[jdynwa]

Dear friends,

I was reading this excerpt by the late Ajahn Buddhadasa and thought I would invite you to comment on it.

Superstition Is Prison

For the next prison, we want to mention being deceived by the thing known as "saiyasatr". All the superstitious formalities and beliefs are saiyasatr. The more ignorance there is, the more one lacks correct knowledge, then the more trapped one is in superstitious prisons. Now, education and science (vidayasatr) have improved, which has led to a better understanding of natural truths, and of all things.

Still, there remains too much entrapment in superstitious prisons. It's a personal thing. Some people are caught very much and others not so much. People are caught in different degrees and ways, but we can say that there are still people caught in the prison of saiyasatr, trapped by superstition.

Although in general superstition has diminished greatly due to the progress of science, there is still quite a bit of saiyasatr left in the temples and churches. Please forgive us for saying so, but the place we can find superstition the most is in churches, in the temples, and in those kinds of places. Although superstition has lessened in general, there's a lot remaining in such places.

Wherever there are altars, wherever people bow down and worship so-called sacred and holy things, there is the place where the "science of the sleeper" persists. Superstition, saiyasatr, is for people who are asleep. It's for those who don't understand correctly, who are ignorant.

We are taught these things as children, before we have the intelligence and ability to reason about them. Children believe whatever they're told, and so "adults" teach them many superstitious things. If you still feel that thirteen is an unlucky number, that's saiyasatr. You're still sleeping.

There are many other examples of superstition, but we'd better not name them. Some people might get offended. These kinds of things are prisons. Why not look carefully enough to see them as such. Even the number "13" becomes a prison when we're foolish.

(from 'The Prison of Life')

http://www.dharmaweb.org/index.php/T...ews_Are_Prison

[OnlineViagraCheapestFREE]

Wherever there are altars, wherever people bow down and worship so-called sacred and holy things... I am sure the Ajahn will make an exception to this...

[Cengaeas]

I am sure the Ajahn will make an exception to this...

I don't know if Ajahn but sure I will...

[derisgun]

I agree with Ajahn but more than just sleep or asleep I really think that is more about a psychological need. This need seems to be rooted in the unconscious desire to make things happen as we wish they should happen. As well, all speculative ideas are grounded in the deep need to be into superstition. Also as children do, adults do. A child thinks that his toy or her doll has some sort of power or self property that makes it special; it fits his or her emotional needs. Altars, figures, paintings, legends, told stories, statues, and all sort of "sacred" or ritualized artifacts, are not dolls or toys but they represent and fulfill that same need.

A topic to reflect about.

[prearpaccew]

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.

[nanyaHgoc]

I don't know if Ajahn but sure I will...

Would someonbe feed that cat .... please?

[LSDDSL]

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 Apart from it stemming from mental proliferation, there's always the possibility that storytelling/ fantasy/myth/legend can then become superstition - for example the return of King Arthur in the UK, the return of King Gesar in Tibet etc etc

Superstition can be stifling when others around one are immersed in it .

[ergyuu]

People in the pre-modern era were more at home with imaginative and mythopoeic forms of expression

Right.... and that's why there's so much twaddle and add-on surrounding the Buddha's teachings.

The myth, fantasy and folk-tales of past times and the modern day fantasy of Harry Potter (or other) movies for example (which are enjoyed by adults as well as children) are all ways to temporarily try to escape for a while from the dukkha of ordinary life .

[RotsLoado]

Right.... and that's why there's so much twaddle and add-on surrounding the Buddha's teachings.

Perhaps so from a modern "Protestant Buddhist" perspective. But myth, parable and poetry are also found in the Pali suttas, not to mention an elaborate cosmology which defies literal interpretation. The historical Buddha apparently was willing to use the full palette of human discourse -- rational and imaginative, literal and metaphorical, philosophical and religious -- to convey the teachings.

As Rupert Gethin and others have suggested:

The overall paucity of scholarly materials dealing with Buddhist cosmology would seem to reflect a reluctance on the part of modern scholarship to treat this dimension of Buddhist thought as having any serious bearing on those fundamental Buddhist teachings with which we are so familiar: the four noble truths, the eightfold path, no-self, dependent arising, and so on. The effect of this is to divorce the bare doctrinal formulations of Buddhist thought from a traditional mythic context. This can result in serious distortions: the picture that has sometimes been painted of especially early Buddhism and Theravada Buddhism is somewhat one-dimensional and flat.

However, the principle that the study of the imagery employed in early Buddhist texts is a useful way of deepening our understanding of the more overtly conceptual teachings of the Nikayas has already been used to good purpose by Steven Collins in his discussion of house imagery, vegetation imagery, and water imagery in the context of the Nikayas' presentation of the teaching of "no-self."(7) Advocating an approach not dissimilar to Collins's, Stanley Tambiah has commented that the traditional Buddhist cosmological scheme "says figuratively and in terms of metaphorical images the same kind of thing which is stated in abstract terms in the doctrine. The basic doctrinal concepts of Buddhism . . . which are alleged to explain man's predicament and to direct his religious action, are also embedded in the cosmology (and its associated pantheon)"...

To ignore the mythic portions of ancient Buddhist texts is to fail in a significant way to enter into their thought-world.

[furious1]

Superstition can be stifling when others around one are immersed in it .

Sure Aloka, people into superstition do not see it as such. Superstition has very subtle levels. The rough ones are about the number 13 and everyone laughs at that... but the situation change when it comes to what one believes or does in daily life. Also the most materialist person can feel some little bit fear when you tell him that a religious statue or paint are just that and nothing more; there is nothing there. But, as Ajahn said, "people might get offended" (or really mad); I can tell about that.

[AndyPharmc]

they did not feel themselves confined, as many of us moderns do, to a dreary literalism.

Do you feel confined to a dreary literalism, Lazy? Are you suggesting that "ancient times were better"?

Superstition is in the eye of the beholder.

[sabbixsweraco]

I like the article as a whole. The reader is also advised to abandon all kinds of things spiritual people cling to, like religious institutions, views etc. I like the way he sums it up:
The purpose of anapanasati is to remove all vestiges of upadana regarding self. The complete removal of attachment toward self is the final and perfect quenching of dukkha, which happens to be the meaning of liberation, of salvation. The highest goal of every religion is salvation, the value and benefits of which are beyond words. So please try. Anapanasati, when practiced correctly, leads to this liberation from atta. I have been trying my best and I am willing to do whatever I can to help everyone understand anapanasati and practice it successfully, in order that all of us can escape from all aspects of humanity's prison.

[Farson]

Perhaps so from a modern "Protestant Buddhist" perspective. But myth, parable and poetry are also found in the Pali suttas, not to mention an elaborate cosmology which defies literal interpretation. The historical Buddha apparently was willing to use the full palette of human discourse -- rational and imaginative, literal and metaphorical, philosophical and religious -- to convey the teachings.

Lazy, Its pretty obvious that there's metaphor and parable in the suttas. However the Buddha is teaching how to overcome dukkha which is different to general fantasy and fairytale storytelling. I also have books by Sue Hamilton and Richard Gombrich so you're not telling me anything new.

As for suggesting that I'm speaking as a 'Protestant Buddhist' I don't even know what that is... other than its just another label of some kind, lol !

Buddhadasa doesn't mention the suttas anyway, hes talking about superstition in general and also there's no doubt that some Buddhist cultures are steeped in superstitious nonsense which has nothing to do with the teachings in the Pali Canon.

[Inconykic]

Yes, the Buddha uses skillful means to teach; If he used poetry or something that looks like philosophy do not mean he was a poet or a philosopher or a storyteller or that he was hooked into mythical imaginative figures looking in them for a special self property.

But what relationship has the skillful means of Buddha with superstition, if I may ask Lazy?

[Mehntswx]

Do you feel confined to a dreary literalism, Lazy? Are you suggesting that "ancient times were better"? Probably they were better in some ways, worse in others. Our times are also a mixed bag.

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.

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?

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?

[sbrthrds]

From Lazy Eye's post #9 ... " The historical Buddha apparently was willing to use the full palette of human discourse -- rational and imaginative, literal and metaphorical, philosophical and religious -- to convey the teachings. "

My thought is and why wouldn't he? The hang ups about superstition and focusing on the wrong aspects can be discarded and whilst I often lament on my inadequacies in ability to communicate experiences and ideas, the creative use of the full range of tools, approaches and concepts is sensible.

[pataagusata]

I'm not sure I would extend the definition of superstition to cover everything from art to storytelling to the making of statues.

Not intrinsically, no. When used to propagate superstition, yes.

People in the pre-modern era were more at home with imaginative and mythopoeic forms of expression;
Perhaps so, largely because they did not have the kind of rational tools we have now to sort out fact from fiction. Although the Buddha was using some of the same tools we do now to do just that. He was way ahead of his time in that respect.

they did not feel themselves confined, as many of us moderns do, to a dreary literalism. Quite a presumptuous statement. But you have got it backwards: sorting out fact from superstition is liberating, not confining. We are not bound and gagged by scary stories and fear of what is not known.

And it's not as if the psychological needs which you mention have disappeared; rather, they've become fodder for the advertising industry. The advertising industry thrives on the same sort of ignorance and gullibility that drives superstition on despite the advances in rational thought that many of us enjoy.

[eocavrWM]

Perhaps so from a modern "Protestant Buddhist" perspective.

In the immortal words of Inigo Montoya, I do not think that means what you think it means:

WIKI:

Buddhist modernism (also referred to as Protestant Buddhism, Modern Buddhism[1] and modernist Buddhism[2]) consists of the "forms of Buddhism that have emerged out of an engagement with the dominant cultural and intellectual forces of modernity."[3] While there can be no complete, essential definition of what constitutes a Buddhist Modernist tradition, most scholars agree that the influence of Protestant and Enlightenment values have largely defined some of their more conspicuous attributes.[4] David McMahan cites "western monotheism; rationalism and scientific naturalism; and Romantic expressivism" as influences.[5]

Examples of such movements and traditions of thought may include Humanistic Buddhism and Engaged Buddhism (which started in the Sinitic World and constitute the foundations of the contemporary Buddhist revival in China, Taiwan, Japan and Vietnam as well as of the propagation of non-denominational forms of Buddhism in the Western World), linkages between Buddhism and Gnosticism, the Japanese-initiated Nichiren Buddhism and Soka Gakkai, the New Kadampa Tradition and the missionary activity of Tibetan Buddhist masters in the West (leading the quickly growing Buddhist movement in France), the Vipassana Movement, the Triratna Buddhist Community, Fo Guang Shan and Juniper Foundation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_modernism

And, as A-D alludes, you are barking up the Straw Man Tree unless you can get a show of hands of folks here who identify as "Protestant Buddhists".


But myth, parable and poetry are also found in the Pali suttas, not to mention an elaborate cosmology which defies literal interpretation. The historical Buddha apparently was willing to use the full palette of human discourse -- rational and imaginative, literal and metaphorical, philosophical and religious -- to convey the teachings. The fact that he used folks' superstitions as teaching tools to drag them kicking and screaming out of superstition and darkness doesn't mean that they are intrinsic to his Noble, liberative teachings.


As Rupert Gethin and others have suggested:
Of course an abhidhammist is going to cast the discarding of superstitious distortions of the Buddha's teachings as itself a distortion. He really has nothing else to argue with.

[ptolerezort]

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

The refining of reason and rational thought and the rejection of superstition is better in every way and on every level. It removes fear, promotes well-being, and takes away tools by which one might be manipulated.

I think many Western practitioners have a discomfort/aversion with what they regard as the superstitious elements in traditional/Asian Buddhism. Again, characterizing the discarding of superstitions as "discomfort/aversion" is presumptuous and a straw man. It has nothing to do with discomfort or aversion and everything to do with the appropriate rejection of baseless woo.

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. And neither is it about "unease". It is about the reasonable rejection, after rational investigation and deliberation, of hooey.

The point isn't to stand inside a Western/modernist/rationalist box... You seriously need to watch this video:



Rejecting superstitious woo isn't about "standing inside a 'Western/modernist/rationalist box'". It is about rejecting woo because it is woo.


...and point fingers at the silly traditional Buddhists in their silly superstitious box. 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.

That's cheap and easy, and where does it get us as far as our own liberation is concerned? It gets us right into lokuttaradhamma, which is precisely where the liberation the Buddha taught is to be found.

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. You seriously misrepresent him. He was not merely limited to his own culture; he was also well attuned to the Buddha's liberative teachings and their relevance as timeless teachings for the entire world.

But when Westerners with modernist inclinations invoke Buddhadasa, are we going against the grain or simply reinforcing our predispositions? "We"...? Seriously, Lazy, this is terribly disingenuous. Rejecting and dismissing superstition is not a matter of "reinforcing predispositions" -- it is precisely the opposite. Again you are committing precisely the very mistakes that are discussed in the video above, confusing open-mindedness and closed-mindedness. This sort of twisted sophistry might have worked at E-Sangha, but it wilts in the the light of day.

[abouthotels]

I think many Western practitioners have a discomfort/aversion with what they regard as the superstitious elements in traditional/Asian Buddhism. 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?

Lazy

Most Westerners who have adopted "traditional" Asian religion (such as Tiltdrol and Nambillings) rarely hesitate to heap contempt onto "traditional" Western religion. Why? Because they have adopted the Asian traditional/ordinary man's religion as true but rejected the Western traditional/ordinary man's religion as superstition.

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?

Lazy. You have misrepresented Buddhadasa again and are sounding like a DWRobot. Buddhadasa does not justify your viewpoint because the Dhamma talk that serves the basis of this thread was spoken specifically for/to a Western audience. Your stereotyping of the "Western" mentality simply has no basis in reality. Christianity is extremely popular in the West, as is Tibetan and Mahavihara Buddhism. Your DWRobot repetition is illogical. What exactly was Buddhadasa providing an 'antidote' to? Did Buddhadasa change the Thai religion? Did Buddhadasa have Thais turning up in droves to listen to his talks?

Thai Buddhism, just like Burmese & Singalese Buddhism, was/is Mahavihara Buddhism. Buddhadasa taught contrary to that. Buddhadasa heavily criticised the venerated Buddhaghosa. Buddhadasa admitted when he was a young monk, he taught Dependent Origination over three-lifetimes. Why did he change? Because he studied the Pali suttas and began to teach what he regarded as the essence of Buddhism. Early in his career, he distinguished between the mundane and supramundane and one of the first books he published was titled: "Dhamma for Puthujanas".

Your views about Buddhadasa are not correct. Thai cultural Buddhism is not essentially different to any other cultural Buddhism. Buddhadasa's aim was to reveal the essential Buddhist teachings that were lost to the world.

If you yourself personally have no perceived need for such Dhamma, please take care to not obstruct others.

Best wishes