Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
"Superstitions" - dhamma talk by Ajahn Brahm
DaltheJigsaw
Mountain View Veteran
A hint of irreverence for all forms of superstition, lashings of humour in this talk, serve to stress that it's ONLY our personal accountability and actions that make a difference. Trinket jewellery, mindless chanting and holy water do not. Is there heaven and hell? What is the mind? Ajahn's stories of the 'Samurai Warrior and the Monk' and 'The Cloaked Emperor' provide the answers...
0
Comments
On topic: does anyone else see the irony of referring to the existence of psychic powers in the same talk containing debunking of (other) superstitions? :om: :banghead:
Michael Scott
The various siddhis (psychic powers) have been pretty well defined in Buddhist literature. The Buddha is clearly demonstrated as having psychic powers and the various siddhis are talked about fairly often by many meditation masters... and not in a round about, elusive way but very directly and matter-of-factly. The way I understand them are as side effects of developing deep Samadhi. Really its not anymore outlandish than many other concepts in Buddhism.
I would like to see some proof. Anecdotes and Buddhist literature are not proof.
Of course not everything written down is true... But to say any Buddhist master who has spoken of siddhis as fact is lying, would be to discredit most of them. Also the Buddha does talk directly and specifically about psychic powers in quite a few Suttas. So you have them directly addressed by the Buddha and mentioned by many Meditation Masters... From a Buddhist perspective, you cant just ignore that.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/index-subject.html#supranormal
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an05/an05.028.than.html#supranormal
Generally they are talked about as side effects of Samadhi. Not something to be purposefully developed or displayed publicly once developed. The Buddha actually speaks directly about not displaying them publicly. They are a natural process and i think the problem people mostly have with them is because of how the concept has been abused.
Just like the Jesus Myths in Christianity.
Just like science it is testable to the individual.
Astrology can not be tested Jhana/siddhi can.
/Victor
How do you know its not true? On what grounds would you dismiss psychic powers but still adhere to basic Buddhist tenets like enlightenment, karma, rebirth, and the other various meditative attainments re: jhanas, formless absorptions, insight, etc? RE: things that can not be empirically proved other than through direct experience.
You should read some of the Suttas i posted before... they are talking about psychic powers in a very matter of fact way. It's not a supernatural attribute given to the Buddha its the Buddha lecturing on very specific phenomenon. And again you have modern living masters talking about these exact same things. You cant dismiss them ALL as liars. Nearly every modern Theravadin teacher I've been exposed to has mentioned them.
/Victor
I am what you may call an Agnostic/Buddhist. I am a follower of Stephen Batchelor's works:
Buddhism Without Beliefs: A Contemporary Guide to Awakening
http://www.amazon.com/Buddhism-Without-Beliefs-Contemporary-Awakening/dp/1573226564
Confession of a Buddhist Atheist
http://www.amazon.com/Confession-Buddhist-Atheist-Stephen-Batchelor/dp/0385527071/ref=pd_sim_b_1
/Victor
Amen and good night.
/Victor
Victor, if psychics are real why hasn't and psychic won James Rhandi's 1 miliion dollar challenge? Victor you are the buddhist version of an apologist.
If it got into the public eye that Buddhist practice was some sort of conclusive way to gain psychic powers it would destroy Buddhism and what it has achieved and totally change the dynamic of the entire world.
Personally, I look at superstitions like placebos, in most cases: do they "work" in a proven, consistent, testable sense? It's a gray area, I think. If they make people feel better, don't harm them, and allow them to be happy, does it matter? I don't think so.
Even now, when I spill the salt on the table, I chuck it over my left shoulder...just in case. In case of WHAT I have no idea, but it's so ingrained in me that it makes me feel weird not to do it. It doesn't hurt anything.
That’s nonsense. Convenient nonsense.
It is so easy to fool yourself.
Proof is something else.
It takes a controlled setting. And you would have to really do something better than having an occasional hunch which turns out right. You would have to do better than having a weird dream.
Also don’t tell me my meditation sucks when I don’t have psychic powers.
I find that insulting.
@zenff i don't view it as being magic anymore than any of the other Buddhist teachings. what good would come out of that type of proof? there are a lot of things the Buddha refused to comment on or talk about because it would be unskilful to do so.
I also didn't say anything about your meditation sucking.
Siddhi is not magic. For an example:
Everybody has the ability to some extent predict other peoples motives. In Budo or chess this is a important ability. Any decent street magician or stage performer (and probably Randi himself) is a master of this skill.
Concentration practices helps us to sharpen those skills in the same way a concentrated mind is better at doing a lot of things.
This ability to predict peoples behaviour probably has hardwired help in our brains. There are mimic neurons that will mimic the movements of a person we see in front of us without us doing anything.
That connection is only a guess on my part but what I do know is that some people are naturally bettar at this than others and that practise can improve performance. I have tried out some exercises on my pupils in Aikido and Karate classes. Nothing scientifically significant but at least a test.
Thank you! Very kind of you but as I said before contrary to Christian Apologetics
1. I also experiment hands on which is what Buddhism is about
2. I am generally right
3. And to back up my claims I am pretty darn good looking in a Borat suit...
...would you like to see? I can send you pictures...
/Victor
Siddhi is fiction. Do you really think months of training will give you: "Clairvoyance, levitation, bilocation, becoming as small as an atom, materialization, having access to memories from past lives."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siddhi
You should read this book:
From Stephen Batchelor's
I do not really care what the wikipedia says about siddhi. I have tried out those that are called "looking into the hearts of others" and "Seeing past lives". I am pretty convinced that siddhis are real. So I am not going to waste more time trying others out unless required in my cultivation. But if you ever get around to trying them then drop me a note please.
Thank you for the links. When I write my book I will send you a copy. But do not hold your breath.
How very arrogant about your self.
Arrogant? I was trying to be too full with my own views...
I am just being a good fellow buddhist and playing the mirror for you.
Cheers
Victor
Batchelor: Stevenson investigated something like 1,700 cases in the course of his life, of which I think he says that there are forty-seven that he cannot explain by any other means than by past and future lives, and I agree with you that that's evidence.
...on the first page here:
http://www.tricycle.com/feature/reincarnation-debate?page=0,0
And also claims to be a agnostic...rather than reject these views?
/Victor
The New Humanist article is from a few months after he published his book: "Confession of a Buddhist Atheist"
As a Buddhist atheist, I reject the doctrines of karma and rebirth, [...] I do so as a Buddhist, as one who has adopted the template of values, ideas and practices laid out by Siddhattha Gotama
How can you reject rebirth and karma when you adopt the values, ideas and practices laid out by Siddattha Gotama?
Besides rejecting a thing entirely is not a logically viable position. I am not sure he is saying that.
Does he actually say he has changed his mind? Or is it that others just interprets his word to mean whatever they want them to mean?
/Victor
Also remember what the Buddha supposedly said:
"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it."
~Buddha
or the other version:
"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense."
Buddha basically said "If Karma and Rebirth does not fit your own reason and your own common sense. Then don't believe in it."
The Buddha gave us a lots of room to support his ideals. There is no requirement of what you MUST believe. The reason why I find Buddhism great because dogma is not required unlike other religions.
Also the Buddha was skeptical of rebirth as well:
“Suppose there is no hereafter and there is no fruit of deeds done well or ill. Yet in this world, here and now, free from hatred, free from malice, safe and sound, and happy, I keep myself.”-Buddha, Kalama Sutta
Also Bachelor has a great quote as well:
"It made me realize that belief in rebirth was a denial of death. And by removing death’s finality, you deprive it of its greatest power to affect your life here and now."
-Stephen Batchelor, Confession of a Buddhist Atheist
A great source:
http://www.lifeevolver.com/common-sense-buddhism-life-philosophy-religious-nonreligious-skeptics-atheists-agnostics/
you can, of course, take away whatever is good for you from Buddhism... but its a mistake to think the Buddha didn't teach karma and rebirth as actuality but instead as metaphor. Those ideas are not dispersed sporadically into his teachings they are at the core of everything he taught. He expounded on them in depth and insisted they were among the most important aspects of his teachings.
this is a worthwhile read on the topic:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/bps-essay_06.html
"If we suspend our own predilections for the moment and instead go directly to our sources, we come upon the indisputable fact that the Buddha himself taught rebirth and taught it as a basic tenet of his teaching."
this book by Thanissaro Bhikkhu is also worth a read:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/wings/index.html
Just like in science first you absorb the theory and then you device a experiment to prove it, try it out and finally try to learn from the results. Yes I think that is great too. And the suttas clearly state that belief in rebirth, karma and siddhi is NOT required to reach enlightenment.
That is a conclusion from a citation totally robbed from its context. If you read it in context you understand that the Buddha means nothing of the sort you say he means.
That is fine and probably valid for him. But for millions of other Buddhists in asia, to get away from the cycle of rebirth, is the motivation to cultivate Dhamma.
/Victor
I agree with Sam Harris that Buddhism needs to get rid of the religious parts, so we can understand it better.
http://www.samharris.org/media/killing-the-buddha.pdf
Dear B5C you are such a beautiful portrayal of the condecending arrogance westerners are so famous for.
You really think that you can come along after 2500 years of eastern cultivation of Buddhism, throw a glimpse at it and then turn it around to your liking in 2 minutes? That is really funny.
Could you please at least explain to me what you think there is of religious nature in Buddhism? And what superstitiouns you are talking about? I can not think of any.
Oh is that you on the pic? It is just that I have a cousin that needs to get married...
/Victor
1. Rebirth
2. Karma
3. Chanting
4. Claim that Buddhism can help you to lead to have psychic powers.
5. Hungry Ghosts
6. Buddhist deities (bodhisattvas)
7. Monks in Thailand use superstitions to bring followers and money to their temples.
8. The Birth story of the Buddha
9. Buddhist heavens
10. Buddhist hells
I can continue to list more. Majority of the religious Buddhism you see today is from after the Buddha's death. This is what happens to some great people. People will turn other people into gods or holy people to help bring a message.
For example Jesus was a real man, but he was only a man. His current status has a god came from 100 years after his death. Look also at Joseph Smith of the Mormon faith and L. Ron. Hubbard of the Scientology faith. I think I found my arch nemesis on New Buddhist.
People have such a stronger aversion to words like faith that they don't even take the time to try to understand what those words mean in the context of the practice. Do you understand what faith means in the context of Buddhist practice?
You cant just say that Buddhism needs to get rid of core concepts like karma and rebirth... that's NOT what the Buddha taught. If you want to cherry pick the concepts you like out of Buddhism that's fine, but don't call it Buddhism.
Noun:
1.Excessively credulous belief in and reverence for supernatural beings.
2.A widely held but unjustified belief in supernatural causation leading to certain consequences of an action or event, or a practice...
That definition sounds reasonable.
If stuff does not fit into logic and reason and can not be measured in tested through science is just myth and superstition. To quote Tim Mitchen on Faith: "Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
Karma and rebirth has no evidence of being real. Then Why should I believe in it? So is people like me and Stephen Bachelor not a "true" Buddhist then?