[Z3s9vQZj]

Unless we are Enlightened l do think it's premature to dismiss 'foreign.
' concepts as "superstition"

I don't dismiss superstitions because they are "foreign", I dismiss them because they are superstitions. "Enlightenment" does not enter into the equation. It's easy to put up a front of defending a superstition by claiming we can't see it unless are are "Enlightened", and this "Enlightenment" is just as much a pie-in-the-sky superstition as hindukarma is. This is simply a Courtier's Reply that "you cannot see The Emperor's New Clothes simply because you are not wise". The Buddha said many times that "the ending of the asavas is for one who knows and sees, not for one who does not know and does not see." The latter includes one who clings to wild-ass guesses as if they were "truths". The Buddha called supersitions such as hindukarma and reincarnation/"re-birth" sammaditthi sasava (MN 117), and it is clear that this is because superstitions are sasava, and they are by the Buddha's definition asava:

asava [aasava]:
Mental effluent, pollutant, or fermentation. Four qualities — sensuality, speculative views, becoming, and ignorance


We also see avijja (ignorance) translated in many places as "nescience", which word is the opposite of science, which literally means knowledge (vijja).

Again, as the Buddha said, the ending of the effluents (asavas -- pollutants, defilements) is for one who knows and sees, not one who does not know and does not see.

No, in what context did he us this phrase? Always in the context of a liberative teaching.

It's most proable true to say that nobody posting on this site has the least idea about the strides Quantum Physic's is making these days.

I'll spare you telling you how irrelevant quantum physics are. This time.

Certainly many of the type of example you mention are superstitions based on....ignorance.

...and what superstition is not...?

that is the crux of my case,what was true at the time,and in those societies.

There is a difference between "belief" and "truth". Things may have been thought to be true, but Copernicus did not change the shape of the world; it was always the same, no matter what oddball story humans concocted about it.

Those were times when in general people were more aware of the earth than we are now.

More aware of the earth??? Does that statement really mean anything, beyond New Age hippy-trippy hype? All of our technology -- for better or for worse -- stems from our improved "awareness of the earth".

to throw out those beliefs without having lived that reality is a little presumptuous.

That sure would make it easy to keep superstitions on the table, wouldn't it? So, since I didn't life 600 years ago, I should not throw out the superstition that the world is flat, against all evidence to the contrary? It is even presumptuous of me to do so?