Gautama Buddha, the Great Sorcerer of the Shakyas?

Un grimoire

In Raymond Lam’s article “Of Scriptures and Enchantment: An Interview with Sam van Schaik on a Grimoire of Magic Spells from Dunhuang”, I learned about the latest book by Sam van Schaik, titled Buddhist Magic: Divination, Healing, and Enchantment Through the Ages (2020). I haven’t read van Schaik’s book, and my blog merely reacts to the information I find in Lam’s article. I already wrote about van Schaik’s ideas (expressed in Buddhism on the Ground) about the role of magic in Buddhism “through the ages” in my (French) blog “Le rêve d’un anthropologue ?”.

Unlike van Schaik, I am not concerned about the "prejudice" Magic Buddhism has encountered “through the ages” and especially since the 19th century, through the neglect of “rituals, chanting, storytelling, the making of amulets and casting of spells[1]” in the study of Buddhism. I do agree with van Schaik when he says that “as modern Buddhists we need to look our own tradition in the face and get to know it a bit better”.

If we do, we see that Buddhism grew out of the śramaṇa movement, like did e.g. Jainism. Buddhism has always wanted to be understood as teaching a “Middle Way”. The asceticism of a follower of the Buddha didn’t have to lead to death, as the Buddha himself had shown. Where Jains forbade their monks to use medicine to alleviate their suffering, the Buddha allowed his monks to use medicine under certain conditions, and to carry some medicine with them. Buddhist monks must have had a certain reputation concerning their “healing” powers, because some (sick) laymen would merely become monks, in order to have access to medical care (Vinaya, Mahâvagga I, 31)[2].

Later on, Buddhist monks dwelling in the cities would provide medical care to laypeople. We have only very brief descriptions of the early Buddhists, or śramaṇa as they were called by their first Western witnesses : e.g. Megasthenes (c. 350 – c. 290 BC), Philostratus, Hierocles, Strabo (64/63 BC – c. AD 24) etc. These "Buddhist" śramaṇa were considered “philosophers” and distinguished from the “Brachmânai”, who worshipped the Sun and performed sacrifices for the common benefit of the nation and the individuals. Strabo/Megasthenes did also make a distinction amongst the śramaṇa themselves. There were those who lived in the forest (G. hylobioi sct. araṇyavāsin) and the “healers” (G. iatrikoi) who dwelled in cities (sct. gāmavāsin) and performed rituals for laypeople. The forest dwellers “are the most honored ones”. The rituals of the “healers” were not limited to healing, but were also meant to make women fertile, to give birth to male children etc. 

“(He says) that there are also others, diviners and charmers experienced with the rites and customs for the dead, who beg as mendicants in the villages and towns; but though some of them are more elegant and reɹned than these, they do not abstain from (using) as many of the common sayings about Hades as seem best for promoting piety (εὐσέβειαν) and holiness.” (Greek Buddha, Pyrrho's Encounter, Christopher I. Beckwith)

If a foreigner like Megasthenes could distinguish between different sorts of śramaṇa, surely Bactrians, Gandharians and Indians must have done the same, especially since the “forest dwellers” were considered the “most honored ones”.

The Pāli Buddha allowed the use of “liftetime medicines” (yāvajīvika), but prohibited the study of and even talk about 'low animal-like knowledge' (tiracchāna-vijjā).

“These are:] knowledge of enchantments making men and women love each other; knowledge for making this or that person fall into disaster; knowledge for using spirits or showing various kinds of magic; knowledge of prediction, such as knowing beforehand lottery results; knowledge leading to self-delusion, such as transmuting mercury to gain the supernatural, as in the transmuting of silver and copper into gold.

"These knowledges are ['low animal-like knowledge'] because they are knowledge of doubtful things which are deceptive or deluding, not being true knowledge. A teacher of this is a deceiver and a pupil is one who practises to deceive, or he is just a foolish, deluded person." (EV,II,pp.120-121)” (Source, The Entrance to The Vinaya, (Vinayamukha), vol II, page 120-121)

Could it be possible that the Buddha himself, or early Buddhists, didn’t appreciate “Buddhist magic” that much, whatever the status his later followers gave to it? What happened with “Buddhist magic” for it to evolve from “deceptive or deluding, not being true knowledge” into the highest form of Buddhism, and the only one to give access to the indispensable “siddhis” in Tibet? It surely is a fact that Buddhism is a religion in which “Buddhist magic” plays a huge part. Charms, amulets etc. against Covid-19 circulate, as we speak, on Western Buddhist social networks. Nobody can deny that. But it is also a fact that during the whole of Buddhist history, other forms of forest dwelling, “philosophical” (at least enough for an ancient Greek to recognise it as such), “scholastic” and dialectic, contemplative, mystical, Natural(ist), etc.  Buddhism have existed, in which “Buddhist magic” was considered as not conducive to awakening, the ultimate objective of Buddhism.

Nāgārjuna presents two attitudes in his Ratnāvalī, the aspiration for one’s individual comfort (sct. abhyudaya tib. mngon mtho) in this life and the next, and the ultimate aim (sct. naiḥśreyasa tib. legs pa), which is liberation (sct. mokṣa). There is no doubt about what one is the ultimate objective and the “purest” Buddhism. The Buddha would have probably agreed that individual comfort, achieved amongst others through 'low animal-like knowledge', was not the best Buddhism had to offer, if the Buddha would indeed have known "Buddhism".

As van Schaik recalls “Buddhist magical practices have [much] in common with other traditions in different cultures across the world: Babylonian, Jewish, Greco-Roman, medieval European and more”. So much so, that there is nothing specifically “Buddhist” about them. Magic (and its mythological frames) was the first “science” humans had access to for their individual comfort. It served all sorts of purposes. Was it efficient? It helped alleviate suffering and fear, and probably gave a sense of having control over things. If it takes a bit of magic for an individual to think a bit about religion next, then why not many a Babylonian, Jewish, Greco-Roman and medieval European priest must have thought. Of course they didn’t really think like this, that’s only our postmodern projection, because magic simply was the science of the day, and helped to create a more comfortable life. It’s partly because of its mythological frame, that it has remained inseparable from religion for a long time. 

Even nowadays, it can be more comforting for some to go back to the science of yore, rather than to use the science of today. Science grew out of magic, but went its own way. Yet somehow religion is often taken as a package deal, and therefore the science of yore associated with a certain religion can still be the “real” thing for an orthodox religious person. Or at least it’s more “real” on a “deeper”, “archetypal”, “alchemist”, “perennialist” or “spiritual” level. The four elements and the three/four humours and the various agents of Nature etc. that were part of the science of the day of the Buddha, of Christ etc. can be more “real” and more efficient for some than modern day science. Not that magic, the science of yore or the science of today will lead to liberation or salvation, because it won’t.

We could compare “Buddhist magic” with consumerism, it’s based on the same magical thinking. Someone out there has a simple means to improve or enchant our life. The only thing required from us is to make an offering or to pay a price. It will sooth our sense of need and craving only a short time. We will have to go back for some more magic, and pay for it. This sort of consumerist attitude can never lead to liberation and therefore its NOT “real” or “pure” etc. Buddhism. “Buddhist magic” can be addictive. Can it offer temporary relieve? Yes it can.

Van Schaik does not say though that for (contemporary) Buddhist practice to be complete, it needs “Buddhist magic”.

“ I don’t want to argue that this kind of practice should be front and center in Buddhism as it develops in the contemporary world. But I think there are some lessons to be learned about how much Buddhists have always been “in the world,” so to speak. They have not confined themselves to meditation and philosophy. I argue in the book that providing practical services to local communities might have been crucial to the spread and survival of Buddhism across Asia. And let’s not forget that magical practices, amulets, and talismans are still very important to Buddhists in Thailand, Japan, and indeed China, and across the Asian Buddhist landscape. I think that needs to be respected rather than being labelled “superstition” and dismissed as not “real” Buddhism.”

Most Buddhists have indeed always been “in the world”. In their world, and in their time, and they have used the “science” as it was in their time. I have no doubt that the Buddha (if he existed), like the great Indian Buddhist masters and thinkers, would use the science of our time as they had used the science of their time. They would even now remain Buddhists “in the world”, not Buddhists “in a past world” or of a past world. They would live with their eyes and minds open. They would speak out against consumerism, whether materialist or spiritualist, in any form. They would repeat like they did in the past that “Buddhist magic” nor modern science will lead to liberation and salvation, and is therefore not the path of the Buddha.

As for the respect of the superstitions of others, I think that rather than respecting their superstitions, the Buddha spoke out against them and called them what they were, out of respect of the intelligence of those whom he spoke with.

What bothers me most in this and other publications about the neglect of "rituals, chanting, storytelling, the making of amulets and casting of spells" etc. is the implication/affirmation that a less religious approach only emerged in the 19th century, and was an invention by Post-Enlightenment Westerners. The same publications very often forget to mention how the Buddha himself and other great Buddhist teachers of the past could be quite disparaging about the (belief in the) use of religious (or any artificial) means to achieve liberation. I don't find the argument of the invention of an "impoverished" Buddhism in the 19th century West convincing at all. Not unlike stating the American continent didn't exist before its discovery by Columbus in 1492.   

***

[1] Buddhism on the ground, blog by Sam van Schaik, 27 January 2020.

[2] Cures and Karma II. Some Miraculous Healings in the Indian Buddhist Story Tradition, P. Granoff