[BV6lwvXf]

Some of these assertions come from the Buddha himself -- for instance, in the Samaññaphala Sutta he describes the "six supranormal powers" in great detail, and in DN 16 he asserts his ability to remain in the world through an entire kalpa.

In the Samannnaphala Sutta, the Buddha is questioned about reincarnation beliefs by a reincarnation believer and the Buddha gives him answers from within that framework. The Buddha is not teachings Buddhadhamma. DN16 is a big sutta. If you are going to cite something, then cite it.

Your assessment notwithstanding, all the mythological passages I cited are from the Nikayas, and are thus canonical. However flowery they may be, no Buddhist school considers them "the work of poets, disciples and outsiders". They may be in "the Canon", but that does not make them the Buddha's teachings. The reference to "poets, disciples, and outsiders is part of the Buddha's admonishment to listen to the words of the Buddha.

The Buddha I meet in the suttas presented his teachings in rational/empirical terms, but was ready and willing to frame them in religious/transcendental ones as well, depending on the point he sought to convey and the capabilities of his audience. The Buddha's teachings were rational and empirical.
And he could frame them to make sense to a superstitious person, yes. That does not make his teachings superstitious or superstition-based.

Moreover, all schools of Buddhism, not just the Mahasamghikas and the later Mahayanists, accept the religious side to some extent. Mahayana may have taken it the farthest but it is present in Theravada as well. Argumentum ad Populum. You may say "all schools", and you would have to mean "Theravada, mahayana, and the tibetan religions" for that to be correct by any stretch. Plenty of sects and practitioners reject the superstitions, and rightly so. And the majority of the Theravada sects are steeped in so-called abhidhamma, which is of course superstition-based convolution that the Buddha did not teach, as well. The bottom line is that your claim that each of the major "schools" "accept" superstitions does not make them intrinsic to the Buddha's soteriology.

And indeed it is present in the suttas, as I have shown. And as I have shown, that does not make the superstitions the Buddha discussed intrinsic to his teachings, to his own soteriology. I have to discuss and dismantle your superstitions all the time here in order to get the point across, but that doesn't mean I believe them or endorse them. Same with the Buddha.



What Buddhists living today, in the scientific era, should make of this is a different question. They should make of the Buddha's teachings exactly what they are, rather than wallowing in superstitions the Buddha himself was trying to counter.