Editing SG33SHS-T (section)

== Chapter 3: Modern Science Denies the Afterlife and Advocates Materialism ==

=== 9. The Meaning of the Afterlife and the Immortal Soul ===

Our second analysis concerns the issue of the afterlife,<ref>The term ''higan'' 彼岸, literally the “other shore” or “opposite bank” of a river, entered the vocabulary of East Asian Buddhism as a metaphor for nirvana, that place of respite on the “other side” of ''saṃsāra'', the torrent of birth and death. I have generally translated ''higan'' as “afterlife” (and ''higanshugi'' 彼岸主義—literally, “other-shore-ism”—as “belief in an afterlife”), though in the context of section 10 below, I have opted for “other world” as the more appropriate English rendering.</ref> which refers to the immortality of the soul as taught in traditional Buddhism. However, before delving into this issue, it is essential to clearly define and understand the meaning of otherworldliness and immortality of the soul, as the interpretation of these terms can vary and lead to confusion.

''Higan'' 彼岸 refers to the boundary, or crossing point, between life and death symbolizing the realm of delusion and suffering (i.e., this shore), while implying the attainment of awakening (nirvana) as the other shore. It can also metaphorically represent an ideal world on earth. Therefore, the term ''higanshugi'' 彼岸主義 can be used to describe various concepts—including that of a communist society—that might be considered forms of an afterlife based on [the] scientific inevitability [of their coming to pass]. However, in the context of the discussion here, ''higanshugi'' specifically refers to beliefs about the immortality of the soul after death, such as the Christian concept of heaven, paradise in Pure Land Buddhism, or the Pure Land of Vulture Peak in Nichiren Buddhism.

When it comes to the content of “immortality of the soul,” there has been a tendency in recent times to substitute phrases like “immortality of the self” in an attempt to support this belief. Various explanations are offered from philosophical, scientific, biological, social, and inspirational perspectives. I will explain these in relation to (1) philosophy, (2) science, (3) biology, (4) social achievements, and (5) lasting influence. Philosophically, it is argued that while phenomena may perish, the essence of the self is immortal, much like water remains even when bubbles disappear. This is similar to some of the teachings of Mahayana Buddhism, such as the doctrine of interdependent co-arising and the gate of “thusness” (such as one finds, for example, in the ''Awakening of Faith in the Mahayana'').<ref>The ''Dasheng qixin lun'' 大乘起信論 (Jp. ''Daijōkishinron'', T nos. 1666, 1667) is a brief commentary probably composed in China in the fifth century but attributed to Indian master Aśvaghoṣa (fl. ca. 2nd c.).</ref> Scientifically, proponents cite theories of the indestructibility of matter and energy to assert the substantial immortality of the self. This may be akin to Dr. Satō 佐藤 defending the rationality of Christianity by asserting that electrons are divine.<ref>Seno’o may be referring to Satō Sadakichi 佐藤定吉 (1887–1960), a Christian and professor of engineering at Tōhoku 東北 Imperial University, who published a work entitled, ''Kagaku yori shūkyō e no shisaku'' 科学より宗教への思索 (Sangyō Shūkyōkai, 1929). I thank the anonymous reviewer of the translation for pointing this out.</ref> Biologically, it is argued that the life of one’s descendants are an extension of the self, while in terms of social achievements, for example, Thomas Edison’s self exists in the shining light of an electric bulb. A further explanation relates that the spirit of Śākyamuni Buddha in Buddhism is immortal due to its lasting influence. However, all these explanations have strayed far from the true meaning of the immortality of the soul. In the traditional understanding, the immortality of the soul implies that after the death of a specific individual, their soul—with its unique, conscious identity—continues to exist, possibly experiencing punishment in hell or finding fulfillment in paradise.

=== 10. The End of the Illusion of “Another World” ===

Now, regarding the concept of “another world,” is it truly an existing realm where spirits live after death, as generally believed? In response to this question, it is evident that modern science dismisses the existence of another world. Even from a geographical standpoint, once Copernican heliocentrism is accepted, the directions designated by terms such as “heaven,” “the Western Pure Land,” or “the realm of the dead” become utterly nonsensical. Even if the whole [human] world were to be destroyed, the earth would continue its rotation, rendering the notion of “another world” directionally meaningless. Ultimately, there is no scientific evidence to prove its existence.

How, then, should we consider the existence of realms like the “Pure Land,” “heaven,” or “Pure Land of Vulture Peak” in the afterlife? We should understand that they hold no meaning other than as the subjective belief of individuals. For example, Master Nichiren states, “Śākyamuni Buddha remains present even after entering nirvana; even after his extinction he remains alive in this sutra” (''On Establishing the Correct Teaching for the Peace of the Land'').<ref>''Risshō ankokuron'' 立正安国論. This is the title of Nichiren’s most famous and influential work, written in 1260.</ref>

And according to Master Shinran:

<blockquote>
It is only through believing and relying on the words of good people that we come to trust [in the teachings of the ''nenbutsu'']. Truly, the practice of ''nenbutsu'' is the seed for being born in the Pure Land; it may lead to that, or it may lead to falling into hell due to one’s karmic fruits. We cannot know for certain. Even if one is deceived by Master Hōnen and recites the ''nenbutsu'' and falls into hell, there should be no regrets.<ref>''Tannisho'' 2. For a contemporary English translation of this passage by Taitetsu Unno, see: [https://www.themathesontrust.org/papers/fareasternreligions/Tannisho-Unno.pdf “The Tannisho,” The Matheson Trust: For the Study of Comparative Religion], accessed September 18, 2024.</ref>
</blockquote>

According to this perspective, the Pure Land is established through belief. Its significance lies in the act of believing, and without belief, it becomes a meaningless concept. Therefore, the Pure Land, the Pure Land of Vulture Peak, and heaven should be regarded as symbolic representations of an ideal world, devoid of any inherent meaning. They should be regarded as concepts that must be obliterated.

=== 11. The Immortality of the Soul Is Based on a Dualistic Concept of Spirit and Flesh ===

Next is the issue of the immortality of the soul. The belief that a soul with an individual consciousness exists even after death is no longer a problem for those who deny the afterlife. And yet some believers accept the idea that Christ was born from the Virgin Mary, was killed, and ascended to heaven in bodily form on the third day. Is it not a problem to believe that when a person dies their soul takes on some other form—like a balloon, perhaps—and escapes?

Upon consideration, the philosophical basis of the belief in the immortality of the soul originates from ancient people perceiving the body and soul as dualistic entities where the body is mortal and the soul is immortal. As long as belief in God remains, this is not an implausible concept. Faith in the actual existence of God has become a foundation for traditional religions. Feuerbach stated, “Faith in God is nothing other than faith in immortality, and conversely, faith in immortality is faith in God.”<ref>Seno’o quotes here from the writings of Ludwig Feuerbach, who was a crucial link between Hegel and Marx. Ludwig Feuerbach, ''The Essence of Christianity'', pt. 1, ch. 13: “The Mystery of Faith”; originally published as ''Das Wesen des Christentums'' (1841). For an English translation, see [https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/feuerbach/works/essence/ec13.htm “Chapter XIII. The Mystery of Faith—The Mystery of Miracle,” Marxist Internet Archive], accessed September 18, 2024.</ref> This statement holds true. Believing in the existence of a divine being, such as an imperceptible personal God or Buddha, inevitably affirms the continuation of the soul after bodily death. Additionally, the belief in the immortality of the soul should eventually eliminate any doubts regarding the existence of spiritual deities such as God or Buddha. Therefore, these two concepts are interdependent and have established what might be called heavenly transcendentalism, giving rise to the idea of the immortality of the soul. However, as discussed in the previous chapter, if Buddhism is fundamentally atheistic, these concepts are clearly negated. Therefore, the question arises: How did the concept of the immortality of the soul, which is based on the dualism of spirit and flesh, originate? It is necessary to first examine this question.

=== 12. Spirit-Flesh Dualism in Primitive Societies ===

In this regard, scholars who have studied the notion that “the primitive people of Australia are the remnants of our distant ancestors” provide the following explanation:

<blockquote>
Primitive people, due to their limited knowledge, cannot fully comprehend the concept of natural death. They do not believe that they must die sooner or later. (This is still true for infants [note by Seno’o].) However, when an unnatural death occurs, their behavior changes. Primitive people witness such unnatural deaths almost daily during hunting. In these cases, they consistently observe a similar scene. The wounded animal, struck by a spear or an axe, falls down; blood flows from the wound, and as the blood flows, the animal becomes motionless and stops breathing. In other words, it dies. From this, the following theory is derived: when blood flows out of the body, the life force that had previously animated the body, or in other words, the spirit, leaves the body.

According to the beliefs of primitive people, the soul that has departed from the body continues to exist independently as the deceased’s twin. Through this process, it becomes a spirit. This notion is confirmed through the act of dreaming. From a psychological standpoint, primitive people can be considered “naive realists.” Everything they see or inquire about is considered a tangible reality for them. (The same applies to children [note by Seno’o].) For example, when an aboriginal person in Australia sees themselves hunting or participating in a feast in their dream, they genuinely believe that their soul has engaged in those activities. They cannot explain dreaming in any other way. Primitive people perceive spirits as the twins of humans. Therefore, it is only natural that they have established customs and habits concerning spirits. In times of need, primitive people consistently seek assistance from the spirits of those kin in their community who have died. This is not at all surprising to them. They believe it is their responsibility to take care of the spirits of their deceased relatives. In certain aboriginal communities in Australia, it is a widespread custom to offer various delicacies on the graves of the deceased for several days after death. Failure to do so, according to their beliefs, may result in the spirits of the deceased causing harm or seeking revenge upon their fellow community members.<ref>M. Fingert and B. Shirvindt, ''A Short Textbook of Historical Materialism'', 6th ed. (Leningrad: Pribol, 1930); for the Japanese translation, see Puroretaria Kagaku Kenkyūjō プロレタリア科學研究所, ed., ''Shiteki yuibutsuron kyōtei'' 史的唯物論教程 (Kyōseikaku, 1931). Seno’o does not provide a page number or range for this quotation.</ref>
</blockquote>

Just as in the case of the belief that mummies have souls that depart and return to their vessel—the physical body—such notions are said to originate from superstitions. This belief can be considered a simplistic interpretation by ignorant and uncivilized people, who naturally began to think of spirits and bodies in a dualistic manner. However, such a dualistic concept of spirit and body has become increasingly untenable in learned discourse. At the very least, the mind and the body are two aspects of a living organism, where subjectively the mind is considered to be mental activity, but objectively, there is no other way than to view it as a function of the body. In other words, if there were a complete duality and continued freedom after death, it would be difficult to explain why physical malfunctions hold sway over mental activity. Clearly, mental activity is an inseparable phenomenon dependent on the body. When the body dies, the mind also ceases to exist, just like a flame extinguishing when the firewood burns out. It is therefore reasonable to believe that no individual spirits or personal souls continue to exist after death.

=== 13. Immortality of the Soul and Psychic Science ===

In recent times, there are people who advocate for “psychic science” and attempt to scientifically prove that spirits continue to exist and live after the death of the physical body. As long as the dualistic concept of spirit and body, as mentioned above, remains, this cannot be considered impossible. Even from a common-sense perspective, if one’s personality continues to exist after death, why is it impossible to communicate with grieving family members and friends who are dearly missed? There have been experiments conducted by mediums to establish communication with spirits, but even these experiments—which involve communication via a medium conducted when the medium is in an altered state of consciousness or a kind of hypnotic state—cannot be considered sufficiently common or scientific. Ultimately, at present, the belief in the immortality of the soul, like beliefs in the afterlife, can only be affirmed through subjective faith rather than objective evidence.

However, even if belief in the immortality of the soul is a natural inclination of human beings, it has become intertwined with various aspects of life, such as the need for reassurance and ethical considerations. While Kant in his ''Critique of Pure Reason'' denied the existence of God, in his ''Critique of Practical Reason'' he acknowledged God again as a requirement for humanity. Therefore, it is necessary to critically examine the correlated issues and questions related to these beliefs and demands of humanity.

=== 14. It Is Unnecessary to Insist on the Immortality of the Soul ===

Life is filled with contradictions. The more we awaken and strive to use our reason, the more contradictions with reality we feel. The issue of life and death is a representative example, as death is generally considered to be absolute and fearsome. If the fear of death and the desire for immortality is universal, then even if the belief in the immortality of the soul is denied by logic it may persist as an element of faith based on our desires. However, death can be both a subject of fear and a path to salvation. For instance, we hear that some people in their old age long for death. We also sometimes witness elderly individuals desiring death, and there are cases where lovers, saddened by unfulfilled hopes, choose the path of death. People may willingly sacrifice themselves for the sake of family, social class, or even their nation. In such cases, they do not necessarily desire an afterlife. Considering these facts, the longing for eternal life is not absolute. Moreover, death is not always a source of fear. Even in Buddhism, there are stories about this. In the ancient country of Bhīmā, a fox once proclaimed, “Some humans enjoy life and detest death, while others enjoy death and detest life,” and this declaration earned the fox recognition as a teacher by the god Indra.<ref>It is likely that Seno’o is here referencing one of the Jataka tales.</ref> Reflecting on a life without “death” in a tranquil manner, one can understand why “death” itself may be seen as the ultimate salvation in Buddhism, where nirvana is interpreted as synonymous with death.

In what situations can death be considered relatively calmly, and in what situations is it mourned most deeply? And why does the desire for eternal life arise so strongly? This issue can be observed in the fact that the death of an elderly person, seen as a natural end to a full life, is accompanied by fewer tears compared to the death of a young person. Even among young individuals, a peaceful death that follows medical treatment is more readily accepted, while a sudden and tragic death continues to be mourned. This suggests that the question revolves around whether the death is natural or unnatural. Attaining a natural death has a significant impact on alleviating the fear and grief associated with death. With the spread of correct concepts of hygiene and an improvement in basic living conditions such as clothing, food, and housing, we will see fewer unnatural deaths and a greater societal experience of natural old age, which would in turn increase awareness and understanding of the inevitability of the cycle of life and death. As ripe fruit naturally falls to the ground, death will be seen as a natural part of life, and the veil of fear and sorrow surrounding it will gradually be lifted. According to Dr. Futaki 二木,<ref>Futaki Kenzō 二木謙三 (1873–1966) was a well-known bacteriologist, physician, and author.</ref> the agony of an unnatural death caused by illness results from the sacrifice of healthy organs to compensate for the dysfunction of a single organ. On the other hand, a natural death is likened to the collapse of an old tree, where there is no pain for the individual. However, if one continues to live a life of unnatural hardship day and night, without experiencing the true pleasures of a human existence and ultimately perishes without enjoying a fulfilling life, it is only natural that dissatisfaction and regrets about life intensify, thereby heightening the fear of death and giving rise to a strong desire for eternal life.

Indeed, “freedom is the conscious recognition of necessity.”<ref>Seno’o here quotes Engels, commenting on Hegel. In his ''Logic'', Hegel writes: “The truth of necessity, therefore, is Freedom” (''The Logic of Hegel'', William Wallace, trans., Oxford University Press, 1874, p. 158). In ''Anti-Dühring'', Engels writes: “Hegel was the first to state correctly the relation between freedom and necessity. To him, freedom is the insight into necessity. . . .‘Necessity is blind only in so far as it is not understood.’ Freedom does not consist in any dreamt-of independence from natural laws, but in the knowledge of these laws, and in the possibility this gives of systematically making them work toward definite ends” ([https://tinyurl.com/3ejt8ena “Abstract from Chapter II: Morality and Law. Freedom and Necessity,” Marxist Internet Archive], accessed October 16, 2024).</ref> True peace of mind should be established upon such necessary truths. It is good for traditional religious leaders to point to death and prompt reflection on the impermanence of life, as well as preach a sense of comfort to be found in accepting death. However, for people in modern society, it is no longer necessary to insist on the immortality of the soul and the afterlife. The better path of guidance and salvation for modern people may lie in a clear recognition of the inevitability of death, while simultaneously making efforts to improve living conditions and working toward the transformation of the capitalist economic system. This would be to ensure greater life satisfaction for the masses and their attainment of natural death. Should we not also recognize that it is in such efforts that human self-awareness truly exists? In doing so, could we not replace “the paradise of heaven beyond our graves with the paradise of the earthly realm beyond our graves—namely the historical future and the future of humanity?”<ref>This passage comes from Feuerbach’s ''Das Wesen der Religion'' (''The Essence of Religion'', 1846). A Japanese translation of this work was published in 1931 by Oku Kazuo 奥一雄 as the second volume of Feuerbach’s ''Collected Works'' (フォイエルバッハ著作集). With the exception of the term ''tengoku'' 天国 used by Seno’o—Oku has ''tenjō'' 天上 instead—the quotation seems to be verbatim from that on p. 461 of this translation. Again, thanks to the anonymous reviewer for help locating this source.</ref>

=== 15. Belief in the Soul’s Immortality Does Not Promote Effort ===

Then there are those who insist on the immortality of the soul from an ethical point of view. They accept present misfortunes and blessings as the karmic consequences of past lives, and they seek to encourage effort in this life by anticipating the rewards and punishments of future lives through the belief in the immortality of the soul and the law of cause and effect across three existences [i.e., past, present, and future]. However, while such views may have been accepted during the uncritical feudal and individualistic capitalist societies of the past, in today’s world where it is evident that numerous problems are influenced by social relations and where modern individuals have lost interest and faith in the immortality of the soul due to scientific advancements, such demands have become irrelevant. In other words, modern individuals consider life in terms of shared responsibility and seek practical solutions through societal means. They no longer find satisfaction in the concept of rewards and punishments based on the law of cause and effect across three existences. Established religious leaders worry that if they stop preaching about future rewards, people will become selfish. But look at how many skilled orators and egotists exist among those religious leaders and their followers. On the other hand, it is ironic to see how many devoted and loving activists exist in socialist movements, which these activists consider to be godless and materialistic. What a paradoxical contrast it is! Modern self-centeredness does not stem from a lack of consideration for the immortality of the soul, but is primarily a mass product of the capitalist economic system itself.

Thus, even the doctrines of the afterlife and materialism, when thoroughly reexamined, not only present no obstacles but can contribute significantly to the movement for the realization of a new society that liberates the masses.

=== 16. Original Buddhism Accepted Neither the Afterlife Nor an Immortal Soul ===

So, what kind of view did our Buddhism originally offer on this issue? Did established Buddhist organizations originally preach concepts such as an afterlife or the immortality of the soul? Once again, the answer is “No.”

Śākyamuni Buddha’s teachings often addressed the specific circumstances of the individuals he was speaking to. There were occasions when he discussed the issue of the afterlife to provide comfort in the face of present suffering. However, the fundamental purpose of his teachings was liberation from suffering in actual life, and he did not specifically advocate belief in an afterlife or in the immortality of the soul. This can be seen in his response to the questioning of his disciple Mālukyaputta regarding the existence of the afterlife and the destruction or nondestruction of the “soul.”

<blockquote>
The world is finite, and yet it is infinite. Whether one believes in existence after death or denies it, neither view enables a purer practice. Birth, aging, sickness, sorrow, lamentation, pain, and distress equally confront us. Therefore, I preach the Dharma to eliminate them in the present moment. (''A New Translation of Buddhist Scriptures'', p. 403)<ref>Seno’o quotes once again from the ''Shin’yaku bukkyō seiten''. This extract is a loose and/or heavily redacted translation of a passage from the Mālukyaputta Sutta, ''Samyutta Nikāya'' (hereafter SN) 35.95. An English transation of this passage may be found at: [https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.095.than.html “Malunkyaputta Sutta: To Malunkyaputta,” Access to Insight].</ref>
</blockquote>

Thus, liberation<ref>Here, as is common in his writings, Seno’o uses the term ''gedatsu'' 解脱 rather than the more specific ''nehan'' 涅槃 (nirvana). While ''gedatsu'' also has a strong Buddhist precedent, this allows for an expansion into secular and even sociopolitical forms of “liberation.” When speaking even more directly of political forms of liberation, he uses ''kaihō'' 解放, which I have translated as “emancipation.”</ref> is attained by viewing life in a certain way. The Buddha explained this to a Brahmin called Seniya as follows:

<blockquote>
O Seniya! There are three types of teachers in the world. First, there are those who recognize the self in the present life but deny it in the afterlife. These people negate the afterlife, and their view is called annihilationism. Second, there are those who recognize the self both in the present life and in the afterlife. They preach the eternal existence of both the present and future lives, and their view is called eternalism. Last, there are those who neither recognize the self in the present life nor in the afterlife. This middle way is the teaching of the Tathāgata (Buddha). The Tathāgata teaches the concept of no-self and diligently seeks to extinguish the delusions of the present life, aiming for nirvana. (''Saṃyukta Āgama'')<ref>From the ''Saṃyukta Āgama'' (Jp. ''Zōagongyō'' 雑阿含經 [Connected Discourses], T no. 99, 2), a collection of over one thousand three hundred early (thought to be mostly Sarvāstivādin) Buddhist texts that have been preserved in Chinese translation.</ref>
</blockquote>

According to the early Buddhist scriptures, Buddhism does not recognize the existence of a self even in this present life. Therefore, clearly the Buddha did not consider the postmortem survival of a personal individual soul, and consequently, the concept of an afterlife, or ''higan'', is also absent. This is commonly known as “selflessness”<ref>Here, as elsewhere, Seno’o employs the neologism ''mugashugi'' (“no-self-ism”) to render ''anātman''.</ref> or “emptiness”—and it refers to the concept that all existence is a process formed by various conditions coming together in harmony. It is further reflected in the teaching of impermanence and the no-self nature of all phenomena, as expressed in the famous phrase “all conditioned things are impermanent; all phenomena are without self.”<ref>''Shogyō mujō shohō muga'' 諸行無常諸法無我. While I was unable to locate a citation of this eight-character phrase, the first half may be found in the ''Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra'' (Ch. ''Yuqie shidi lun'' 瑜伽師地論) at T no. 1579, 30: 378c20 and the second half at T no. 1579, 30: 690c25.</ref>

This can be considered a dialectical perspective. Although Buddhism later developed various teachings related to the afterlife and the immortality of the soul as peripheral doctrines, the fundamental understanding of Buddhism remained rooted in the concepts of no-self and interdependent co-arising.

For example, in the ''Sutra of Complete Enlightenment'' we find the following explanation:

<blockquote>
This body, ultimately, has no essence; it is like a transformation arising from the coming together of elements, similar to an illusion. The four elements temporarily combine, leading to the delusion of the six senses. The six senses, in conjunction with the four elements, create the illusion of interdependent co-arising. Within this [process], there appears an accumulation of relational aspects. If we were to name it, we might call it “self.” Good men, if this deluded mind were without the six dusts [sense objects], it could not exist at all. When the four elements disintegrate, there is nothing to which the dust can adhere. If within this, the conditioned dusts return to their dispersion, ultimately, there would be nothing for the dependent mind to perceive.<ref>This passage is from the ''Yuanjue jing'' 圓覺經 (T no. 842, 17: 914b26–914c5). For a contemporary translation see ''Complete Enlightenment'', translated by Chan Master Sheng-yen (Boulder: Shambhala, 1999).</ref>
</blockquote>

In summary, according to this passage, the human body does not have a fixed essence or a concept of a separate entity like a soul. It is the aggregation of various conditions(four aggregates) that allows for the functioning of sensations, and from there, the arising of what can be called the mind. However, the mind is meaningless without stimulation from the external world (six sense objects), and if the physical body (four elements) were to disperse, there would be nothing remaining, and the mind would cease to exist. This perspective contradicts idealistic views and leans more toward materialistic interpretations. Buddhism, in its original teachings, does not preach the continuation of a soul after the death and physical dissolution of the body.

Why then did the notions of no-self and no-soul, as taught by fundamental Buddhism, transform into beliefs like the immortality of the soul and the concept of the afterlife as seen today? This can be attributed to several factors:

# The tolerant and adaptable approach to preaching taken by Śākyamuni Buddha in his efforts to educate the masses.
# The method of consolidating the teachings after the passing of Śākyamuni Buddha.
# Influences from the general social context.

Śākyamuni Buddha’s primary goal was to teach about liberation in actual life and the practices to achieve this, as seen in his response to the disciple Mālukyaputta. Therefore, he approached metaphysical questions quite flexibly and freely. For example, when dealing with seekers who couldn’t completely abandon the Brahmanical concept of the existence of Brahma, Śākyamuni Buddha didn’t outright deny it but rather used it as a skillful means to encourage ethical living. He taught that Brahma is a god without greed or hatred, whose followers should also strive to live without greed or hatred. Similarly, when encountering individuals who advocated for the transmigration of the soul, he taught the law of karmic cause and effect, admonishing them to engage in virtuous conduct and avoid harmful actions.

After the passing of Śākyamuni Buddha, these skillful and tolerant teachings were recorded by the conservative disciples known as the Theravāda school, who were steadfast in preserving the original teachings. Initially, these teachings were likely recognized as skillful means rather than absolute truths. However, as time passed and successive generations of disciples emerged, the historical context of the teachings was gradually forgotten, and they became fixed in their recorded form. Furthermore, after Śākyamuni Buddha’s passing, there was a growing reactionary movement among the Brahmins who sought to reestablish the belief in divine beings. In response to this movement and the need for mass education that desired eternal life based on unscientific notions, the fundamental teachings of Buddhism were gradually interpreted in a socially dialectical manner. This led to the development of a concept that transformed Śākyamuni Buddha into a deity and the emergence of the notion of “nirvana” as a postmortem pure land, or what is commonly referred to as the afterlife.

The emancipation of thought is not necessarily achieved through the liberation of everyday life through social change. The fundamental truth of Buddhism, which emphasizes the absence of gods and souls, has been distorted in various ways. Such distortions were inevitable within the given social circumstances. In a society without freedom, ideas are always manipulated to serve the interests of the ruling class. In Japan, for example, the concepts of the afterlife and the law of karma were embraced as convenient ideologies by the ruling class, deviating significantly from the original teachings of Buddhism. The idea of the immortality of the soul has developed in a way that is entirely unlike the original teachings of Buddhism. However, now the age of capitalist society marked by class conflict is coming to an end, and the emergence of a higher, scientifically based society characterized by personal equality is approaching!

Thus, the non-theistic and non-soul ideas of original Buddhism are set to be revived alongside the emerging social class, and the day will come when the old Buddhist teachings will be reexamined and cleared away.