Buddhism and Animism

Discussion
1

Continuing the discussion from Lost deity meditation practice in the suttas?:

I think, in a way, Buddhism is a form of animism, but it removes a key idea of most animist cultures, that of an eternal self or soul that inhabits living things. Beyond that, Buddhism has also developed an abstract philosophy from a set of basic principles the Buddha laid out. And its basic attitude toward life is different than most animist cultures. It’s much more negative. But the rest of some original animistic culture is there under those things.

My own impression is that Buddhism captures a reaction to the downhill trajectory human civilization took following the formation of the big empires – first in Persian and India and then in Europe and China. Human society changed in ways that made life much less tolerable for most people. Cities grew, political power was centralized with armies and large-scale warfare, and economic inequality became endemic. Empires and kingdoms were cobbled together only to collapse again like a house of cards, or a sudden invasion from the frontiers of the civilizations would sweep in. And then there were the epidemics driven by trade like Black Plague that wiped out whole cities. The list goes on and on. The liberation religions like Buddhism and Christianity developed to express a rejection of that and offer some kind of escape.

That’s the basic feeling I get from my historical studies, at least. So, by downhill trajectory, I mean the everyday experience of life that people lived through rather than the other measures of progress we use measures of civilization like technology, wealth, literacy, philosophy, the privileged life of elites, etc. Even today, with all of our technology and safety from disease and warfare that the majority of people enjoy, my impression is that life in general is much worse for people emotionally than it was for animists living naturally and in relationship with each other. Animists had to contend with the physical challenges of survival that we avoid now, but mentally they were in a better place. It would seem that in our rush to eliminate all physical problems, we’ve lost most of the old wisdom about how to live in the world that humans had developed over how many thousands of years prior to the changes that happened since the Buddha lived.

4 Likes
2

According to my knowledge, Buddhism was much more succesful in animist cultures. There’s a reason it virtually disappeared in India due to organized religion becoming more and more dominant. Animist cultures have been more accepting.

In Early Buddhism, the idea of earth gods and deities occupying trees is quite prevalent and it leads to people respecting nature more. I think that’s quite animist indeed.

Were animists super concerned with strong philosophical doctrines? I’m not sure, I think that’s why Buddhism was so succesful in animist cultures. Other religions came with their One God theories, heavy rituals and what not.

Would you mind expanding on this? It doesn’t hit my ear right.

I think that might be true. In situations like this, people become more disillusioned, thus leading to an ascetic culture. In today’s world disillusionment is not easy because the big corps always have some sense stimulus to distract us. But Buddhism came not solely due to this but because one great man many centuries ago gained a profound insight, ascetics outisde Buddhism didn’t get enlightened.

Just my little thoughts.

1 Like
3

It is interesting to note that Zen has come full circle to talk about the Buddhanature of stones and roads and trees and such (Eihei Zenji for example), even if not fitting neatly to the “sol inhabits the things”.

2 Likes
4

According to Samyukta/Samyutta Buddhism (相應教 , saṃyukta-kathā), Buddhism is never a form of animism.

Samyukta Buddhism does contain symbiotic relationship between ‘Folk Buddhism’ and ‘Essential Buddhism’ but certainly not animism.

Cf.: Systematic & Structured Approach to Buddhism - Q & A - Discuss & Discover

5

Buddha indeed ofers an escape, from the birth, old age and death. But it’s rather ahistorical, timeless existential problem. Regarding Jesus, it depends how one understands that cryptic saying:

I have come to destroy the works of the female.

1 Like
6

Great post! Really quickly, I think a lot of the differences you point to between Buddhism and other more typical expressions of animism stem from, as you say, Buddhism being a reaction to the radical changes in human society. The negative, borderline nihilist tendencies, for example, I would put in that category. It was indeed a rejection of clinging to all phenomena. Nevertheless, while Buddhism couldn’t be said to hold the same positive attitudes you pointed out, from a functional standpoint, the encouragement to frequent natural, untouched locales, the internalizing of a strong sense of interconnectedness as the natural order of all things as a metaphysical principle achieves much of what that supplies the human psyche. The strong philosophical bent, too, is just Buddhism as a product of its times, an effect of its “civilization,” so to speak.

The belief in an eternal continuity, too, is there somewhat, although the degree to which Buddhists are allowed to identify with that continuity as the self is questionable. Rita Langer’s written on viññāna as the bearer of the life principle, a real part of perhaps an earlier layer of Buddhist doctrinal history Buddhism and scholars of Buddhism have never wholly reconciled with. The extant record doesn’t show a properly worked out mechanism of continuity having been present at the outset, and thus traditions were forced to fill in the blanks. Perhaps the reason why the earliest community never worked it out in detail was because certain things were presupposed. Continuity was never in question, self-identification was, and that’s very different.

1 Like
7

That quote is from The Greek Gospel of the Egyptians and it’s not looked at as canon by Roman Catholics, Protestants, or Greek Orthodox.

3 Likes
8

The purpose of the ascetic tradition was to escape the suffering that living involves and put an end to rebirth. This kind of idea is not found in animist societies. Well, there might be an equivalent among all the varieties of indigenous cultures that I don’t know about, but the typical attitude toward life is to have a sustainable existence and see oneself in a larger context (which could be as a member of a one community among many or as one life among many lives). So, Buddhism overall comes off as more negative toward life compared to most indigenous cultures. But this is mainly among the monks and nuns, I suppose, which are the speakers and audience in most Early Buddhist texts. For laypeople, they traditionally looked forward to a better next world created by virtue and generosity.

No, animists weren’t abstract philosophers. Ideological arguments are not really part of indigenous culture the way it did in later forms of religion. When ethnographers study indigenous cultures and their languages closely, the ideas of spirits or souls turn out to be imprecise labels. Animists believe in material and immaterial beings, whom they treat as they would themselves. Sometimes “person” is a better word, really.

Thanks for sharing!

Buddha nature (or Tathagatagarbha) did sometimes seem to be a kind of universal spirit, which I believe is an idea found in the Vedic tradition too?

Animism is basically what you are referring to as “folk Buddhism,” which you seem to be thinking is distinct from the more abstract teachings. I’ve not seen any reason to believe that Buddhists actually made this distinction, however, aside from in modern times when modernists tried to understand Buddhism from the colonial period onward by focusing on the more abstract principles. I’ve read quite a bit of the Buddhist texts where one would expect to see such opinions - later Abhidharma traditions for instance - and I’ve not encountered a Buddhist writer who makes these distinctions in classical times.

How ironic to blame women for a world ruined regularly by men who can’t control themselves. But I suppose it can be convenient to project the trouble onto someone who isn’t so identifiable with oneself. It seems to be a common pattern in the way people think these days.

When I read Buddhist texts, which I do quite a bit since I am a translator who tries to be as thorough as humanly possible, I really get the impression that there was an ideological extreme that developed among Buddhists as time went on. Which is often what happens when people divide themselves in competing camps defined by ideology. The ideologies become more stark and extreme. Life becomes entirely painful rather than a mixture of pleasant and painful experiences, for example. Impermanence becomes always a cause for suffering, when in reality impermanence is sometimes a relief. Derogatory thoughts are aimed at outgroups like women or even street entertainers, apparently. It’s part and parcel of ideological thinking.

Which, IMO, is part of the degradation of human society that happened with the rise of empires and state religions, and the like. These are not ways of thinking that we find among animist cultures that focus on sustainable relationships that bring everyone together than dividing everyone (including non-humans) up into irreconcilable groups.

The whole issue of self in Buddhism is confounding. Buddhists find ways to rationalize it, but it was a case of shifting terminology. It’s definitely true that Buddhists often identified viññāna as the functional spirit for their animistic belief in rebirth. They would justify it by insisting that it was not a continuous entity from one life to the next, but it serves the same purpose as an immaterial vivifying entity that brings a being into existence when embodied. This is standard animism, but with some kind of ideological baggage that causes a lot of hand-wringing and angst. It’s one of the big knots of Buddhist history to me.

4 Likes
9

I am afraid to approach the metaphysical statements from social point of view is not the best way to understand Jesus. :relieved_face:

10

Here is a lovely Sutta AN2.37 that directly references this.

37

So I have heard. At one time Venerable Mahākaccāna was staying at Varaṇā, on the bank of the Kaddama Lake.

Then the brahmin Ārāmadaṇḍa went up to Mahākaccāna, and exchanged greetings with him. When the greetings and polite conversation were over, he sat down to one side and said to Mahākaccāna:

“What is the cause, worthy Kaccāna, what is the reason why aristocrats fight with aristocrats, brahmins fight with brahmins, and householders fight with householders?”

“It is because of their insistence on sensual desire, their shackles, avarice, and attachment, that aristocrats fight with aristocrats, brahmins fight with brahmins, and householders fight with householders.”

“What is the cause, worthy Kaccāna, what is the reason why ascetics fight with ascetics?”

“It is because of their insistence on views, their shackles, avarice, and attachment, that ascetics fight with ascetics.”

“Worthy Kaccāna, is there anyone in the world who has gone beyond the insistence on sensual desire and the insistence on views?”

“There is, brahmin.”

“Who in the world has gone beyond the insistence on sensual desire and the insistence on views?”

“In the eastern lands there is a city named Sāvatthī. There the Blessed One is now staying, the perfected one, the fully awakened Buddha. He, brahmin, has gone beyond the insistence on sensual desire and the insistence on views.”

”

8 Likes
11

Folk Buddhism in SA/SN texts I refer to is mainly about early Buddhist mythology and its connection with cosmology (regarding the distinction between the mythology and the core teachings: The sūtra-mātṛkā (sūtra matrix, 契經, 摩呾理迦 or 本母) - Discussion - Discuss & Discover).

The main issue here is: Does early Buddhist mythology contain animism?

I am unable to find any evidence of animism in the texts.

The following articles by Choong Mun-keat are relevant to early Buddhist mythology (and its connection with cosmology):

“A Comparison of the Pāli and Chinese Versions of the Brahma Saṃyutta, a Collection of Early Buddhist Discourses on Brahmās, the Exalted Gods”, Buddhist Studies Review, vol. 31.2, pp. 179-194 (2014)

"A comparison of the Pali and Chinese versions of the Sakka Samyutta, a collection of early Buddhist discourses on ‘Sakra, ruler of the gods’ ", in Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, vol. 22, issue 3-4, October 2012, pp. 561–574.

"A comparison of the Pali and Chinese versions of the Devata Samyutta and Devaputta Samyutta, collections of early Buddhist discourses on devatas “gods” and devaputras “sons of gods” ", Journal of the Oxford Centre for Buddhist Studies, vol.1, October 2011, pp. 60-88.

“A comparison of the Pali and Chinese versions of the Mara Samyutta, a collection of early Buddhist discourses on Mara, the Evil One”, The Indian International Journal of Buddhist Studies, vol.10, 2009, pp. 35-53.

“A comparison of the Pāli and Chinese versions of Nāga Saṃyutta, Supaṇṇa Saṃyutta, and Valāhaka Saṃyutta, early Buddhist discourse collections on mythical dragons, birds, and cloud devas”, Journal of the Oxford Centre for Buddhist Studies, 2020 (18), pp. 42-65.

Also, this article on devas and tormented ghost (P. peta, Skt. preta):

“A comparison of the Chinese and Pāli Saṃyukta/Saṃyuttas on the Venerable Mahā-Maudgalyāyana (Mahā-Moggallāna)”, Buddhist Studies Review, v. 34.1 (2017), pp. 67-84.

Cf.: Early Buddhism resources (section/page 10) in Dhamma Wheel site.

1 Like
12

If you really want to be understood, can I ask you to expound on why you see no animism in the mythology of the early Buddhist texts rather than just giving us a bunch of articles to read? Reading those articles, especially without knowing why or what we’re supposed to be looking for, is a poor set-up for getting us to see your point. At my request, why don’t you just tell it to us? as I requested @cdpatton to do and he has done. The discussion will move a lot smoother that way.

4 Likes
13

Because Devata, Devaputta, Mara, Brahma, Sakka, Vana, Yakkha … presented in the early Buddhist texts are not rocks, plants, rivels, weather systems, human handiwork, words, places, inanimate objects.

Animism perceives all things (both inanimate and animate objects) are being animated. This belief system is not found in the early Buddhist mythology.

1 Like
14

First, let’s diverge a little and consider Brahmanism and Buddhism.

Buddhism & Brahmanism

It would be foolish to consider that Buddhism isn’t in direct dialogue with Brahmanism, building up on its ideas, sometimes taking what works, sometimes rejecting something else.

Therefore I don’t think it’s unreasonable to call Buddhism a form of “Brahmanism”. It is engaged with the same society, same questions, same methodologies as other Brahmanical movements, differing in details, conclusions, resolution.

To what does it serve to consider Buddhism as a form of Brahmanism?

It stops the idea that Buddhism appeared ex nihilo. Examples:

  • Karma and rebirth → pre-Buddhist
  • Meditation culture → already present
  • Cosmology with devas → inherited
  • Ascetic renunciation → widespread

Much of early Buddhist teaching makes sense only as response to Brahmanism:

  • Tevijja Sutta (DN 13) – mocks Brahmin claims to union with Brahmā.
  • Assalāyana Sutta (MN 93) – dismantles caste purity arguments.
  • Vāseṭṭha Sutta (MN 98) – redefines “brahmin” ethically, not ritually.

Shared intellectual tools:

  • Debate culture
  • Metaphysical speculation
  • Liberation soteriology
  • Renunciation ethics

Now let’s take this approach to Animism:

Animism usually implies:

  • a world populated by intentional non-human agents
  • co-mingling between human / natural / divine
  • ritual reciprocity with unseen beings
  • ethical consequences tied to landscape and spirits.

Under these definitions, early Buddhism definitely intersects, as early canon repeatedly assumes:

  • rukkha-devatā (tree spirits)
  • yakkha / yakṣa beings
  • nāgas (serpent intelligences)
  • localized devas inhabiting terrain.

Example patterns would be monks asked not to damage certain trees, spirits complaining to the Buddha, negotiated coexistence. This reflects a living animistic ecology.

We have Āṭānāṭiya Sutta (DN 32) as an example of recitation used as spiritual protection where hostile nonhuman beings are acknowledged and alliances are formed with benevolent devas.

Sometimes people push Buddhism away from animism (and/or folk practices) to make it modern, rational, exportable. However, early texts don’t seem concerned with that. They assume a living cosmos without embarrassment, which is significant.

On the other hand, Early Buddhism also rejects eternal spirit essences, avoids worship dependence, prioritizes psychological causality over spirit relations (while still ahving traces of the latter).

So, Early Buddhism doesn’t really reject animism, but just like with Brahmanism, it redefines key aspects.

The point, I don’t think, is to deduce Buddhism is animism! or Buddhism is not animism!, because, what do those statements serve indeed, in and of themselves? :slight_smile:

But the point is to understand that Early Buddhism contains a melting pot of beliefs and mythologies that aren’t assumed to be in contradiction with each other - there’s no “Folk Buddhism” vs “Essential Buddhism” difference to be found in the EBTs exposition.

Considering Buddhism as a sort of Animism helps connect it to its past but also different cultures around the world that share a similar world-view.

But There ARE Yakkhas tied to specific places, indeed! :smiley:

SN 9 Vagga has various devatā suttas. A typical pattern is monk meditating in forest, local devatā appears, offers encouragement or warning.

These devas are tied to location, not high cosmological gods, closer to “genius loci”:

Now at that time that mendicant went for the day’s meditation, but fell asleep. The deity haunting that forest had sympathy for that mendicant, and wanted what’s best for them. SN 9.2

Or consider:

At one time the Buddha was staying in the land of the Magadhans at the Maṇimālika Shrine, the haunt of the native spirit Maṇibhadda. SN 10.4

Even spirit possessions, as in SN 10.5:

Now at that time a certain lay woman had a son named Sānu who had been seized by a native spirit.

Having @cdpatton put me down the rabbit hole, it’s hard to ignore all these signs now. :slight_smile:

4 Likes
15

Yakkhas are simply not the specific places. Just like humans living in the specific places are not the places.

Yakkhas are regarded in the texts as sentient beings.

I repeat here: "Animism perceives all things (both inanimate and animate objects ) are being animated . This belief system is not found in the early Buddhist mythology".

1 Like
16

I think you want to distinguish Buddhism from Animism for some reason, and sure, there are differences to be found. :slight_smile:

Again, the conclusion is less relevant than the negotiation and exploration of What topics and/r worldview does Buddhism share with other Animistic societies?

Chickens are flightless, but that’s no reason to not call them birds. :slight_smile: Likewise, we’re going to find diferences (sometimes minor, and sometimes irreconcilable).

Early Buddhism doesn’t teach universal animism as you define it, but it clearly preserves a cosmology where nonhuman beings inhabit natural environments (and have relationships with humans). It reframes rather than abolishes the animistic worldview present in its cultural setting.

And to me, that’s a more interesting distinction and a source of exploration rather than just saying "Yeah Buddhism is not Animism." :slight_smile:

An actually interesting exploration would be “Spirits inhabiting places” idea being in tension with “Anatta”.

For example, if I had to apply Anatta to the river, then I’d have to say there’s no river-spirit, there’s just processes. But spirits usually are framed as if they’re possessing or inhabiting certain places and/or people. That’s an interesting distinction.

But that’s a whole new bag of questions for another thread prbably. :slight_smile:

3 Likes
17

At some point, I intend to sit down and document more specific examples of early Buddhism aligning with animist cultures in Asia. The difficulty is that the animist culture of early Buddhism would have been local to the Gangetic Plain, clearly, not in other regions that I’ve mentioned. And the Vedic tradition is also a major influence, which is itself an outgrowth of some animist tradition of its own. I’m not so sure that the Vedic tradition was present at the start of Buddhist history, but it clearly was a major influence during the later classic era when Brahmanism was dominant in India. Buddhists probably had to adjust to that reality. I’ve noticed that there are more frequent mentions of brahmins in later Buddhist sources (like the Mulasarvastivada Vinaya, as an example). But it’s only an anecdotal observation at this point. Much has been made of Brahmanism featuring prominently in Theravada sources, but how early are they really?

There’s a great deal of this kind of cultural comparative work that ought to be done! I look at other fields of cultural studies and see examples of experts creating wonderfully detailed and thorough studies like the huge motif indexes created by folklore scholars. These days, academics seem to stick to short and easy work that doesn’t require as much time and effort. Which is detrimental to Buddhist studies because that means the work is necessarily partial to one domain or another of Buddhist sources (Theravada or Tibetan or Chinese, etc). At least we have translation projects ongoing that were not possible a couple decades ago …

3 Likes
18

I wonder if the materials in Sāṃkhyakārikā of Īśvarakṛṣṇa predate Buddha’s time or not. It’s almost the same system, well except for reverence to Vedas, and the kind of eternal-witness found in Thai Forest Tradition.

I believe Bronkhorst also makes a similar argument that Buddhism incorporated more Brahmanical influences over time.

That though would then beg the question - what would the Pre-Vedic Buddhism have looked like?

1 Like
19

Though I would tend to see this as actually no different from Buddhism’s appropriation of and negotiation with erstwhile permanent deities like Brahmā or Inda, who sit quite comfortably within the self-lessness of the Buddhist pantheon: the Buddha simply made them titled positions with the beings occupying them being periodically replaceable.

1 Like
20

The early Buddhist mythology also adapts them as protective devas ‘divine/spiritual beings’!

1 Like