[Buddha-l] Re: Magic

[Joy Vriens]

Dhammanando Bhikkhu wrote:

>> Can anyone tell me in what source, when and why "the Buddha" (had to)  
>> forbid the use of magic? 
 
>He didn't. What is forbidden is: 
 
>1. The study of "low arts" (tiracchaanavijjaa) by bhikkhus and  
>bhikkhuniis. This would include things like spells and charms. 
>2. The exercise of tiracchaanavijjaa as a means of livelihood by  
>bhikkhus and bhikkhuniis. 
>3. The displaying of supernormal powers acquired through jhaana to an  
>anupasampanna (i.e. non-bhikkhus and non-bhikkhuniis) 
 
>Though none of these restrictions apply to householders. 

In Le voile d'Isis, the current buzz of Buddha-L, Hadot explains that magic has the same objective as mechanics. He reminds how mechanics comes from the Greek "mechane" meaning ruse, perhaps we could even call it skilful means. He explains that the aim of both is to discover the secrets or hidden processes of nature and thereby to use them to influence events. The classic magic (magie classique) tries to do so by acting upon the gods and demons that control or know the hidden forces of nature. Acting upon is to call their names, accomplishing certain rituals, using certain plants or animals etc. Hadot writes about the Greeks and Romans, but I guess the situation could be very similar to the Indian subcontinent. Later on, something he calls natural magic developed. In this the assistance of gods and demons was no longer required and one looked directly for the secrets of nature to influence on things through alchimy etc. For me, there is not much difference, or mostly in styl!
 e or grammar, between classic magic, natural magic, technics, science as far as their objective goes, which is to discover the secrets of nature in order to use them. And it is the use of those and the motivation behind that which can make them skilful or unskilful. I am happy to see the Buddha going in a similar direction and I hope the reverse is true either. :-)

In his Mantras et mandarins Michael Strickmann suggests that "Tantra" isn't due to foreign influences or a gradual degradation of Buddhist (and Hindu) values and ideas as those protestant Buddhist scholars that only exist in my head tend to see it. He sees it as part and parcel of religious culture, or in the case of Buddhism, simply as "the ritual and spectacular aspect of Buddhism itself". If one sees the role the power of the word (vac) plays in Buddhism, then chanting, dharanis, mantras, spells and charms seem related to me. And the law of karma is a book full of spells and charms for a better rebirth. Plenty of magic everywhere.

Joy