Was Buddha an anti-magician?

lobster

Was Buddha an anti-magician or just an antidote to ignorance?
I ask because some do or don't find magic in dharma.

As a Tantricka (tee hee - extra 'c' always useful), magick is part of my experience. Most is just resonance with yidams, intense mind manipulation and the grace of The Dakini.

http://www.buddhanet.net/ans50.htm

What say you?

federica

Not sure about Magic... Miracles, more like.
How else could I be here?

person

Gil Fronsdale recently put out a new book Buddha Before Buddhism, I haven't read it but listened to his talk. There are some portions of the Pali canon that are thought to be the earliest of Buddha's teachings and they are really secular and non magickal.

Vastmind

^^^^ hmmmm....that book and the book of eight sounds interesting...might have to pick it up.

Dakini

Was he an anti-magician? Is this a serious question? Of course he was; he preached against soothsaying and casting spells. Those things do nothing to advance one's practice. They're not about cultivating mindfulness, egolessness, and compassion--the Dharma.

Dakini

@person said:
Gil Fronsdale recently put out a new book Buddha Before Buddhism, I haven't read it but listened to his talk. There are some portions of the Pali canon that are thought to be the earliest of Buddha's teachings and they are really secular and non magickal.

Well, this (book/lecture) certainly provides insight as to where Batchelor got his "secular Buddhism". He's always said that the earliest, and most authentic, teachings of the Buddha didn't mention rebirth, nor did they mention the existence of any Ultimate Truth, but that they were about how to live your daily life to foster equanimity.

person

@Dakini said:

@person said:
Gil Fronsdale recently put out a new book Buddha Before Buddhism, I haven't read it but listened to his talk. There are some portions of the Pali canon that are thought to be the earliest of Buddha's teachings and they are really secular and non magickal.

Well, this (book/lecture) certainly provides insight as to where Batchelor got his "secular Buddhism". He's always said that the earliest, and most authentic, teachings of the Buddha didn't mention rebirth, nor did they mention the existence of any Ultimate Truth, but that they were about how to live your daily life to foster equanimity.

I think I remember Gil saying something like he and Stephen are at similar places for different reasons. He also gave the caveat that there are counter arguments about these teachings so I don't know if we can be so certain that they are the most authentic.

Dakini

@person said:

I think I remember Gil saying something like he and Stephen are at similar places for different reasons. He also gave the caveat that there are counter arguments about these teachings so I don't know if we can be so certain that they are the most authentic.

Yes, lots of debate about which texts are or aren't authentic. But it does seem that this is where S.B. gets his view. In any case, thanks for linking that; I now have it on my "to buy" list at Amazon.

lobster

@Dakini said:
Was he an anti-magician? Is this a serious question? Of course he was; he preached against soothsaying and casting spells. Those things do nothing to advance one's practice. They're not about cultivating mindfulness, egolessness, and compassion--the Dharma.

Tee hee.
Dakas and dakinis are un-buddhists? The awakened and awakening use the magic they find. For example the benefits of mantrayana are skilful. Possesion by embodiments of principles have deep impact on those doing deity practice.

However being an egoic, uncultivated anti-muggle I iz probably all wrong and de-skilled ... again ...

DairyLama

@Dakini said:

@person said:
Gil Fronsdale recently put out a new book Buddha Before Buddhism, I haven't read it but listened to his talk. There are some portions of the Pali canon that are thought to be the earliest of Buddha's teachings and they are really secular and non magickal.

Well, this (book/lecture) certainly provides insight as to where Batchelor got his "secular Buddhism". He's always said that the earliest, and most authentic, teachings of the Buddha didn't mention rebirth, nor did they mention the existence of any Ultimate Truth, but that they were about how to live your daily life to foster equanimity.

When he talks about the earliest teachings, is he referring to the Sutta Nipata? It does seem to have a pithy, down-to-earth feel.
http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/Sutta-nipataBM6.pdf

Dakini

@lobster said:

@Dakini said:
Was he an anti-magician? Is this a serious question? Of course he was; he preached against soothsaying and casting spells. Those things do nothing to advance one's practice. They're not about cultivating mindfulness, egolessness, and compassion--the Dharma.

Tee hee.
Dakas and dakinis are un-buddhists? The awakened and awakening use the magic they find. For example the benefits of mantrayana are skilful. Possesion by embodiments of principles have deep impact on those doing deity practice.

However being an egoic, uncultivated anti-muggle I iz probably all wrong and de-skilled ... again ...

haha, well, mantrayana is basically Hindu, and those Hindus in many respects knew how to induce altered states of consciousness of various sorts. They knew what worked. Then some Buddhists took that and added a Buddhist twist to it, so that it becomes skillful means for developing compassion or whatever. I guess.

(Did I just contradict my earlier statement? Now look what you made me do! )

Shoshin

Was Buddha an anti-magician?

Um let me see... Well if the Buddha wasn't... I sure am