Was the Buddha a Shaman?

Just to be clear there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that soma played any part in the development of Buddhism. Buddhists rejected everything about Brahmanism.

Another factual error is that the verbal root √śram means 'to toil, to be tired' not 'heat'. I've traced the etymology of shaman back to the Sanskrit word śrāmaṇa in this blog post: Philological odds and ends I

"Shamanism is especially associated with the northern steppes, close to the reputed origin of the Aryans, the creators of the Vedas and the initiators of the Vedic cultural complex that the Buddha inherited. "

This is simply badly informed. The Vedas are a product of India. The form of the language used, and the level of loan words from both proto-Munda and Dravidian in the Ṛgveda make this clear. "Āryan" is now a deprecated term that has negative overtones. The speakers of the Indo-European languages come from steppes near the Caspian Sea - southern rather than northern steppes. See The Indo-European homeland from linguistic and archaeological evidence.

"The Upanishads, the oldest of which appeared between 1200 and 800 BCE, influenced the samanas."

There is no positive evidence of "influence". The Buddha appears to obliquely reject some doctrines that are found in the Upaniṣads.

" The samanas gave rise to yoga"

Not true. Yoga was a late development long after śrāmaṇa had any meaning, it's based on a reinterpretation the non-Buddhist/non-Vedic Sāṅkhya philosophy.

"The samanas exhibit many similarities with the later Shaivite cult,"

Rubbish.

I give up, but this article is riddled with factual errors, logical fallacies and bias. It has to be one of the worst pieces of writing I've seen about Buddhism in a long time. I hope not too many people waste their time with it or are taken in by this fantasist.

[deleted]

Weak. It's trying to associate Buddha as a Shaman, to state that he does use substances. It's a long convoluted argument with what-ifs and how abouts that ignore a text and records, including lineages or practices that date back to the Buddha that do not engage in these practices. As you mentioned

His definition of Shamanism would have certainly ruled out the Buddha as one. Stepping away from that and to the assertion that psychedelics are OK I can rebut a few ways:

1) Practices of the Vedics and Brahmnins centering around spiritual plants, are well documented. The use of any substance in conjunction of spiritual practice, particularly substances that cause gross changes in consciousness, perceptions, feeling, states of mind, etc, would absolutely have been detailed in the lineages and traditions if they were in the least included. The Pali Canon is 11x larger than the Bibles and there are no pro drug references, no detailed or references to practices centering around mystical plants as they were known at the time. Additionally the detail of the Vinaya, in terms of behaviors and detail of practices in general preclude the possibility that the Buddha told his Bikkhus to eat a could shroom and meditate on it.

2) I am sure Buddha indulged or experimented with known spiritual technologies, including Soma, Bhang, you name it, but this does not in the least mean that Buddha achieve enlightenment with anything beyond the middle way. There is no reference to any type of substance being used at all leading to his enlighenment or as this author would have it "entrance into shamanhood", he simply stepped away from austerity, took up the middle way and practice Jhana as he did as a child and became enlightened.

3) The lack of detail of any substances aside, the 5th precept clearly states that you shouldn't use any substance that leads to heedlessness, heedlessness meaning many things including mindlessness, lack of control, etc. I don't know how one can consume psychedelics and be considered heedful. Buddha also went so far as to regulate, sleep, food, comfort in bed, etc, on can not suppose that he intentionally not only left out. His attribution of the Pali translation of the 5th precept, is once again woefully lacking as I pointed out in other posts. The structure of Pali lends itself to multiple interpretations of certain things, the most broad being that Buddha talks explicitly about alcohol and other intoxicants not alcohol that lead to intoxication. Additionally the clear line of heedlessness is here, so one should not only avoid not only alcohol but other substances leading to heedlessness, which one can day many of these would lead to. If one reads the teachings deeper Buddha uses the term of intoxicants or intoxication to refer to intoxication of other types, with youth, beauty, one's own masculinity or femininity, so the line is set to not engage in any behavior leading to intoxication.

4) There is very loose references with all these pro-drug touters (and yes I have read a lot on their work) to for instance iconographic references to this substance or that or a herb here or there. One should keep in mind plants of a mystic quality, including an psychedelic or bhang or soma would also often be used as healing herbs, those are not explicitly banned for that use in Buddhism. It's noteworthy that beyond the spiritual applications, if for instance Cannabis was used as medicine, as it is today, it would be ok to use it to treat a sick person. There is reference to monks using herbs to treat illness. Buddha is clear that (A) medicine is only to be used for the sick and he even said (B) food is to be used like medicine to keepthe body from getting weak and sick, so for nutriment. This is a clear dividing line, when one could expect a large overlap between susbtances for medicine being used also for spiritual practices. This would explain why the medicine Buddha in an icon may hold a jar of this substance that shamans may use,but also healer would use as well, so it's clear why that Buddha would hold it.

In short, I feel there is a lot of what ifs here and there and speculation here. Considering how detailed and intact the records of Buddhism are, it's hard to imagine that there was such a willful exclusion of such extreme spiritual practices that were left out of the very large recording of Buddha's teachings in all language.

A book that I found very useful in deciding whether or not Shakyamuni falls under the rubric of a shaman is John Ashton's book, The Religion of Paul the Apostle. He makes an excellent case that Paul was a shaman. Using some of Ashton's methods one might well forge a kick-ass Buddhist dissertation.

Paul the Apostle has traditionally been viewed as a thinker and theologian, and scholars have focused almost exclusively on his ideas rather than on his religious experience. In this book, a leading New Testament scholar challenges this view of Paul. John Ashton demonstrates how closely Paul’s own career resembles that of a typical shaman, and he shows how every important aspect of Paul’s life and ministry may be illuminated by focusing on his experience.

Drawing not only on Paul’s letters but also on contemporary writings in the Jewish and Hellenistic worlds, Ashton discusses a number of important issues relevant to the understanding of Paul and to the origins of Christianity: whether Paul is properly described as a convert, a mystic, an apostle, a prophet, or a charismatic; what his attitude was to the Jewish traditions he inherited; why he felt called upon to preach, not to his fellow Jews, but to the Gentiles; what accounts for the remarkable success of his strange new Gospel; and how we can explain his language of spirit-possession (“Christ lives in me”). In addressing these issues, Ashton demonstrates that to regard Christianity simply as a religion of the word is to ignore a vital truth about its origins.

Shaman is a particular word for a style of Siberian or whatever religion. If you were interested in shamanism and Buddhism crossing together -literally- I would recommend the film Oracles of Tibet, on youtube.. the shamans/oracles are not really considered monks.. and traditions like Korean Seon Buddhism or Japanese or Vietnamese . The Siberian Shamanism and Korean Buddhism are very close together much in the same way that Japanese Shinto is very close to Japanese Buddhism. I don't believe that Buddha has a lineage descending from him as a founder, he's more like a symbol, for instance Manichaeism or Gnosticism and Buddhism had syncretized together . It's a mistake to separate Buddhism as a category distinct from other religions . If you consider shamanism to be a way of doing something (not true, imho) , then no- Buddha was not a shaman in the sense that Michael Harner or Eliade term a technique of ecstasy as in the use of trance , I wouldn't call the oracles of Tibet shamans nor does it really apply to Korean much either. I prefer the term sorcery and I'd recommend studying Thailand , Vietnam, Korea, Japan, for that as well, but don't look so much for practice. The idea of sorcery corresponds better with English horror fiction. Those cultures I just mentioned often don't use trance for ecstasy. I consider trance to be a kind of meditation technique that isn't necessary for meditative practice.

the concept of the Self-Loss and Daemonic-dread is most familiar to me as someone engaged with the study of English literature. I'd recommend reading the following famous horror stories that use daemonic-dread as an important catalyst for spirit communion and I'd recommend these following basic texts on yoga and buddhism,

Sinister Yogis by David Gordon White (yoga without postures)

Haunting the Buddha by Robert DeCaroli

The Lovelorn Ghost and the Magical Monk by Justin Thomas McDaniel

Covert Shin by Clark Chilson

The Incantatory Body by Paul Copp

Sleep Paralysis: Night-Mares, Nocebos, and the Mind-Body Connection by Shelley R Adler

The Terror That Comes In The Night by David J Hufford

The Wendigo by Algernon Blackwood

Rime of the Ancient Mariner by Samuel Taylor Coleridge

Tantramar Revisited by Sir Charles G D Roberts

the Self-Loss [ Korean Shamanism Muism by Dr. Kim Tae-kon & Dr. Chang Soo-kyung ] is an offering of ki to hungry ghosts [ Kut : Happiness Through Reciprocity by Hyun-key Kim Hogarth, Ghosts of War In Vietnam by Heonik Kwon , The Gift by Marcel Mauss ] through the spooky feeling or what Rudolf Otto called daemonic-dread [ Job 4:15 KJV, Korean Shamanism The Cultural Paradox by Chongho Kim, Idea of the Holy by Rudolf Otto ]

Night-Mares and Englightenment

Films :

Nang Nak

Garm Wars The Last Druid

Metalhead (Simile of the Bath-Attendant, Vimuttimagga)

Rock & Rule (the finale is a clip you can watch on youtube besides the trailer)

Wicked City

please don't ban me again I am seriously interested in Buddha's enlightenment as something involving spirit communion since that is what you find um when you study the books I just cited . I could recommend more horror stories but those are some really good ones to do directly with Buddhism ( Algernon Blackwood was a Buddhist ) and the concept Rudolf Otto devised along with some trans-national context of gothic horror and Buddhism like the Thai film. This IS a way of understanding Buddhism and I think it is the correct one.

Idea of the Holy is a text of comparative religion between Japanese Buddhism , the Old Testament, and authors like William Blake (The Tiger, not the Lamb), Coleridge, and Emily Bronte . It's quite a book.

and btw thanks for asking since I am fascinated by this concept though I consider horror fiction , Japanese manga, and Buddhism far more fluid than I'd imagine anyone else here, consider my perspective please and the academia I cited is rock solid.

Well, crap, according to the definition of a shaman in that article, I have been one.

1. The statement that the Buddha rejected Brahmanism is naive and simplistic. Rhys Davids points out that the Buddha had many Brahman followers. The Buddha also speaks positively about Brahmans, and refers to his own monastics as the true Brahmans. The Buddha never claimed to be an innovator; he always represented himself as a reformer. What was he a reformer of, if not of the Brahmanic tradition? He states that he is restoring the Brahmanic tradition to its original and ancient truth, and there are many positive references throughout the Pali Canon to the ancient Vedic rishis. One does not reform what one does not accept. The Buddha criticized the Brahmans, certainly, and corrupt aspects of Brahmanism, but he does not reject its primordiality.
   
2. The root of sram, 'to toil or exert oneself,' is sra, 'to heat or boil.' Clearly, the two meanings cannot be separated.
3. The mainstream view is that the Aryan migration into the Indus Valley civilization created the culture that in turn created the Vedas. Although this is disputed, the views expressed in the article are not outside scholarly consensus, and in fact represent a balanced, synthetic view between the 'Indian-only' view and the notion of an Aryan "invasion." The Aryan migration is attested in the Vedas themselves. The word "Aryan" is used throughout the Pali Canon and cannot be avoided. Should the Christian church stop using the image of the Cross because of the Ku Klux Klan?
4. The fact that Aryans originated in the southern steppes, and shamanism in the northern steppes, is irrelevant. The fact is, European continental prehistory clearly shows the influence of shamanism, which has acquired a much larger meaning than its narrow geographical or geo-cultural origin. The article clearly states that it is not using the word in the latter sense. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shamanism_in_Europe.
5. The fundamental ideas underlying the Upanishads, including karma, rebirth, liberation, etc., clearly influenced Buddhism. "Certain Buddhist teachings appear to have been formulated in response to ideas presented in the early Upanishads – in some cases concurring with them, and in other cases criticizing or re-interpreting them. ... Buddhism may have been influenced by some Upanishadic ideas, it however discarded their orthodox tendencies." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_Hinduism#Upanishads)
6. "Among the Astika schools of Hinduism, Vedanta, Samkhya, and Yoga are early and very important philosophies that have influenced and been influenced by the Sramana philosophy, with their origins in the Indus Valley period of about 3000-2000 BCE. As Geoffrey Samuel notes, 'Our best evidence to date suggests that [yogic practice] developed in the same ascetic circles as the early sramana movements (Buddhists, Jainas and Ajivikas), probably in around the sixth and fifth centuries BCE.'" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sramana). The Yoga Sutras of Patanjali were clearly influenced by the Buddhist notion of samadhi, and may go back as far as 400 BCE, like the Shaiva Upanishad, though this is disputed.
7. Finally, the statement that the thesis of this article is that the Buddha consumed or recommended the consumption of soma, psychedelics, or any other drugs (except medicines, which are permitted) is a red herring because that is not what is stated. The thesis of the article is that the Buddha was a shaman, and that Buddhism is therefore shamanic, and the references include an article by an academic scholar who comes to the same conclusion based on a different argument (replication). Hence, your suggestion that the article is wildly out of sync with contemporary academic scholarship is also shown to be false.
8. To denigrate those who hold opinions different from your own - rooted perhaps in a narrow dogmatic scholasticism? - is ignorant, in the literal sense of "not knowing." Scholarship allows for differences of opinion. One can always find some scholar or other to agree or disagree with any point. Similarly, one can always find pedants who defend their particular research as absolute truth, and rant against those who hold differing views.