“That though would then beg the question - what would the Pre-Vedic Buddhism have looked like?”
This is an interesting query. Until of late this was even unthinkable. But there is one reference of Buddha replying yo his father Suddhodhana, why moving around the town, was necessary for the meal. He said This our (Buddhas’) teadition. This made some sense when a Stupa was discovered at excavation of Mohenjodaro, and was carbon dated to be of Harappan civilization. With the paucity of weapons discovered in Harappan civilization, the peaceful maintainance of such a vast civilization seems to be possible by an ethically motivated ( by Dhamma) population. Thus there is a possibility of Buddhism like Dhamma existent, in Pre-Vedic times, governed by the same principles of Non-violence and Morality/Ethics, like Sakya muni’s Buddhism .
Okay, well, let’s see: transcendent, eternal creator gods being reclaimed and reformed into perennially cyclical, benign beings both manifestations of and yet simultaneously subject to forces of nature, having a protective aspect that is subject to human entreaty…
Well, I’d say you have summed up the notion of Buddhism as a reactionary animist movement quite nicely!
The Sāṃkhyakārikā is centuries later than Early Buddhism, approx. half a millenium or more. It is from the early Christian era.
It seeks to posit itself as a text in the lineage of early-Sāṃkhya tradition, of which no prior text has been so far discovered, so one is unable to validate to what extent the Sāṃkhyakārikā is representative of early-Sāṃkhya. It appears that early-Sāṃkhya became quickly the pre-eminent philosophy of late-Vedic India, so much so that it was seen as a kind of template for all later darśanas (philosophies), and its founder Kapila becomes so venerable that the god Kṛṣna, an avatar of Viṣṇu in the Mahābhārata (Bhagavadgīta 10.26) identifies himself with Kapila, the foremost of munis (sages) - “siddhānāṁ kapilo muniḥ”. So Kapila is described as a siddha and as a muni and as a buddha.
Based on this background knowledge, I have speculated earlier here, here, here etc that perhaps Early-Buddhism itself was Early-Sāṅkhya and the historical Buddha - who is also known as a Buddha, a Siddha (siddha-artha = siddhārtha), a muni, etc was the same person who is identified in other Hindu philosophies as Kapila. The name Sāṃkhya (derived from the word saṃkhya = counting) means a philosophy that enumerates - which is a name that very closely fits Early-Buddhism – considering the phenomenal amount of enumeration that happens in early-buddhist philosophy - such as the noble-eightfold path, four-noble truths, 12 links to dependent origination, five aggregates, the three marks of existence, the five hindrances etc.
It would have not looked like anything at all. Practically everything in Early-Buddhism is late-Vedic in geography, time and culture - that to ask of what pre-Vedic buddhism would have looked like would be like asking what would a child have looked like in its pre-parental stage.
To say that Buddhism and Jainism were similar to each other and to other śramaṇa traditions in their approaches and aims - and they did not share all (or most of) their methods, approaches, expectations and results with their ancestral Vedic religion - is right.
However that the Vedic religion and culture was ancestral to both Buddhism and Jainism, and preceded them both, is 100% certain. It is also certain that the geography and culture of the EBTs is virtually identical with that of late-Vedic India. There are no early-Buddhist origins in India that did not have the Vedic religion and culture as a long established relgion and culture in the background, and the EBTs evidence this for practically all regions and locations the Buddha is recorded to have spent his time in.
Were there any other native religions and philosophies in that period and region outside of the Vedic religion, and the newly emergent Buddhism, Jainism and Hinduism? There may have been - just as there may be other religions in Saudi Arabia apart from Islam today. But just as Islam is the elephant in the room in today’s Saudia, the Vedic religion was the elephant in Indo-Aryan India. Buddhism and Jainism and Classical Hinduism most definitely inherit their core from the Vedic religion (even while trying to move away from it) - they are most certainly Indo-Aryan religions just as the Vedic religion itself is - there is nothing non-Indo-Aryan about them. All the languages of the Indian EBTs were Indo-Aryan languages, and that means they had evolved from Old-Indo-Aryan (Vedic).
Indeed. Now, if we recall that there’s not a single uttered, Buddhist sacca which can not serve as a paritta, by that logic, then, some degree of animism would pervade all of Buddhism.
Sorry for the delayed response; I’ve just returned to the online world after a meditation retreat. This is a well-known passage that recurs in many Suttas, such as SN 22.59, SN 22.12…
I read this passage a bit differently. When a person sees rupa, vedana… as not self, not belonging to self, and not meeting one’s requirements and desires, that person feels weary of them and does not like living inside them (just like how you do not like being in or residing in a certain place or circumstance). Disliking or being weary, he leaves or goes out of them (nibbindaṁ virajjati). Due to leaving, going out, or isolating, he is liberated (virāgā vimuccati).
For example, as I am writing these lines, ideas and words appear in the mind. If I use them, pursue them, and ‘live’ in them, then ideas and words will continue to appear. Depending on this, joy and sadness may arise. But if I do not use them, do not pursue them, and do not ‘live’ in them, the ideas and words may continue to appear a few more times; however, at this point, the ‘observer’ is no longer inside them, he sees them as not self and separate from himself. Because of this, ideas and words will not be able to invade the mind and will quickly cease. Due to not being invaded or possessed (anupādāya), the mind is liberated from pollutions (āsavehi cittāni vimucciṁsūti).
Perhaps paritta, in the later, technical sense is the wrong word. I’m referring to the efficacy seen, for example, in the Buddha having the formula for the seven bojjhaṅgas recited to heal from illness or in Aṅgulimāla’s self-reflexive proclamation easing the ailing women’s childbirth.
Wouldn’t you agree that words of truth (sacca) exhibit powers and imbue speakers with powers reminiscent of shamanism or animism?
I will consider these happenings are mainly about consciousness, e.g. the four abodes of consciousness (catasso vinnanatthitiyo): SN 22.53, SN 22.55 (= SA 40, SA 64):
Material form with attachment
Feeling with attachment
Perception with attachment
Activities with attachment
(cf.: pp. 50-52 in Choong Mun-keat’s The Fundamental Teachings of Early Buddhism)
No, I do not think the words themselves are the powers for shamanism/animism, but the mind/consciousness of the individuals is having a leading function (generating activity or not). Cf. the above-mentioned ‘the four abodes of consciousness’.
Well, then can you tell me why the accompanying qualification would often be etena saccena? The ascription of efficacy there is to the truth expressed by the words not the mind of the individual. If you read it differently, please, I’m all for hearing your detailed explanation.
Nevertheless, were the power emanated rather from the virtue of the individual, that would be even greater resonance with shamanistic animism: a sort of Axial Age cerebralization (ethicization?) of the power of the shaman.
I apologize for being a little late with this, but I remembered a canonical discourse which uses that word: AN 4.67, the Ahirāja Sutta, where the Buddha, just like an shamanistic, animist leader of his people, offers them a supernatural charm to protect them from animal attack.
No, sorry, I don’t know that chant. I was thinking about the sutta I linked to above, where, once again, in true shamanistic, animist fashion, the Buddha addresses all the spirits of the earth and the skies, benevolent and malevolent, and utters a chant (not just manifests a consciousness!) in order to effect healing and protection for all human beings, first and foremost–though it seems the text can be read as extending to all the aforementioned spirits as well.
