Editing SG33SHS-T (section)

=== 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.