Buddhism and Magicians

Serrao,

If you'll allow me, I'll throw in my two cents as a Zen practitioner (and Tao, but that is irrelevant here). I am not sure whether "magic" as such exists. But I am also unconcerned with whether it does or not. In Zen, the idea is that one should pursue the root of practice, which is awareness and clarity of mind. Should any so-called "supernatural" powers arise from this, they are the branches, not the roots of the teaching and should be treated as such.

Here is a more natural example to illustrate: if practicing Buddhism brings you greater charisma, would any enlightened teacher suggest that you should go out and make a living giving seminars on how to draw people to you? Of course not. Even if such an ability comes from practice, using it in such a way is not Buddha mind, it is ego. You should treat all supernatural abilities from practice (and the pursuit of such abilities too) accordingly.

[Caitlyn Laufey]

Buddhism is applicable and attachable to all faiths. A discipline that applies or believes it applies magic would be no different. the same is true of Taoism, except from different perspective.

Caitlyn,

While it is true that one can use Buddhist principles of enlightenment through various religions, it is also true that the precepts of some forms of practice can serve to prevent enlightenment.

It is hard for me to imagine how Buddhism, even one of its more open forms, Zen, would pair with the practice or pursuit of magic. If, however, this was the case, I'd imagine that the only way it would work is if the "magic" was used to draw one closer to the source/original mind, or at the very least, to strengthen one's perception for study or "lovingkindness".

Again, I must stress that though Buddhism is a very open faith, it doesn't work well with anything that places any sort of "power", whether supernatural or natural as more important than those of seeing the true mind. If magic is cultivated with the end goal of bringing material things or power to one's self, then that is seen as problematic. I'll leave you with a quote from one of the masters:

"You do not need supernormal capacities, because these are outgrowths of enlightenment. for now, you need to know the mind and get to its source."
-Master Yangshan

Best Wishes,
-TaoSandwich

Originally Posted by Serrao

Hello Badger1777,



Here is a website about Buddhism and siddhis (supernatural powers):
http://the-wanderling.com/siddhis.html

The problem I have with this is that having read several books, many direct translations from much older books and written by actual Buddhists in China and India and such, I'm going to be skeptical of anything I read on the internet that contradicts what I read in these books.

You see, to get a book published on a given subject, you have to convince the publisher that you know your subject. For that book to sell, you have to convince the people that you know your subject. So for me, although some books are of course drivel, by and large, books have been vetted by several people who know their subject before I get to read them. When its a number of books from a number of publishers written by a number of authors in different decades and in different parts of the world, and they all say more or less the same, that just adds credibility.

Contrast this to the internet. Here is me, right now, publishing something to the world. Nobody is going to vet my post before it publishes. At least on here however people can vet it after I post. But what about if I create my own website? I can do that in about an hour, and I could fill it with whatever I like, and if it turns out I am entirely 100% wrong, tough, because nobody is going to challenge it.

So I'm happy to learn. If I've missed something, and someone on here who has studied buddhism in depth can explain to me logically that I've got it wrong, I would be honoured to receive such wisdom, but to quote a url to some website and say effectively 'the gospel is here', sorry, but I'm not even going to consider that as a learning path.

[Serrao]

Hello Badger1777,

Originally Posted by Badger1777

The problem I have with this is that having read several books, many direct translations from much older books and written by actual Buddhists in China and India and such, I'm going to be skeptical of anything I read on the internet that contradicts what I read in these books.

You see, to get a book published on a given subject, you have to convince the publisher that you know your subject. For that book to sell, you have to convince the people that you know your subject. So for me, although some books are of course drivel, by and large, books have been vetted by several people who know their subject before I get to read them. When its a number of books from a number of publishers written by a number of authors in different decades and in different parts of the world, and they all say more or less the same, that just adds credibility.

Contrast this to the internet. Here is me, right now, publishing something to the world. Nobody is going to vet my post before it publishes. At least on here however people can vet it after I post. But what about if I create my own website? I can do that in about an hour, and I could fill it with whatever I like, and if it turns out I am entirely 100% wrong, tough, because nobody is going to challenge it.

So I'm happy to learn. If I've missed something, and someone on here who has studied buddhism in depth can explain to me logically that I've got it wrong, I would be honoured to receive such wisdom, but to quote a url to some website and say effectively 'the gospel is here', sorry, but I'm not even going to consider that as a learning path.

The website seems pretty trustworthy to me.
But if you prefer books rather than websites...that's ok with me.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Serrao

Hello Gem,



I do believe that Gautama's message is also to express correct behaviour whilst an ego based on siddhis is considered a hindrance to achieve this.

That sounds right...

[cathutch]

Originally Posted by Serrao

..whilst an ego based on siddhis is considered a hindrance to achieve this.

That is correct! - For "charms" such as manika (telepathy - the "jewel charm",) for instance, is just the use of some mental learned ability, that deals with the sthula buttha (gross elements) and Ahamkara (Ego - manifested mental +physical) of others.
In other words, a mental aptitude used to deal with the manifested (physical & mental phenomenal realm) hinders the search for higher planes of the unmanifested (unless it is to free yourself of the manifested).




Note: The all Digha Nikaya and Majjhima Nikaya in only two HTML "single" pages for search purpose at: bit.ly/1qn3jL8 and bit.ly/1x0ZSlO - Save &/or Pass it around.

Originally Posted by TaoSandwich

Caitlyn,

While it is true that one can use Buddhist principles of enlightenment through various religions, it is also true that the precepts of some forms of practice can serve to prevent enlightenment.

It is hard for me to imagine how Buddhism, even one of its more open forms, Zen, would pair with the practice or pursuit of magic. If, however, this was the case, I'd imagine that the only way it would work is if the "magic" was used to draw one closer to the source/original mind, or at the very least, to strengthen one's perception for study or "lovingkindness".

Again, I must stress that though Buddhism is a very open faith, it doesn't work well with anything that places any sort of "power", whether supernatural or natural as more important than those of seeing the true mind. If magic is cultivated with the end goal of bringing material things or power to one's self, then that is seen as problematic. I'll leave you with a quote from one of the masters:

"You do not need supernormal capacities, because these are outgrowths of enlightenment. for now, you need to know the mind and get to its source."
-Master Yangshan

Best Wishes,
-TaoSandwich

Tibetan Buddhism is the one exception. There are the oracles--not only the official ones used by the DL, but more ordinary ones used by the people for divination (see the film by Mystic Fire Video, "Oracles of Ladakh")--and the laying on of hands for healing is still popular among Tibetans, more so than Tibetan medicine. Whether or not hands-on-healing can be considered "magic" is up for grabs, I guess.

But the OP asked about people making a living from magic, so the answer would be "no", no one does that in Tibetan society. It's considered tabu to take money for a thing like that. However, I hadn't noticed Western Buddhists having any objection to western healers or clairvoyants ("intuitives") charging for their services. I'm not sure if the OP means to include Western Buddhists in his question.