Editing SG33SHS-T (section)

=== 8. Buddhism Is Atheistic ===

Indeed, the belief in the existence of supernatural gods and buddhas is not inherent to Buddhism. In fact, Buddhism originally emphasized the teaching that “the supreme reality for man is man.”<ref>Here and below Seno’o cites a line from a passage that encapsulates some important elements of Marx’s critique of religion. The full extract reads as follows: “The criticism of religion ends with the teaching that ''man is the highest essence for man''—hence, with the ''categoric imperative to overthrow all relations'' in which man is a debased, enslaved, abandoned, despicable essence.” In ''A Contribution to Hegel’s “Philosophy of Right”'' (1844); Marxist Internet Archive, accessed September 18, 2024, https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1843/critique-hpr/intro.htm.</ref>

In the religious context prior to Buddhism in India, the predominant belief system was Brahmanism, according to which the creator of the universe was the supreme god known as “Brahman” and humanity was considered his creation. It was believed that the Brahmin caste, who were born from the head of Brahman, held the highest social status and were responsible for conducting rituals and worshiping Brahman. The ''kṣatriyas'', born from the chest, belonged to the second caste associated with military and political functions. The''vaiśya''s, born from the abdomen, belonged to the third caste engaged in economic activities, and the''śūdra''s, born from the feet, belonged to the fourth caste and were considered slaves. It was believed that all aspects of their lives, including their fortunes and misfortunes, were governed by Brahman.

However, it was the Buddha himself who, after attaining enlightenment, went into the streets and decisively rejected Brahmanism and its hierarchical social structure. He introduced the teachings of the “four ennobling truths”<ref>Normally translated into English as “Four Noble Truths,”''catvāri āryasatyāni''implies something closer to “four truths for those who seek nobility (of spirit/mind/practice).”</ref> and the “twelve links of interdependent co-arising,”<ref>Here, too, I have opted for a less-common translation of''pratītya-samutpāda''than the more common “Dependent Origination” in order to emphasize—as Seno’o would no doubt prefer—the radical interdependence and''mutual relating''of all being.</ref> paving the way for a new path to liberation. Therefore, thehistorical figure who courageously challenged the dominance of Brahmanism and propagated the teachings of liberation was none other than the Buddha, Siddhartha Gautama.

A specialized interpretation of the “four ennobling truths” and the “twelve links of interdependent co-arising” will be omitted here. In essence, they represent the teachings of causality and the practice of selflessness, which aim at the liberation of humanity. According to the Buddha’s understanding, all phenomena in the universe, referred to as “the world,” are not created by a “god” but exist as interdependent and constantly changing manifestations of reality. Therefore, there is no eternal and unchanging social order, nor does an absolute being called “god” exist. If one seeks something permanent, it is simply the fact of interdependence—the law of interdependent co-arising. Based on this fact, the fundamental attitude toward human liberation in daily life should naturally involve the negation of individual egos and private ownership, and instead foster a communal and cooperative social existence.

The teachings of the “three marks of existence” in Buddhism—the impermanence of all phenomena, the selflessness of all things, and the tranquility of nirvana—also serve to illustrate these principles. In essence, they convey the understanding of the above principles.

If we examine the matter further, we can find evidence in the cases of Śāriputra and Maudgalyāyana, two prominent Brahmin teachers with hundreds of disciples who chose to abandon Brahmanism and become disciples of the Buddha. The reason behind their decision was that one day, they heard from a fellow Buddhist disciple named Assaji that the Buddha taught, “All things arise due to causes and conditions, and they cease to exist when those causes and conditions cease.”<ref>This story can be found in ch. 16 of the ''Mahāprajñāpāramitā śāstra'', attributed to Nāgārjuna (fl. 2nd–3rd c.), T no. 1509, 25: 136a–c. An English translation is found at: [https://www.wisdomlib.org/buddhism/book/maha-prajnaparamita-sastra/d/doc225219.html “Part 3: Conversion of Śāriputra and Maudgalyāyana,” Wisdom Library], accessed September 19, 2024.</ref> Upon hearing this, Śāriputra and Maudgalyāyana immediately understood the principle of the impermanence of all things, which states that anything born is subject to decay and cessation. This understanding led them to renounce their previous beliefs and embrace the teachings of the Buddha.

Truly, to attain liberation from the cycle of birth and death, one must embark upon a path of discerning understanding regarding the ironclad law of causality, which states that all living beings are subject to impermanence and will inevitably perish. Furthermore, it is said that during the Buddha’s final moments before his passing, his dear disciple Ānanda expressed sorrow over the thought of being left without the Buddha’s guidance in the future. In response to this, the Buddha provided teachings and guidance, comforting Ānanda in his grief.

<blockquote>
I have already established the sutras and precepts. You, my disciples, should simply study these sutras and precepts and diligently practice them. I too am among the (monastic) sangha.<ref>Seno’o cites the ''Nirvana Sutra'' (Skt. ''Parinirvāṇa Sutra'', Ch. ''Fo bannihuan jing'' 佛般泥洹經, Jp. ''Butsu hatsu naion kyō''), T no. 5, 1: 164c10–13, an early Chinese translation of a sutra that relays the events leading up to the end of Śākyamuni Buddha’s life. “Hatsu naion” 般泥洹 refers to the nirvana, or final extinction, of the Buddha. There is a similar passage in the (much shorter) Pali ''Mahāparinibbāna Sutta'': “It may be, Ananda, that to some among you the thought will come ‘Ended is the word of the Master; we have a Master no longer.’ But it should not, Ananda, be so considered. For that which I have proclaimed and made known as the Dhamma and the discipline, that shall be your Master when I am gone” (''Dīgha Nikāya'' [hereafter DN] 16: 6.1).</ref>
</blockquote>

In essence, this means, “Even if I pass away, the truth I have taught will not perish. If you sincerely practice this truth and do not lose it, I will always exist among the community of bhikkus, just as before.” Similarly, the passage “O bhikkus, rely on yourselves as the lamp and rely on the Dharma as the refuge, and do not rely on anything else as the lamp or as the refuge”<ref>''Mahāparinibbāna Sutta'', DN 16: 12. An English version may be found at [https://tinyurl.com/596xmjwu https://tinyurl.com/596xmjwu].</ref> from the ''Nirvana Sutra'' clearly denies the existence of an absolute god. In this way, fundamental Buddhism negates the existence of a transcendent absolute god. Why, then, has it transformed into the present-day form of a theistic religion? I will explain this issue in the subsequent chapters on the question of the soul.

In short, the period following the Buddha’s death was a transitional one involving various transformations due to the prevailing social circumstances. As such, correcting the distorted teachings of Buddhism today is not a blasphemy but rather a revival of true Buddhism. Dr. Takakusu 高楠 also rightly states, “Both Amida Buddha and Dainichi Nyorai are manifestations of the Buddha’s ideals, and they are the perfected forms of human beings. Therefore, they have no meaning whatsoever as creator gods, ruling gods, or gods of judgment.”<ref>Takakusu Junjirō 高楠順次郎 (1866–1945) was a prominent educator and scholar of Buddhism during the later Meiji, Taishō, and early Shōwa periods. Along with Watanabe Kaikyoku 渡辺海旭 (1872–1933), a founding member of the Meiji-era New Buddhist Fellowship, he was primarily responsible for the compilation of the Taishō canon (''Taishō shinshū daizōkyō'' 大正新脩大藏經), the definitive compendium of Chinese Buddhist texts. This passage is very likely from Takakusu’s 1930 book ''Bukkyō tetsugaku no yōtai'' 仏教哲学の要諦, translated into English as ''Essentials of Buddhist Philosophy'' in 1947 (Honolulu: University of Hawaii). While I have not been able to locate the precise passage, Takakusu makes similar claims about Amida on p. 184 of the English version. It could be that Seno’o is paraphrasing Takakusu here.</ref> If we express this in the words of Marx, as I previously quoted, “The critique of religion ends with the doctrine that the supreme reality for man is man.” Therefore, true Buddhists should praise and revere the personality of the historical Śākyamuni Buddha, who embodied the ideals of Buddhism. Worshiping abstract Buddhas like Amida as existing, absolute beings is now one hundred percent nonsensical. We must completely resolve these matters without anxieties or attachments. Faith in the Buddha is akin to Confucians revering Confucius and communists admiring Lenin; it does not carry any theistic or external authoritarian meaning. The crux of the issue always lies in reverence for the Buddha and the contemporary practice of his teachings.

<blockquote>
O bhikkus! Even if someone is my disciple who follows behind me, holding the hem of my robe and treading in my footsteps, if that person is consumed by greed and their mind is disturbed, they are far from me, and I am also far from them. This is because they do not see the Dharma, and one who does not see the Dharma does not see me. However, even if they are a hundred miles away from me, if they have abandoned desires and possess a pure heart, they are by my side. This is because they see the Dharma, and by seeing the Dharma, they see me. (''A New Translation of Buddhist Scriptures'', p. 36)<ref>This is one of a few instances where Seno’o provides a reference, complete with page number, for a passage quoted in his essay. In all such cases, his reference will be found in parentheses at the end of the passage. The title quoted here refers to the ''Shin’yaku bukkyō seiten'' 新訳仏教聖典 (Nagoya: Bukkyō Kyōkai Shuppan, 1925), edited by Kizu Muan 木津無庵 (1867–1943) with assistance from Takakusu Junjirō, is made up of transcriptions from the Taishō canon. See Greg Wilkinson and Nicholas J. Frederick, “Inventing Buddhist Bibles in Japan: From Nanjō Bun’yū to Numata Yehan,” in Jiang Wu and Greg Wilkinson, eds., ''Reinventing the Tripitaka: Transformation of the Buddhist Canon in Modern East Asia'' (Lexington Books, 2017), pp. 47–48.</ref>
</blockquote>

As is clear from this passage, since Buddha is a personified truth, there is plenty of possibility for Buddhism even in the scientific modern age. When we teach the Buddhadharma to practitioners, they naturally come to value the Buddha’s character, which leads in turn to a deeper and renewed practice. There is not a hint of irrationality here. Fundamental Buddhism was not originally opium. After all, Buddhism is atheism. “Revitalized Buddhism” must first extol this aspect and then liquidate the delusional nature of established, institutional Buddhism at the same time as we liquidate the opium-like role that established Buddhism plays in society.