What interests me though, is the shift in late Vedism of a karma that goes from a karma meaning "action", to a karma meaning "intention" as in Buddhism.
Was this kamma thing as "intention" an added stuff by the post Buddha Brahmins, from 185 BCE on?
NOTE: The same way that certain people pretend that the same Brahmins would have introduced the notion of the arūpa āyatanani in Buddhism - and that these arūpa āyatanani should be stripped of the Buddhist's Texts).
It sounds pretty illogical that the Brahmins would have conceived something that was directed at getting rid of, what they were ultimately trying to reach.
But these people keep on going with that strange logic.
An other rationale of them, against the arūpa higher āyatanani, is that Buddha would have said in AN 11.9 (Sandha sutta), that one should not meditate on these higher āyatanani— However Buddha also saidthat one should not meditate on what is "sensed by the mano" - And isn't that what it's all about, in the first and second jhana (viz. pīti) ? -
Should we strip also, the first & second jhana from the Buddhist texts?
Indeed, what the Buddha said, is that we should meditate beyond the aquiescence towards any experiences.
But to get beyond to the finish line, you still have to go through all the stages of the race, don't you?
You have to pass through each of them, and transcend each ofthem (samatikkamma) - don't you?
How much do we have to strip content from the suttas — (apart from being cautious of suttas without parallels - which, by the way shouldn't be stripped off - unless being blatantly oppositive [schism] - in which case, one should just put them at the end of their reading list)?
In the Rig Veda and the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad - from a mere karma by action (usually doing sacrifice):
The immortal self will be reborn in a new body due to its meritorious deeds.
RV. 1.64.30 & 38
We see things slowly changing - the action becomes intention:
What they said was karman, what they praised was karman.
Verily, one becomes good by good action, bad by bad action.
According as one acts, according as one behaves, so does he become.
The doer of good becomes good; the doer of evil becomes evil.
One becomes virtuous by virtuous action, bad by bad action.
Others, however, say that a person consists of desires.
As is his desire, so is his will; as is his will, so is the deed he does - what ever deed he does, that he attains.
The object to which the mano is attached, the subtle self goes to get it with the karma, being attached to it alone.
Obviously, there is no self like this in Buddhism, but a mano + cetana (manosañcetana) towards that object.
This shift from karma as pure action, to a karma as intention, can be seen also in the Chandogya Upaniṣad
As to this,there is this verse:
'If during rites performed for (the fulfilment of certain) wishes, he (the performer) sees a woman in a dream, let him recognise fulfilment (karma) in such a vision in a dream.
My question is: "Do we have to strip out this kamma as intention from the Buddhist Texts, because it shows a pretty factual commonality with the Vedic Texts? ".
Was that another attempt from the Brahmins to corrupt the original Buddhist's Texts?
Or is it just that people have a poor knowledge of the Indian philosophy of the time (of which Buddhism was part - https://www.britannica.com/topic/Buddhism)?
I'm trying hard.