[Buddha-l] Re: Magic

[L.S. Cousins]

Ven. Dhammanando,

>>One is historical. The rule is applied only to nuns in the 
>>Suttavibhanga. Only later in the Khandhakas is it extended in a 
>>minor degree to monks. Fears of witchcraft ?
>
>I can't imagine why you would think the two rules for bhikkhus to 
>have originated later than the ones for bhikkhuniis.

Well, this is not controversial in European scholarship. The 
Khandhakas are generally thought to be a later creation than the two 
Vibhangas. For that matter, the section for  nuns is considered later 
than that  for monks.

Actually, I don't see how the order could be disputed. Surely, the 
Khandhakas presuppose the twofold Vibhanga in some form ?

What will be disputed is whether this evolution took place in the 
lifetime of the Buddha and shortly after - I presume this is your 
view ? Or, a couple of centuries later. Or, later still. One meets 
all these views.

>Do you think the Mahaasiila section of the Brahmajaala Sutta is also 
>late? If not, then surely it's only to be expected that there would 
>be Vinaya rules covering these things.

The date of the Mahaasiilas is not really relevant, since they 
contain no rule about learning or studying low arts.

>>Another is the definition of 'low arts'. This is precisely defined 
>>as any secular (baahiraka) knowledge which does not conduce to the 
>>goal (atthasa.mhita). So restricting the explanation to 'magic' 
>>would give a rationalist (effectively Protestant Buddhist :-)) 
>>tinge to it.
>
>I agree. I didn't intend to impose any such restriction, but 
>mentioned magical spells merely as an example.

OK

>>c) it is not an offence to learn or teach a spell for protection.
>
>>So if a monk attends a course in sociology or astronomy, he commits 
>>an offence each time he memorizes or teaches a phrase ?
>
>Not if the monk adheres to Buddhaghosa's commentary to the rule, for 
>after listing a few examples 
>(hatthi-assa-ratha-dhanu-tharu-sippa-aathabba.na-khilana-vasiikara.na-sosaapana-mantaa-gadappayog-aadibheda.m) 
>the commentator then adds a qualification limiting the rule to cases 
>where the low art is aimed at harming others (paruupaghaataka.m). So 
>attending a course in military strategy at Westpoint is out, but I 
>suppose sociology and astronomy would be kappiya.

So for the author of the Vinaya commentary, studying magic or 
astrology would not be a breach of the rule, if not causing harm to 
others ? The examples given are five kinds of military art, four 
kinds of mantra and the use of potions, etc.

I think a Protestant Buddhist would say that the original intent of 
the rule has been subverted by the later commentary. For myself, I 
would think that the commentator has precisely caught the spirit of 
the original.

Lance