ending of life, all that is felt, not being delighted in, will become cool right there'.

(Bhikkhu Bodhi)

‘kāyassa bhedā paraṃ maraṇā uddhaṃ jīvitapariyādānā idheva sabbavedayitāni anabhinanditāni sītībhavissantī’ ti pajānāti. or this?

Then, friend Yamaka, how would you answer if you are thus asked: A monk, a worthy one, with no more mental effluents: what is he on the break-up of the body, after death?"

"Thus asked, I would answer, 'Form is inconstant... Feeling... Perception... Fabrications... Consciousness is inconstant. That which is inconstant is stressful. That which is stressful has ceased and gone to its end."

"Very good, my friend Yamaka. Very good.

SN 22.85 what about this?

Bhikkhus, just as heat is generated and fire is produced from the conjunction and friction of two fire-sticks, so too, in dependence on a contact to be experienced as pleasant, painful or neither-pleasant-nor-painful, feeling arises.

SN 12.62

[Flirigor]

I really think this conversation about the supernatural is a hard one to have, simply because it is too hard to define. The dictionary definitions listed above help some, but not enough. For example, one of them was related to the occult. However, most occultist whether they be Wiccans or Ceremonial Magicians like Alister Crowley don't really believe they are delving into the supernatural so much as they understand the laws of the universe differently than other people and believe what they are doing is something natural to the universe and anyone can learn to do it if they study and practice.

Sorry, I know that is kind of off-topic, I just thought it might be important to remember that when we are discussing the supernatural, that most people who believe in what is called "supernatural" do not believe what they do is outside of nature.

[HcMkOKiz]

For example, one of them was related to the occult. However, most occultist whether they be Wiccans or Ceremonial Magicians like Alister Crowley don't really believe they are delving into the supernatural so much as they understand the laws of the universe differently than other people and believe what they are doing is something natural to the universe and anyone can learn to do it if they study and practice.

That's a good point and example. It's interesting that what outsiders would think of as very supernatural or supramundane they see as mundane and natural, by the same token what is seen within Buddhism as mundane some are keen to ascribe as supramundane.

[Xodvbooj]

That's a good point and example. It's interesting that what outsiders would think of as very supernatural or supramundane they see as mundane and natural, by the same token what is seen within Buddhism as mundane some are keen to ascribe as supramundane.

Yeah, I think this whole supernatural debate has a lot to do with perspective. To the Wiccan or Ceremonial Magician casting a circle and summoning some kind of spirit to ask for help would seem very natural and would just be seen as application of the laws of the universe, where as your average person on the street would see it as very supernatural. I think, that it could even be argued that Buddhism has some elements that might be seen as supernatural to the outside observer such as the already mentioned divine eye. Even some of the rituals of Tantric Buddhism, might to the outside observer, appear to be very supernatural and indeed there are some occultists who view Tantric rituals as a very high form of ceremonial magick. I'm not sure where I stand on this debate, but I do think it is largely a matter of perspective.

[SzefciuCba]

The supernatural doesn't factor into my buddhism I'm afraid, I prefer to view buddhism as a scientific psychological of the mind, self improvement and happiness through understanding and truth. Until the day I see proof of ghosts and ghoulies, I choose not to include them. While I'm open to the idea of reincarnation or an afterlife, I'm of the stance that "when you're dead; you're dead." I've never seen any proof so for me to believe it'd have to be blind faith, and I don't do blind faith.

[Anypeny]

In my opinion, the question is not whether Buddhism needs supernatural/super-normal/supra-mundane stuff, but whether a practitioner needs these stuff.

Just like the description of jhana states might seem supernatural/super-normal/supra-mundane to non-practitioners, for most of us on this website, we merely accept these descriptions as 'states' that we might encounter during the progress of our practices.

Most of these supernatural/super-normal/supra-mundane stuff in Buddhist Texts are merely answers to questions that a practitioner might encounter in his/her practice. As a practitioner makes progress, he/she will slowly understand what these stuff means.

So there is no reason for practitioners to be making true or false judgement calls regarding these seemingly 'unbelievable descriptions.' Just because you haven't experienced it, it doesn't mean it is not true, and just because you read it, it doesn't mean you know what it meant.

But, there is nothing wrong with practicing Buddhism in a secular fashion, it is all a matter of choice.