[Buddha-l] Re: Magic

[Dhammanando Bhikkhu]

Lance:

> There are several interesting features about this.
>
> 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. 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.

> 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.

> But the other three are clear:
>
> a) it is not an offence to learn to read and write;
>
> b) it is not an offence to remember secular arts (presumably ones  
> learnt earlier);

Yes, this particular loophole is well-known to Thai fortune-telling  
monks. :-)

> 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.

Best wishes,
Dhammanando