What is superstition?

[dzogchungpa]

In general, the earliest of Buddhist teachings -- those directly from the Buddha himself -- tend to be very much in accord with reality, while those which were the product of later Buddhists (even while falsely attributing these later teachings to the Buddha) tend to entail a large degree of superstition and mysticism.

If you think this, then why on earth are you on a Mahayana and Vajrayana forum? You're much better off on Dhamma Wheel, than Dharma Wheel.

He's a trollisattva.

(hat tip to Rita_Repulsa)

[Schrödinger’s Yidam]

This term, "mysticism," has been used in many different ways, with varying levels of precision or accuracy, so I will define it myself, to mean beliefs or thinking which are counter to reality and logic.

The geshe program is based on logic. The first classes are on set theory and logic. Then they examine what "reality" is, starting with the most basic type of views.

Making a long story short, after 20 years of study they come to the conclusion that "reality" is elusive, and that it CANNOT be reduced to any type of logical proposition, i.e. the tetralemma. So your presumption/assumption of what constitutes "reality" is, through logical analysis, systematically rejected.

Just saying'...

Even various Buddhists beliefs can correspond with or go patently against reality. In general, the earliest of Buddhist teachings -- those directly from the Buddha himself -- tend to be very much in accord with reality...

You've bought into a load of Batchelor type misinformation here. For one thing he teaches karma and reincarnation. Plus there are miracle stories in the Pali Canon. So that's just not true.

The premise is that the Buddha ses things from an enlightened perspective, the way things actually are. That is different on how we see them. So he addresses that problem by showing us that the way we see them is wrong, and he does so in such a way so that we can understand it. At first, on the Shravakayana level, he first uses reason to show us that our own assumptions about our own existence is untrue, that our personalities are not the essence our our existence. He encourages us to find that out for ourselves through a system of examination. But the basic premise is that at the end of the day we find out "I've had it wrong all along." He is showing us our defective understanding about "reality"--logically. This then is extended to object as well as subject with Madhyamka, but the message is still the same; "The way you see things as 'real' is wrong."

My own rather snarky way of summarizing the emptiness teachings is; 'get over it'--but in a healthy way.

[Mr. Robot]

Apparently, my previous post in this thread has caused some to take offense. I am sorry, and I meant no offense to anyone at all. I am also not a "trollisattva," although I will say I found the term amusing! Actually, I have probably communicated more on here via PMs than in public forums, as I am certainly not here to create divisiveness. I am here to exchange ideas...to learn from others when I find something of value, and to offer my own ideas in the hope that someone else may find something of value in something I say.

I don't want to dwell, and will not take any offense on my end. I do sometimes find that by communicating with someone whose viewpoint is different than my own allows for an exchange of unexpected information, some of which may lead to an expansion of my own worldview, that of the other party, or even of us both. It is in that spirit of mutual communication and understanding that I come here to see the ideas of others, and sometimes to post a few of my own.

[dzogchungpa]

I am also not a "trollisattva," although I will say I found the term amusing!

Is that a beauty or what?

[Mr. Robot]

I am also not a "trollisattva," although I will say I found the term amusing!

Is that a beauty or what?

LOL! Sometimes all one can do is laugh!

[Schrödinger’s Yidam]

It is in that spirit of mutual communication and understanding that I come here to see the ideas of others, and sometimes to post a few of my own.

Well said. I apologize if when I take a different standpoint on some issue it comes across as hostile. Although I self-identify as "resident DW troll" I try to not offend intentionally.

[Wayfarer]

This seems to be a quite appropriate definition for the term. I will expand upon this concept a bit, and say that superstitions may be classified as a type of "mysticism." This term, "mysticism," has been used in many different ways, with varying levels of precision or accuracy, so I will define it myself, to mean beliefs or thinking which are counter to reality and logic.

Wikipedia definition of mysticism is 'a constellation of distinctive practices, discourses, texts, institutions, traditions, and experiences aimed at human transformation, variously defined in different traditions." The term "mysticism" has Ancient Greek origins with various historically determined meanings.'

Nowadays the word is often used in a pejorative sense, which is unfortunate. And there is no doubt a lot of 'pseudo-mysticism' about; there was an abundance in The Theosophical Society, which nevertheless served an important role in the dissemination of Eastern spirituality in its day.

But, more to the point, and although Stephen Bachelor denies in various places that the Buddha was 'a mystic', the 'states of jhana' are central to the early Buddhist tradition (summary here). That is plainly a counterpart to the forms of 'mystical ascent' that are part of the world wisdom traditions (which *doesn't* mean they all say the same thing.)

Beyond the four jhanas lie four higher attainments in the scale of concentration, referred to in the suttas as the "peaceful immaterial liberations transcending material form" (santa vimokkha atikammarupe aruppa, M.i,33). In the commentaries they are also called the immaterial jhanas, and while this expression is not found in the suttas it seems appropriate in so far as these states correspond to jhanic levels of consciousness and continue the same process of mental unification initiated by the original four jhanas, now sometimes called the fine-material jhanas. The immaterial jhanas are designated, not by numerical names like their predecessors, but by the names of their objective spheres: the base of boundless space, the base of boundless consciousness, the base of nothingness, and the base of neither-perception-nor-non-perception.[18]

It is plainly the language of mysticism, and there's nothing the matter with it.

[明安 Myoan]

either some deity does or does not exist in reality

It would be worthwhile investigating what your standard of reality is.
This isn't a cute logical trick.
"Where there is perception, there is deception" as the Buddha said. Anyone who's seen a magician perform can attest to that much

In my opinion, ultimate reality of a deity is not something we can slap a label of thought on like "this is true", because "knowing" of this kind is itself ever-changing, influenced by countless factors and influences, and unreliable.
It's all more mental formations with associated pleasant feelings that contribute to the edifice of a good, clear-minded self versus a bad, superstition-deluded one. The same old five skandhas functioning under the cloak of logic and reality-finding.

To another point, I think it's a category error to say that because a deity is not solid, touchable, and visible in the same way a cup of coffee or anything perceptible by certain senses is, the deity therefore doesn't exist.
The danger in this category error is that "therefore he doesn't exist" nearly always includes the value judgment, "therefore he is useless for my life and can be disregarded."
We'll acknowledge that a friendship between people is similarly not solid, touchable, or visible, yet because we generally give it value, it has function and influence, almost a life of its own.
Certain perceptions and contexts are privileged over others to suit how we understand the world already.
For me, the way Buddhism challenges these frameworks of understanding continues to be one of its most challenging and helpful aspects.

Reality is far more porous than we think is my point.
Insofar as practice with a deity leads to liberation, that is infinitely more useful to myself and other suffering beings than abstractions of reality based on double standards of perception.

Thanks for reading

[Schrödinger’s Yidam]

To another point, I think it's a category error to say that because a deity is not solid, touchable, and visible in the same way a cup of coffee or anything perceptible by certain senses is, the deity therefore doesn't exist.

In fact, Madhyamaka perspective says that on a deep level the cup of coffee isn't "really there" either. That's the whole point, defeating the idea that the phenomenal world defines what is "real".

I was present once when the previous Kalu R. was asked if the deities were real. He answered something to the effect of, "Well the deities are emptiness and pure appearance. However on the other hand you yourself are simply emptiness and impure appearance."

Not an exact quote, but you can take from that what you like. Keep in mind Kalu R. was known as a Shentongpa.

[Wayfarer]

One of the Advaitins, when asked if the Gods were real, would always say 'As real as those who believe I them'.

[DGA]

Here's another way of articulating that very same point...

http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f= ... 84#p308484

[Karma Dondrup Tashi]

Any conclusion about anything other than a phenomenon is a superstition.

[Harimoo]

Etymologically, many linguists say the word "superstition" comes from the latin "superstare" which means "to stand above", but in fact it's not true.
"Supersition" comes from "superstes" which means "survivor".

A superstition is an old belief from old traditions, that doesn't make sense anymore (with the new tradition).

[DGA]

Etymologically, many linguists say the word "superstition" comes from the latin "superstare" which means "to stand above", but in fact it's not true.
"Supersition" comes from "superstes" which means "survivor".

A superstition is an old belief from old traditions, that doesn't make sense anymore (with the new tradition).

OK, assume one is practicing a tradition (call it, for the sake of argument, "Buddhism") but finds that much of that tradition's content is little more than superstition, and expresses a kind of self-assured superiority over the great masters of the past who upheld that content. By your definition, does that mean that such a one is announcing a new tradition entirely?

For context, here's the OP...

More specifically, what to contemporary Buddhists, insight meditators, and mindfulness wallahs mean when they describe something (typically someone's practice or rationale for practice) as superstition, as superstitious? This seems like a relevant issue even now; here is a recent DharmaWheel post that provoked this line of thinking in me.

http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f= ... ad#p307360

[Schrödinger’s Yidam]

Any conclusion about anything other than a phenomenon is a superstition.

The problem with that idea comes from the Madhyamaka. Since Madhyamaka says nothing can be concluded about phenomena either. In fact my take on Madhyamaka is that by deconstructing "concrete reality" into unintelligible babble it paves the way to have an open mind about what in this thread is called "superstition".

[Karma Dondrup Tashi]

The problem with that idea comes from the Madhyamaka. Since Madhyamaka says nothing can be concluded about phenomena either. In fact my take on Madhyamaka is that by deconstructing "concrete reality" into unintelligible babble it paves the way to have an open mind about what in this thread is called "superstition".

Leaving aside Svatantra’s acceptance of correct and incorrect syllogisms, even in Prasangika there are analyses reaching conclusions. It's true, I tell you. It's all true.

Path Madhyamaka for example is beyond affirmation and negation. In other words, to me this object is an iPhone, to my dog it's a nice bone to chew. So is there a valid conclusion as to whether this object is an iPhone?

Yes.

That's what I was getting at in the other rant. Although we can't affirm nor negate, that doesn't mean we can't apply a correct logical category. Specifically, a predicate correctly applied to that object must be a limitation. In other words, a judgment of indefiniteness is a valid conclusion.

If this weren't so there would be no valid way to gradually include any hypothesis into the background of calm abiding. That is, there would be no Prasangika Vipashyana.

If this weren't so Buddhapalita’s commentary would be a disordered mess or he would have just said the four lemmas had no utility.

If Prasangika merely negated syllogisms, it would just be an anti-Svatantra. If existence was the only category to arise in dependence Madhyamaka would just be an anti-Advaita. All logical categories also arise in dependence. Negation and affirmation are like black and white – there are colors in between.