[Usogwdkb]

There are many other examples of superstition, but we'd better not name them. Some people might get offended. I don't think this is a very helpful approach. If you approach the topic with compassion and tact, you can avoid sparking an offended response. When superstitions distort the Dhamma, they need to be addressed. The blessing and selling of protective and lucky amulets by monks, for example, is a big business in SE Asia, and more than a few Thais have told me that the Buddha taught monks how to get these supernatural powers through meditation. That is, that the purpose of meditation was to get those powers. This is harmful to the Dhamma and the people.

[beatrisio]

Tiltdrol and Nambillings...

[Stetbrate]

I love it when folks who are stuck in the cesspool of superstition try to paint folks who reject superstition as being stuck in the same sort of cesspool. It lets me know that they know that being stuck in a cesspool of superstition is a Bad Thing.

You're missing my point. I'm not saying that reason and superstitition are equivalent, that they are "the same sort of cesspool", that we shouldn't investigate or come to rational conclusions, or that we shouldn't expose the errors in superstitious thinking. I agree with most of the points made in the video you posted.

But ultimately rationalism is also a box, even if it's a better and bigger one. The act of rejection amounts to setting up the walls of the box -- certain things (the scientific method, Cartesian logic) go in the box, certain other things (religion, mythology) are kept out. One then fights to make sure they are kept out (through polemic) while reinforcing what's inside through peer selection and choice of reading material (the echo chamber effect).

So, yes, it does become a matter of reinforcing predispositions -- even if they are better predispositions. At worst, it can turn into ideology, and we should always be wary of ideologies -- even, perhaps especially, "superior" ones.

[CoiI8XIj]

Sure. We have new and better tools.

The Buddha provided these tools 2500 years ago. And he encouraged folks to put away the defective "tools" of superstition.

Some of the old tools are irrelevant/outdated/harmful and should be discarded. Some old tools can be used along with the new ones. Some can be "retrofitted" in light of advancements in science. It's not a black or white issue. You are not really saying anything here. Clinging to superstition and retrofitting superstition "in light of advancement of science" is more akin to lying to oneself pathologically than to acting rationally.


You're missing my point. Not in the least. I am challenging your assertion.


I'm not saying that reason and superstitition are equivalent, that they are "the same sort of cesspool", Sure you are, and you continue to do so below.


....that we shouldn't investigate or come to rational conclusions, or that we shouldn't expose the errors in superstitious thinking. I agree with most of the points made in the video you posted. You are attempting to use "rational" arguments to defend the irrational and indict the rational. This is akin to the poor fellow at 2:45 in the video below:





But ultimately rationalism is also a box, even if it's a better and bigger one. No, it is not. And there you sit, cutting the branch out from under yourself.

The act of rejection amounts to setting up the walls of the box -- certain things (the scientific method, Cartesian logic) go in the box, certain other things (religion, mythology) are kept out. You are attempting to use reason to dispute the veracity of reason. Kind of silly. One rejects what is unfounded for cause, which you are completely ignoring.


One then fights to make sure they are kept out (through polemic) while reinforcing what's inside through peer selection and choice of reading material (the echo chamber effect). And this is not true, either. One keeps an open mind. What you are describing is the behavior of the superstitious, not of the rational. Again, trying to equate the two and cast reason as being the same sort of cesspool that superstition is.

So, yes, it does become a matter of reinforcing predispositions -- even if they are better predispositions. Not at all. Critical thinking and a rational approach is not a "predisposition", and humans are not "predisposed" to take such an approach -- by and large it is something that one has to learn.

At worst, it can turn into ideology, and we should always be wary of ideologies -- even, perhaps especially, "superior" ones. You betray a complete lack of understanding of critical thinking and rationality. Ideologies are the domain of superstition. Critical thinking and a rational approach to investigation are antithetical to ideologies. What you are doing here is akin to a theist claiming that science, critical thinking, or reason are matters of "faith".

[DongoSab]

I agree with most of the points made in the video you posted.

And what "points" in this lesson on critical thinking do you not agree with?

[Illirmpipse]

Probably they were better in some ways, worse in others. Our times are also a mixed bag.

I think this is highly speculative. And the mixed bag is always happening.

I think many Western practitioners have a discomfort/aversion with what they regard as the superstitious elements in traditional/Asian Buddhism. And sure, those elements are there. But it's probably worth subjecting our unease to examination as well -- because this may be our particular prison. Maybe I was not clear in post # 4. Superstition is not found just around "traditional/Asian Buddhism" as you say. Superstition is something beyond the dichotomy (or boxes) you address: Western/Eastern, Asian/European, etc. Superstition is of psychological nature; about human nature. It is not just about Buddhism as religion. Modern world is superstitious in many ways too. And that is the reading I have got from the Ajahn quoted teaching.

What he is addressing is what happens when there is awareness of mind; what happens when we develop Right View, when we contemplate Anatta, Anicca and Dukkha with insight and with a tranquil mind. The superstition prison vanishes as many other prisons we are into, will do.

You speak about East/West as opposites but "westerns" (to speak in terms of boxes) tend to make a religion out of science; that is superstitious. And the other way, "easterners" have made a science out from their religious believes and thier blind faiths and lack of critical reasoning; that is superstitious too. Altars are found in Eastern religious temples and in the Finance Buildings in NYC. It is superstitious to believe in the many Mahayana colorful iconic "Buddhas" or to believe in the the words of Deepak Chopra.

What Ajahn is telling is not to be deluded by this sort of views. Where is the problem with that? It is a personal choice. Superstitious is to believe that if you fed a sacred statue with water will bring you a peaceful mind as to have a big bank account that you fed it with dollars. It is human nature.

Personally I do not feel unease if you or others are into superstitious believes. Fortunately, the teachings of the historical Buddha are out from this controversy. Buddhism's, not. Traditions, not. The proper way to keep a healthy distance from superstitious believes is to support ourselves with the teachings of the historical Buddha. The rest is just history. And we can easily get entangled into that, if you like to.

The point isn't to stand inside a Western/modernist/rationalist box and point fingers at the silly traditional Buddhists in their silly superstitious box. That's cheap and easy, and where does it get us as far as our own liberation is concerned? The teachings of the historical Buddha are not a Western/modernist/traditionalist box or any kind of box at all. Also I have never seen those boxes until now. What I see is cultural add-ons, not boxes. Just average human behaviour.

Buddhadasa was coming from a particular context. He was a Thai Buddhist who understood the morass his own cultural/religious tradition had fallen into, and provided an appropriate antidote. From the point of view of Theravada in Thailand, he was going against the grain. But when Westerners with modernist inclinations invoke Buddhadasa, are we going against the grain or simply reinforcing our predispositions? I am unaware of this. I really do not get into such and such. I just read an opinion about a universal issue that is superstitious believes and behaviour and I agree with it. Superstition is a psychological need where a self property is adressed to something that did not have such self property.

I don't know if this is to reinforce predispositions or to go against the grain. I have never been into religions; but being here, I have seen the huge amount of religious believes that some members have developed around teachings that warns us against such behaviours and believes; call them philosophy, call them faith or whatever. I have never seen any self property in a religious statue, a religious painting or an altar. When mind is at peace, still, aware, tranquil and clear this argumentation has no sense at all.

[wmzeto]

You are attempting to use "rational" arguments to defend the irrational and indict the rational. This is akin to the poor fellow at 2:45 in the video below.

And there you sit, cutting the branch out from under yourself.

You are attempting to use reason to dispute the veracity of reason. Kind of silly. One rejects what is unfounded for cause, which you are completely ignoring.

Nice video. But the example of 2:45 is not applicable because I am not arguing the absurd position that reason has no value, nor am I challenging its veracity. Reason is a very good thing.

However, like all things good and not so good, it can become a fetter. So in a way, sawing off the branch is a useful and relevant metaphor. Part of the task before us is to recognize whatever branch we are on and take care that it doesn't become a hindrance.

The Buddha taught the relinquishment of views, including those which are based in knowledge. Among other things, attachment to knowledge can foster conceit.

When dwelling on views as "supreme," a person makes them the utmost thing in the world, &, from that, calls all others inferior and so he's not free from disputes. When he sees his advantage in what's seen, heard, sensed, or in precepts & practices, seizing it there he sees all else as inferior.

That, too, say the skilled, is a binding knot: that in dependence on which you regard another as inferior. So a monk shouldn't be dependent on what's seen, heard, or sensed, or on precepts & practices; nor should he conjure a view in the world in connection with knowledge or precepts & practices; shouldn't take himself to be "equal"; shouldn't think himself inferior or superlative.

Abandoning what he had embraced, abandoning self, not clinging, he doesn't make himself dependent even in connection with knowledge; doesn't follow a faction among those who are split; doesn't fall back on any view whatsoever. It seems to me that polemical discourse, even when there is valid cause, runs the risk of pulling one into this trap.

[twiffatticy]

The Buddha taught the relinquishment of views, including those which are based in knowledge. Among other things, attachment to knowledge can foster conceit. It seems to me that polemical discourse, even when there is valid cause, runs the risk of pulling one into this trap.

Irrelevent. This is a discussion forum. Pot, kettle, etc,...

The topic is about 'superstition'. Please adhere to the topic.

Thank you.

[Abebpabeniemo]

Agree about the pot and kettle, Element and that this is a forum for discussion ... however, it seems to me that this point is not irrelevant in the sense that we all have views and that the important aspect is to remember that they are views, however, strongly we may hold on to the knowledge or belief ( which is what makes a view a superstition or not ) behind the view.

[EspnaConCam]

Agree about the pot and kettle, Element and that this is a forum for discussion ... however, it seems to me that this point is not irrelevant in the sense that we all have views and that the important aspect is to remember that they are views, however, strongly we may hold onto the knowledge which is behind them.

Again the Perspectivist Fallacy. There is a huge difference between what we can see and know for ourselves and "views". Views are not knowledge, and knowledge is not a view. You cannot equivocate the two.

[Xzmwskxn]

Quote Originally Posted by Lazy Eye View Post
I agree with most of the points made in the video you posted.

And what "points" in this lesson on critical thinking do you not agree with?

Did you miss this question, Lazy?

[cepAceryTem]

Again the Perspectivist Fallacy. There is a huge difference between what we can see and know for ourselves and "views". Views are not knowledge, and knowledge is not a view. You cannot equivocate the two.

Views are based on knowledge, amongst other things - lol.

[BariGrootrego]

The Buddha taught the relinquishment of views, including those which are based in knowledge. Among other things, attachment to knowledge can foster conceit. It seems to me that polemical discourse, even when there is valid cause, runs the risk of pulling one into this trap.

Lazy. It seems you have (again) misinterpreted the Pali sutta.

Stuka seems to have distinguished views that lead to liberation from those that do not. On this thread, the substance of the posts of Stuka do not appear to be falling into the "superiority/inferiority" conceit mentioned in the quote.

[Woziwfaq]

Views are based on knowledge, amongst other things - lol.

According to my dictionary, "view" can mean "opinion". Therefore if in my view I am sitting here on the planet Zog, is that based on knowledge?

[vTLWqa1l]

Unless you are sitting on planet Zog THIS view is not based on knowledge. Not all views are based on knowledge - the point is that even the views which are based on knowledge need to be seen as views.

[rionetrozasa]

I'm not sure I would extend the definition of superstition to cover everything from art to storytelling to the making of statues. People in the pre-modern era were more at home with imaginative and mythopoeic forms of expression; they did not feel themselves confined, as many of us moderns do, to a dreary literalism. And it's not as if the psychological needs which you mention have disappeared; rather, they've become fodder for the advertising industry.

To me, the above is reads convoluted; contradicted.

It seems to defend superstition yet speak as though there is no more superstition in the modern world. This is contradiction. This is unreality.

Superstition in the modern world is no different to when the Buddha was alive. There were believers and non-believers then as there is now.

Superstition is to be immersed in things unverified.

Thus, such defending of superstition make little sense at all; similar to imaginings about Buddhadasa, by those who did not know him, did not meet him, never heard him speak, rarely read any of his books.

To quote supermundane suttas about attachment to views is of little benefit when one cannot understand them, let alone when one struggles to speak only about what one has experienced for oneself.

[BrodiKennedy]

Unless you are sitting on planet Zog THIS view is not based on knowledge. Not all views are based on knowledge - the point is that even the views which are based on knowledge need to be seen as views.

..... but originally you said:

Views are based on knowledge,....

[gnusnich]

Aloka, you have left out the FULL sentence, and the second part of the sentence is also important to it's meaning - views are based on knowledge, amongst other things .... meaning one of the things that our views are based on is knowledge.

[vekiuytyh]

Aloka, you have left out the FULL sentence, and the second part of the sentence is also important to it's meaning - views are based on knowledge, amongst other things .... meaning one of the things that our views are based on is knowledge.

[imporesweemo]

And it's not as if the psychological needs which you mention have disappeared; rather, they've become fodder for the advertising industry.

Superstition is alive & well in religion, which often is no different than the advertising industry. Do you really believe the evangelical gurus such as HHDL and Ajahn Brahm are not "advertising", including making sounding easy dhammas that are often difficult (jhanas) and impossible (seeing literal past lives) to attain.