The [Sāmaññaphala Sutta (DN2)](https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/DN/DN02.html) had often been quoted as the Buddha’s objections towards relying on *“animal”* arts for a livelihood. If one is learned in Mathematics, one can be a Math teacher. If one is experienced in cooking, one can work as a cook. If one is skilled in the *“animal”* arts, is a **shaman** even considered a legal occupation?
Reading a paper: [On Buddhism, Divination and the Worldly Arts...](https://digitalcommons.linfield.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1002&context=relsfac_pubs) , however, got me thinking deeply on the reasons and contexts of this position. Is there more to it than the grounds of wrong livelihood? Could there be other dangers? Conversely, are there really no benefits whatsoever? What if one used divination and was able to avoid a misfortune...perhaps, even physical harm?
Going to a Thai monastery, I have often wondered when devotees bring amulets to the monks to get them blessed. If you worn a white thread after visiting, you will be familiar with the practice of “sai sin”. Similarly, I have known of some devotees who approached monks for divination on matters that falls under serious or mundane. Also, in the paper mentioned above, the Buddha himself, had been approached to divine the subsequent rebirths of devotees on many occasions.
I could be wrong but does this mean as long as one adheres to some underlying restrictions, clauses or conditions with regards to the occult arts then one might not ended up on the ***“dark”*** side after all? If this is so, what are those conditions? If not, what are the dangers other than wrong livelihood?
Asked by Desmon
(2725 rep)
Mar 7, 2024, 12:21 PM
Last activity: Mar 19, 2024, 06:27 AM
Last activity: Mar 19, 2024, 06:27 AM