Brucenkhamen

Imagine two Thai Taxi drivers.

Taxi driver A is a Thai animist Taxi driver, he has and amulet hanging around his rear vision mirror (heck he's probably got 10). He believes that the amulet will bring him good luck and no matter what he does, no matter what risks he takes, the amulet will prevent him from having an accident.

Taxi driver B is a good Buddhist Taxi driver. He realises that the safety of the passengers is his responsibility, he realises that he must be alert and do his best to ensure that he drives safely at all times. He ensures the car complies with all safety standards. He knows if he causes an accident he'll only have himself to blame.

Which taxi would you prefer to ride in?

Many people in the grown up world have worked hard to build up elaborate mental constructions of security, safety and pride in their lives. These mental constructions more or less rest on the ownership of their material possessions - car, house, money in the bank.

That is, the external objects in their lives give them a sense of security etc, and if the external objects were to suddenly vanish so would their feelings of security. Doesn't the whole concept of money rest on collective faith?

I don't see too much difference between the wearer of a gold necklace and the wearer of an amulet, except for a vast difference in collective belief.

For example, the lady wearing a gold necklace might believe it makes her more attractive, so she might act more attractive, see herself as more attractive, other people around her participating in and reinforcing this collective belief. The amulet owner similarly believes he is now going to be lucky, and becomes more receptive to opportunities than he would otherwise be.

The wearer of a gold necklace has a pretty good reason to believe that if she takes it down to the gold shop she'll be given the market price.

The owner of a house has a pretty good reason to believe that if he lists it for sale he'll get the market price.

The owner of a car has pretty good reason to believe that if he starts the car it will get him from A to B without breaking down.

Of course nothing is certain.

So you're telling me the person who believes an amulet will give him good luck has just as much justification to believe that as what the people believe in the examples above? You've really made grasping at straws into a fine art.

This paragraph reminds me of the power of positive thinking. If someone has a belief in the magic of amulets for luck, and primes their mind so to speak using an amulet, their mind will be more receptive to anything good popping up, and through that receptivity will be in a better position to seize any "lucky" opportunity.

So perhaps it is not the amulets themselves that have the magic power, but the belief of "I am lucky" which brings about a small change in perception, not to attract luck, but to be more receptive to it. (similar what you mentioned in the first paragraph about psychological security).

True, the possession of any external object can potentially change a person's attitude if it triggers faith in them. It also follows that if one day they accidently drop their amulet down a drain they will be plunged into the depths of despair.

Better to grow up I say.

My take on amulets is this: For those who understand the Buddha's teaching, psychological security comes from mental cultivation, i.e. it has an internal source. For those who don't, it comes from external sources such as amulets. Regardless of whether an amulet really has power or not, the belief that it has confers a degree of psychological security.

The belief that an amulet works is generally based on non-rational information. For example, we all have good luck and bad luck every day, some days are luckier than others. If we get an amulet and it's followed immediately by some (normal) good luck, we make a connection between the amulet and the luck. Because we want it to be true, we tend to ignore any bad luck that follows. Similarly, all the people who have amulets could be displayed as a standard distribution curve (bell curve) - most have both good and bad luck, but a few have a lot of bad luck and a few have a lot of good luck. But it's only the good-luck group we hear about and remember, so we get the impression there is overwhelming evidence that they work. Same with the Erawan Shrine. Zillions of people go there and don't get what they asked for but inevitably a few supplicants win the lottery or whatever and those are the ones we hear about.

Another aspect of this is that people seem to think that just because millions of others believe in the power of amulets (or anything else), it must be true! There is a scene in the movie of Carl Sagan's book Contact where the Christian guy is talking about God and says to Ellie (an atheist scientist), "So you think that 90% of humanity is under some sort of mass delusion?" She doesn't answer but for any serious Buddhist this a poignant scene in the movie.

In the past, when asked for an amulet, some forest monks would teach villagers to meditate and insist that the amulet would only "work" if they kept the five precepts and meditated. The idea was that if the villagers did this they would get some psychological security from mental cultivation even though the amulet had no magical power.

Well said!

Can't help you there, sorry.

Have you heard about the "guu mun tong" amulets?

They are apparently made from a small, dried up human foetus, and worn around the neck. The owner must take care of it every day, feeding or something, and it apparently bestows superhuman powers of protection to the wearer. However if they fail to feed it, the powers of the guu mun tong thing will turn upon its owner. That's what they believe anyway.

I can sell one to you for a good price if your interested.

No thanks, I have enough trouble remembering to feed my goldfish.

But the real question of this topic is "do amulets have magical powers?"

I've got about 20 of them Thai people have given me over the years, I don't really want them but I don't feel right about thowing them away. If you ever find evidence they are magic I'll sell them to you for a good price

Oops, I forgot Klingons use Warbirds not Starships... my bad.

The relic of the Buddhas tooth in India is said to have miraculous powers, for example when a King ordered the relic to be destroyed and just before doing so suddenly decided to convert to Buddhism. And the "rain making power" of the Buddhas tooth relic in Sri lanka is another example.

I'm not familiar with these stories, they are obviously after the Buddhas lifetime (unless the Buddhas dentist swiped some of his teeth) so I would question their reliability. Also considering the many thousands of claimed Buddha relics around the world why do we have droughts today, surely their rainmaking ability should be well known.

Anyhow. Lets assume for the moment that magic powers through high levels of Samadhi are possible (plenty of scriptural references).

Whats to say the "magic monk" can't project his Samadhi powers into the inanimate object, charging it somehow through the powers of his intent, (like positively charging a battery) ? Can't see why not. I don't think it is an unreasonable jump.

The first question I'd ask is why would they want to? the second question is if they could do this is why don't they use these powers for something useful? the third question is where do you draw the line? (maybe they can beam themselves up to the Klingon starships orbiting the earths atmosphere too), the last question is why do you care? how is it going to help you to gain freedom from suffering in this lifetime?

Sure, I realise the amulets don't develop the powers in and of themselves (although there seems to be a belief that the older the amulet, the stronger its powers get). I assumed they have to be charged through the intent of the "magic monk". That is, the monk projects his magical intent into the amulet (and containing it within there somehow) in the same way he might use his powers of samadhi to effect/influence anything else in the world. I'm only speculating here.

Well I think you've got a good handle on the Thai belief around this. Just because something is believed by a group of people doesn't make it true. Some people believe in Santa Claus, but they'd be wrong, and when they grow up they'll realise that.

I'm still waiting for an anecdote demonstrating the magical powers of an inanimate object.

I'm also waiting for a scriptual reference where the Buddha encourages belief in amulets as it's not in the spirit of his core teaching.

Even if there was the possibility of inanimate objects weilding magical powers I don't see how reliance on them can do anything but encourage spiritual immaturity.

That's not the way I see it. I eat meat, but here in Thailand I've stopped eating pork. I stopped eating pork because in my estimation the life of a pig here is suffering from beginning to end. I don't have an anti meat argument, but I don't want to contribute to the needless suffering of other sentient beings.

I'm not sure chickens have it any better. Good on you for following your concience.

It's not logical to assert 'if you can't kill the animals, you shouldn't eat meat killed by others'. It's like saying, 'if you can't fill your own teeth, you shouldn't have your teeth repaired.'

I don't do my own dentistry either. Or make my own belts and shoes.

You're right, but I know if I had to be involved in the slaughtering process I couldn't do it, I'd become vegitarian for sure, which I think is the point.

To answer your question (and avoid the other questions it raises), I think there is a possibility some amulets have magical powers.

I'm basing this on something I read in the scriptures which tell about the Buddha and some of his monks exhibiting magical powers (thus giving credence to this whole magic thing).

As to how this is done, I have no idea, except to say it must have something to do with the talent and power of the "magic monk".

That would be people having attained powers, through having developed a very high degree of samadhi.

Inanimate objects aren't sentient beings so can't develop this. I'd be very surprised if there was a scriptual reference to magic inanimate objects or at least one where the Buddha encourages use or reliance in them.

When I hit a dry patch it's often a sign that I've somehow taken a wrong turn somewhere. If this unhappy period continues then it is a sure sign that I'm doing something wrong. The good thing is that my past experience of gaining happiness from the path gives me confidence to make it though the bad periods.

If the Buddhist path provided no happiness then I would abandon it. I would feel that the Buddha had misled me because he promised an escape from suffering which for me equates to happiness - equanimity being a great happiness.

I'm sorry to hear that.

Dry patches are an important part of the path, they enable you to deepen your practice and seperate the men from the boys.

If you read about the lives of any of todays respected teachers they all went through dry patches, or times when the happiness was gone, or the rug was pulled from under them.

But this is probably another topic worthy of it's own thread, we don't want to distract from the riveting subject of magic inanimate objects.

Well my point is that it is search for happiness (or to escape from suffering) that draws people to different paths. It is my view that the Buddha provided a practical means to achieve this. I don't think that it is any coincedence that when people achieve insights it is often accomplished with great happiness. The Buddha himself praised the rapture associated with these states. Of course, the ideal would be to become an arahant, but then again this state is often described in reference to happiness. I suppose though that until we achieve this ourselves it is mere speculation. So for me happiness is a very important part of the path. When I experience happiness from my practice it is often a sign that I'm doing something right. I don't think that the Buddha wanted people to merely repeat his words but to experience things for themselves - see the experience is impermanent for myself but not dismiss it.

All good, and when the time comes and you are going through a dry patch in your practice and the happiness has gone temporarily I'd be willing to bet that you won't say "Sod this I'll go and be a Jehovah's Witness because they always look happy".

Why? because there is more to your path than just being happy, hence my original point "There needs to be more to it than just making people happy."

Huh? You say 'drugs can make people happy.'

I say 'I don't believe that drugs make people happy.'

You say 'I believe that was my point.'

Sorry I don't understand and it's a bit too early in the morning for koans.

My reference to drugs as an example is irrelavent. Chocolate can make you happy, Icecream can make you happy, winning the lottery can make you happy.

The point is happiness is impermanant, subject to conditions, so I don't thaiclan's statement that "I think it is absolutely amazing and fantastic that Buddhism has made millions of people happy, content and peaceful. Ditto Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, Paganism" is enough reason to validate a spiritual path.

Not only that but if that happiness is based on ignorance then that's counterproductive, in some cases even dangerous.

Not enough for who? You?

I don't believe that drugs make people happy.

I believe that was my point. Surface happiness is not enough to measure the value of a spiritual practice.

I am encountering Buddhist fanitics that are mostly western and I have noticed have taken up Mahayanan beliefs, mostly Tibetan. There is a connection here but is it with Tibetan religion or politics, is it western ideas blending with Tibetan ideas, I am not sure. I just have noticed the folks that seem most given to emotional outbursts over CCP policy or topics close to this are somehow linked to Tibetan Buddhism. Am I seeing things wrong? What do you guys think?

If you look at the behaviour of the Tibetan followers of the Dalai Lama themselves I think Tibetan Buddhism doesn't encourage this behaviour.

I think there is a blurry line between people practicing Tibetan Buddhism in the West and political activists taking up the Tibetan cause in the West.

I may be wrong on this.

Once we have reached a certain level of enlightenment through actual experience we will automatically know the answers.

Until then (if it ever happens) we can only speculate as we can't possibly understand in our current state of being.

You're absolutely right.

A little speculation doesn't hurt but too much can get in the way of walking the path.

You get me wrong. I think it is absolutely amazing and fantastic that Buddhism has made millions of people happy, content and peaceful. Ditto Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, Paganism etc etc etc

Making people happy is not enough, drugs can maske people happy, Ignorance is bliss. There needs to be more to it than just making people happy.

It's those earthly desires that push us to enlightenment as they are in themselves devoid of the ultimate means to happiness. Liberation.

On that point I couldn't agree more.

But Buddhahood is to be found in those self same desires. Hence, "burning the firewood of earthly desires [in our daily practice] summoning up the wisdom-fire of enlightenment."

I like this analogy, the only thing is you appeared to be saying earlier that you burn the firewood but the firewood still remains. When of course the firewood is not so much extinguished as transformed.

It's worth contemplating the Lotus Flower analogy. In so much that it germinates at the bottom of a muddy pool and at the same time blossoms at the top of the pool. In the same way enlightenment is to be found in our eartly desires. Cause and effect. It's only our fundamental darkness or delusions that prevent us from realising this by attempting to seperate one from the other, much in the same way as Christians do the 'Spirit' from the 'Flesh'.

Having found enlightenment by using earthly desires as our teacher do earthly desires continue to lead as as before? I think not.

Oh, and better not to mention the Christians ;-)

In our earthly desires we have the latent form of Buddhahood. Extinguish those then we have nothing to push for the fruition or realisation of that which is innate, or latent in all life states.

Sounds like you are concerned that the Hinayana practitioner would somehow find the magic switch to turn off desires totally when he is nowhere near enlightenment and needs those desires as a teacher. That's ridiculous, nobody has a magic switch to turn off desire so don't worry.

You don't extinguish desire then push to fruition (this is impossible), the process of pushing to fruition gradually makes worldly desire pale in comparison.

I think we are using different words to describe exactly the same thing.

Theravada teaches, as does Mahayana, that desire leads to attachment and attachment to suffering. The difference being that Mahayana does think it either possible nor desirable to extinguish desires as in Theravada. But those (earthly) desires are in themselves enlightenment. There is no seperation between earthly desires and enlightnment.

Well I think your use of the word extinguish is muddying the waters as I don't use it in this context.

So you are saying that in Mahayana and enlightened being still craves chocolate, still hopes to win the lottery, still thinks the grass is greener on the other side, still needs an occasional cigarette, still wants to jack off now and again? and as those (earthly) desires are in themselves enlightenment then not having them would indicate not being enlightened?

If so I'm glad I didn't choose that path.

"Without either cutting off earthly desires or separating themselves from the five desires, they can purify all their senses and wipe away all their offences." T'ient'ai says in Great Concentration and Insight, "The ignorance and dust of desires are enlightenment, and the sufferings of birth and death are nirvana."

Like many Mahayana principles the power lies in the paradox, the ability to turn normal thinking on it's head. Taking statements like these literally would be counter productive in my opinion.

I think it a little more than speculation for a practicioner to be honest - it's a reality experienced in our daily life.are nirvana."

I'm afraid I'm too far away from the enlightenment to know for sure what exactly remains or does not remain in terms of desire, so I must speculate.

To extinguish desire is also to distinguish the will to live.

Yes, hence the end of rebirth.

The point of our practice is to change those earthly desires into desires that will produce the ultimate benefit - to create value in its most meaningful sense. Buddhahood can only be found in out daily lives. It has been said that we are "burning the firewood of earthly desires [in our daily practice] summoning up the wisdom-fire of enlightenment."

We are saying the same thing, here you are talking about transforming the desire into something new. Whether the desire is extinguished or not is just splitting hairs. If you burn firewood is it extinguished or transformed? Well both actually.

Every cause has an affect and every affect has a cause, desire doesn't exist in a vacuum. If desire arises or passes away there is a flow on affect. It just doesn't extinguish into a vacuum, but as far as an enlightened person is concerned I speculate that it's just off the radar.

Although this could take some explaining

earthly desires are enlightenment ( Jpn bonno-soku-bodai )

A Mahayana principle based on the view that earthly desires cannot exist independently on their own; therefore one can attain enlightenment without eliminating earthly desires. This contrasts with the Hinayana* view that extinguishing earthly desires is a prerequisite for enlightenment. According to the Hinayana teachings, earthly desires and enlightenment are two independent and opposing factors, and the two cannot coexist; while the Mahayana teachings reveal that earthly desires are one with and inseparable from enlightenment.

* I use the term Hinayana not as a derogatory term, only as written in the dictionary from where taken.

I don't know what Hinayana teaches but in my understanding Theravada teaches that the closer one gets to enlightenment the less relavent sexual desire becomes.

I don't think that saying it extinguishes is correct, I think it's a physical thing and for it to extinguish the body would need to stop manufacturing sperm. Rather the mind becomes so highly developed and spacious that what once seemed like a strong overwhelming current now seems like a small ripple in comparison.

But we're only speculating.

I talked to an experienced meditation monk about this topic. He says that once a practitioner has reached a certain level in his/her meditation, the sexual urges leave, or rather the energy is transformed through the meditation practices. From then on, the practitioner has full control over his urges.

My wife will be pleased to hear that.

Your contempt at stating an outstanding piece of philosophy as a sideshow really does highlight serious lack of awareness.

I am aware that your high sounding rhetoric is short on substance, are you? That's why I ask you to clarify, to give you the opportunity to explain what you are saying in terms most of us will understand. Now we may still agree to disagree in the end but that's ok.

Of course the easier thing to do would be just to write it of as new age pseudo buddhist psycho-babble and ignore it, but what if there is some substance after all?

I'm surprised a thread on magic amulets gained any traction on this forum at all.

Buddha never said that his path and the splitting of the Buddhist paths into separate yanas is the only viable perfected path.

The Buddha didn't split his path into seperate yanas, people did, there were no seperate yanas until after he died.

It is widely accepted that there are more and they feed and assist each other to some degree in the human experience.

So you are saying there are more yanas than we know about? widely accepted by whom? How do they feed and assist each other to some degree in the human experience? This would be much easier if you'd explain things plainly.

I am here to debate and I am free to talk about subtle energy, not put on a circus for you.

Why would we want to talk about subtle energy? Do you mean it's subtle energy that makes amulets magic? If so please explain how it works.

I'm still waiting on the one anecdote where you put your faith in an amulet, got a good result from it, and how you determined it was the amulet that did it.

Now I'm sure that the world is much much more than we know, however I don't choose to speculate on the unknown.

Don't presume what you feel is relavent in the thread is what everyone wants. Also don't pick up spelling mistakes with others when you have several.

Yes you are right it's not my place to say what should be discussed, and pointing out your spelling mistake was a bit petty on my part.

Can you point me to a good place to read more about attaining Samadhi, and also what the 'next step' is? I would presume it is expanding the tasks that you attain Samadhi with, to the point where you are Samadhi all the time? Or is that what is meant by Samadhi in the first place? (Like I said, I haven't gotten there!!) Or is it more along the lines of acting more in line with the 8fold path?

Samadhi is strengthening your concentration, much like sharpening a tool. It is impermanant and dependant on conditions but with practice you get better at it. Ultimately it can lead to altered states called Jhana.

This is generally not considered to be the goal of practice, the idea is once you have sharpened your tool sufficiently you can then put it to work, use your one pointedness and presence of mind to develop wisdom.

Your tool my already be relatively sharp because of your music and you may find you progress in meditation better than others might.

Here's a couple the websites of a couple of teachers that emphasize concentration practice and a Wikipedia subject on the topic, I hope this gets you started;

http://www.bswa.org/

http://www.leighb.com/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samadhi