SG33SHS-T

From The Radical Buddhism Project
Revision as of 15:23, 13 August 2026 by James (talk | contribs)

  Under Construction  

This page is currently being compiled or translated by the editorial team. The text is incomplete, subject to active revisions, and should not yet be utilized as a stable citation source.

Today, we can see the decline of late-stage capitalism in politics and economics, and in urban and rural areas, while the lives of the masses have reached a peak of anxiety.

During this transitional period, what should we, as Buddhist practitioners who strive to live according to the noble and supreme ideal of saving humanity, do?

The sole task imposed upon us is the reorganization of Buddhism based on contemporary consciousness. This entails the establishment of an ideology and the firm belief that such an ideology should be accompanied by bold and concrete practices.

In this brief work, Chairman Seno’o 妹尾 boldly criticizes and rectifies traditional Buddhist studies, and calls for a leap toward a new era of Buddhist truth. We firmly believe that this essay will forcefully address the contradictions faced by young Buddhist practitioners in this transformative period and provide them with confidence and resolution.

We would like to express our gratitude to comrade Seno’o, Chairman of the Committee, for his great efforts in presenting this essay to the world as a part of a series of pamphlets from our League. At the same time, we eagerly await rigorous examination and sincere criticism of its contents by our comrades.

Central Executive Committee of the Youth League for Revitalizing Buddhism

January 1933

Our Principles

1. We deeply revere Śākyamuni Buddha as the supreme embodiment of human character and strive to realize the construction of a buddha land based on the teachings of brotherly love and compassion.

2. We acknowledge that all existing religious organizations have become remnants that have desecrated the spirit of Buddhism, and we reject them while seeking to promote Buddhism for a new era.

3. We recognize that the current capitalist economic system is contrary to the spirit of Buddhism and hinders the well-being of the masses. We aim to reform it and bring forth a new society suited to the future.

Foreword

I was born into a Shin 真 [True Pure Land] sect family and was raised in an atmosphere of fervent nenbutsu 念仏 prayer. In the autumn of my twenty-first year, I fell gravely ill and was forced to drop out of school, teetering on the brink of death until the age of thirty. At that time, through some fateful circumstances, I seized upon the doctrine of Nichirenism and experienced a revival of health. Nichirenism was indeed for me the ultimate truth! With that conviction, for the past two two decades, I have completely devoted myself to the study and propagation of Nichirenism, often forsaking sleep and meals.

However, as a result of my efforts to sincerely embody the Buddhist spirit in which I now believed, albeit weakly, I found myself unable to restrain a fatal doubt against all established Buddhism, and I could not help but engage in thorough opposition [against institutional Buddhism].

For contemporary society, the conflicting denominations of sectarian Buddhism are no longer beneficial but rather harmful. Ideological evangelism of that sort is detestable opium for the contemporary mass movement.

In the spring of 1931, I embarked on a comprehensive assessment of Nichirenism, staking my entire life on it. Simultaneously, I began advocating for the dissolution and unification of all sectarian Buddhist denominations under the single name of the Buddha of Revitalized Buddhism while promoting a movement for the socioeconomic transformation of capitalism through collective efforts. It is important to note that there are those within the bourgeois class who merely toy with Buddhism, as well as monks and Buddhist scholars who make a living by peddling its teachings. However, if you genuinely grasp and practice the true spirit of Buddhism—the spirit of selflessness—in a timely manner, I firmly believe that you will come to share the same doubts and righteous indignation that I do.

Kōbō 弘法, Hōnen 法然, Shinran 親鸞, Dōgen 道元, Nichiren 日蓮,[1] and the like are all exceptional pioneers who embarked on the path to buddhahood. Therefore, it is essential to show reverence and respect to them. However, to ignore the objective circumstances of our advanced modern society and to accept their teachings and rituals without question is, in fact, to tragically hinder the very practice of those predecessors who fervently dedicated themselves to the Buddha. In doing so, we are alienating [these figures and their practices] from the modern masses.

Awaken, comrades! Do not hesitate to bravely carry the torch passed on by our dead pioneers! Comrades should not cling to even the slightest bit of doubt about trusting the sect founders; our only attitude should be to “seek awakening above; benefit sentient beings below!”[2] The times are changing! Only the brave who move forward, stepping over the corpses, are true comrades following the founders; and the founders themselves are living bodhisattvas who participate in the grand mission of building the buddha land, our ultimate ideal.

This essay, born out of such convictions, is a compilation of the reevaluation of traditional Buddhism that we attempted last year in our magazine, Revitalized Buddhism. It is aimed at reaching the masses of today and serves as a prelude to the reform of Buddhism and a physical assault on the fortress of established doctrines.

My only hope is that through the outstanding practice and understanding of comrades who fight alongside me, any immaturity and errors [found in this essay] will be rectified. It is my ultimate aspiration to truly contribute to the liberation of the masses.

January 31, 1933

In a corner of Zōshigaya 雑司ヶ谷 [Tokyo, Japan]

The author [Seno’o Girō]

Chapter 1: Introduction

1. Social Evolution

There are two attitudes observed in social life: a conservative attitude and a progressive attitude. The former seeks to hold onto subjective and faith-based beliefs while maintaining the status quo as much as possible, while the latter is characterized by an objective and critical approach that adapts to evolving social circumstances and reforms established practices accordingly. These two attitudes are inherently complementary and interdependent, as reflected in the old saying, “Review the old in order to understand the new.”[3] In Buddhism, it is said that “faith without understanding increases ignorance, while understanding without faith fosters wrong views. Understanding and faith, harmoniously united, become the foundation for practice.”[4] Wise understanding and unwavering conviction mutually complement each other, giving rise to a power- ful, practical life.[5] Just as the left foot cannot move forward without the firm support of the right foot on solid ground, both attitudes are essential for societal progress. However, when it comes to the essential attitude for social life, it must be progressive. This is because, just as the right foot must follow suit and take a step forward, society itself inherently progresses and develops continuously. Therefore, it is imperative that our approach align with this progress and be oriented toward advancement.

For example, regarding Hegel’s philosophy that “everything that exists is rational, and everything that is rational exists,”[6] Wilhelm II attempted to rationalize his own position as kaiser through the first clause [of that sentence]. On the contrary, Marx emphasized the second clause to assert the rationality of his revolutionary social movement. While the former statement may seem correct at first glance, it merely reflects a conservative attitude that disregards the inherent developmental nature of society. In a developing society, even previously rational entities eventually encompass growing contradictions and inevitably progress toward a more rational existence. Those who recognize this understand that the latter statement is more accurate. Transitions and transformations involve both subjective and objective conditions, and there may be instances where the timing is premature. In any case, the undeniable fact is that society is constantly evolving and changing. Therefore, an essential attitude for social life is a progressive stance that embraces and dialectically resolves all aspects of development. A conservative attitude, which fears or curses change, is either a result of ignorance or a self-serving attitude to defend one’s own interests, and it is not something young and idealistic members of society should embrace. An often-cited example is that the clothing of a growing child must gradually change in style and size; otherwise, it becomes useless and even harmful. Similarly, when we look at a chicken egg, the shell is an absolute necessity until a certain point. However, once the chick is nurtured and ready to emerge, the shell becomes an unnecessary obstruction and a potentially fatal barrier to new life.

Looking at our [Japanese] history, it is clearly one of constant change. The despotic rule of clans such as the Soga 蘇我 [7] gave way—via the Taika reforms—to aristocratic governance,[8] which was then replaced by warrior rule and eventually developed into bourgeois politics through the great revolution of the Meiji Restoration [1868]. We are now witnessing vigorous movements toward the emergence of a new society. When we observe world history, we see a similar process of transformation from autocratic rule to constitutional monarchy, republics, democracies, communism, and so on. While there may be some variations and peculiarities, just as there are differences in sensitivity and intelligence between children, every nation-state, without exception, follows the general trend of human history. It undergoes a gradual or rapid process of change, much like the transition from youth to adulthood and old age. Thus, there is no form of existence on earth that remains unchanging.

2. The Possibility of Buddhist Reform

Buddhism is no different; it is nothing but the principle of development and change. Indeed, the Buddhist teachings expounded by Śākyamuni Buddha have undergone a two-thousand-five-hundred-year history of division into thirteen schools and fifty-six sects. This history is a result of the objective conditions and circumstances of a changing society and not necessarily a product of subjective beliefs held by each of the sect founders. For example, Shinran’s acceptance of married priests and consumption of meat might have been considered a heretical reform within the Buddhist community at the time. However, today, there are no objections raised by [Japanese] Buddhist practitioners as it is ultimately seen to be a response to objective requirements and the recognition that “what is rational exists.” In the Sutra of Infinite Meanings, it is stated, “Infinite meaning arises from one dharma.”[9] The “one dharma” refers to the true nature of reality, the very essence of the constantly evolving world. The fact that Buddhism has produced a vast array of teachings and scriptures, comprising eighty-four thousand doctrines and seven thousand volumes, is a testament to its nature as a product of changing social contexts. Therefore, as long as society continues to develop in the present and future, Buddhism can undergo limitless development and change without hindrance. It is through such adaptability that Buddhism can continue to maintain its social significance and value.

Currently, there is a widespread emergence of “new” voices in various sectors of society and culture, such as new sciences, new arts, new educational practices, and so on. What exactly do these “new” voices imply? It goes without saying that they signify the demand for the evaluation and transformation of the old cultural forms of the Meiji and Taishō [1912–1926] eras. Under such emerging social conditions, if Buddhism sticks to the old forms as they are, its fate will surely be nothing other than decay. The indifference of the masses toward established temple Buddhism already speaks volumes. If we are to have Buddhism for society, rather than society for Buddhism, then it is quite clear that the temple Buddhism of the Kamakura period of six or seven hundred years ago cannot simply be adapted to the present day. The old Buddhism must be thoroughly reevaluated and reformed both in terms of its teachings and its ritual forms. This is precisely why we are advocating a modern, revitalized Buddhism. If Buddhism is completely irrelevant to contemporary society, it should be unequivocally discarded. However, if it still possesses elements that can be useful when reexamined, then its teachings should be clarified in and for a modern context. The question of whether Buddhism has the potential to meet the essential demands of modern society requires careful consideration. But what exactly are the demands of contemporary society? This is a problem that needs to be scrutinized.

3. The Demands of Modern Society

1. Modern science denies the existence of supernatural gods and buddhas and advocates atheism.

2. Modern science rejects the belief in an afterlife and advocates materialism by denying the existence of spirits or souls.

3. Modern people are not satisfied with illusory happiness; they want to fully enjoy real happiness in their everyday lives.

4. The masses in modern society desire economic stability and thus demand the transformation of capitalism.

5. Awakened humanity transcends nationalism and promotes internationalism.

6. Progressive Buddhists aim to reconcile sectarian Buddhism and ardently desire its unification.

Let us briefly examine the validity of each of these six items, critically evaluate established Buddhism, and in line with the Buddhist truth, outline the possibilities for a revitalized Buddhism.

Chapter 2: Modern Science Denies the Existence of Supernatural Gods and Buddhas and Advocates Atheism

4. Characteristics of Religion as Explained by Social Science

Traditionally, the distinctive feature of religious forms can be summarized by the phrase Engels employs in his Essay on Feuerbach: “If religion can exist without its God, then alchemy can exist without its philosopher’s stone.”[10] Religion referred to the belief in a transcendent, absolute deity whom people worshiped and prayed to in order to seek grace and salvation. While the Christian God serves as a typical example, even the diverse Buddhist traditions, although they do not emphasize the creation of the world, still possess a similar concept of a transcendent, superhuman absolute. Amida Buddha in Shin Buddhism, the Eternal Buddha[11] in Nichiren Buddhism, and Dainichi Nyorai[12] in Shingon Buddhism, among others, all fall into this category. In Zen Buddhism, the original teachings do not inherently involve such an absolute being, but in practice, various deities like Yakushi Nyorai 薬師如来[13] and Kannon 観音 Bodhisattva are worshiped indiscriminately. However, one may question whether these transcendent deities truly exist, and furthermore, whether Buddhism originally took such form? The answer [to both of these questions] is, of course, “No”!

Marxism is an ideology that vividly denies the existence of such [transcendent] beings. According to Marxism, all religions are nothing more than “fantastic reflections in the minds of humans of external forces dominating their daily lives” (Engels).[14] In other words, as Marx put it, “Man created religion, religion did not create man.”[15]

[Marxism] thus takes as its object the modes of early human existence that gave rise to religion and explains these from two perspectives.

5. Ignorance Gives Birth to the Gods

The first point is this: Lenin said, “Fear created the gods,”[16] while according to [Johannes de] Gorter, inexplicable forces gave birth to them.[17] In either case, the fear that ignorant and superstitious ancient humans felt toward “inexplicable” natural phenomena led them to believe that these phenomena were the work of “gods.” From the desire to somehow escape from unavoidable disasters, they would prostrate themselves, pray, or even offer sacrifices. Take lightning, for example. It was an incomprehensible phenomenon involving flashes and booms, and if it struck, humans and livestock would be instantly killed, and houses and buildings would be torn apart and burned. For primitive people who did not know how to avoid it, they considered this to be evidence of the absolute power of “gods.” This is similar to the way an infant perceives everything anthropomorphically. In the past, people used to perceive various mysterious natural phenomena in their daily lives, such as raging waves, and would worship the dragon god for safe navigation. [Likewise, they would] pray to the wind god for protection from wind disasters and perform rain rituals for droughts. They would view these phenomena as supernatural acts of gods and be filled with fear, earnestly seeking the appeasement of these “gods.” However, with today’s advanced human intellect, phenomena like lightning can be understood as the electrical interaction of opposing currents, and they are no longer seen as inexplicable. The fear associated with such phenomena has been completely resolved with just one or two lightning rods. Modern science has provided clear explanations for marine navigation and earthquakes whereas [in the past these phenomena] led to humans attempting to utilize various gods [to accomplish this aim].

6. Economic Life Also Produces Gods

The second explanation is that gods are products of economic life. For example, let us examine the emergence of ujigami 氏神 (clan deities).Ujigamirefer to the highest authority figures within a clan or lineage. In the past, members of a community relied on these authority figures for guidance in hunting, farming, and other livelihood activities. Moreover, in the face of external threats, such as attacks from other clans, they would unite around these leaders for defense and security. Naturally, these authority figures came to be revered as the heads of the clans. In the case of the Japanese emperor, for instance, it is argued that the emperor, by consolidating various clans and becoming the ultimate authority figure, embodies the concept of the highestujigami. As a result, the emperor is viewed as a sacred being, symbolizing the well-being of all clans. This theory offers a plausible explanation for the reverence bestowed upon the emperor.

The origin of such ujigami can also be understood by considering Engels’s statement when discussing the origins of ethnic religions that “God assumed a form of earthly power over celestial power.”[18] It reads as follows: “The elders of the tribe organize, manage, command, and plan labor as guardians of accumulated experience in production, representing the principle of active creativity. On the other hand, the rest of the members listen obediently, accept commands, conform to the plans set from above, and act according to the will of others. These relations of production, especially when applied to the whole universe, become a model for examining human beings themselves.”[19]

When we look at this in comparison with Japanese mythology, it becomes an intriguing topic. Here it is suggested that the essence of the “gods” who dominate humans essentially lies in their economic control over the earthly realm, as human beings created the illusion of gods due to their constrained economic lives. A prime example of this is the main deity of Izumo Taisha 出雲大社 (Izumo Grand Shrine), Ōkuninushi no Ōkami 大国主大神, who is considered the god of economic matters.[20] The concept of kannazuki 神無月[21] (the month without gods) in the lunar calendar, which refers to the absence of gods in various provinces because they gather at Izumo Grand Shrine, is another illustrative example. It signifies a time when the autumn harvest has been mostly completed, and the chiefs of each community, representing the highest authority, gather in Izumo, which was the central administrative region at that time, to hold regional conferences. During these conferences, they discuss progress reports, taxation, and plans for the following year. Therefore, it signifies a period when local leaders, representing the uji (clans), convene in Izumo to engage in discussions regarding governance and economic matters. Consequently, as society develops democratically, production systems become fully democratized and economic domination diminishes, leading to a society where individuals coexist and prosper equally; the need for such prayers to the “gods” thus naturally diminishes, and the tangible belief in them gradually disappears. In short, it is reasonable to understand that once a society reaches a stage where social life is based on equal coexistence and mutual prosperity, and production is democratically organized, the reliance on such “gods” for prayers becomes unnecessary. This is analogous to the fact that healthy individuals have no need to pray to gods or buddhas for healing, whereas sick people do.

In essence, whether it be the initial natural phenomena or the subsequent economic relationships, the true nature of the gods that were traditionally believed to exist has been fully dissected, and their illusionary nature has been thoroughly examined and accounted for through the advancement of science and the increase of productive forces. Upon full consideration, this perspective seems to be correct.

7. The Salvific Power of Dubious Gods

Furthermore, as a method to deny the existence of omnipotent gods or buddhas from another perspective, a passage from Archbishop Brown’s book Communism and Christianism can be cited as a brilliant and insightful critique. It reads as follows:

If God desires something and cannot do it, then He is impotent, and this contradicts the nature of God. If He can do it but chooses not to, then He is evil. Both cases contradict the nature of God. If He neither desires it nor can do it, then He is both evil and impotent. If He both wishes to get rid of evil and can do so, which is the only conceivable way to imagine God, then how is it possible that there is evil on earth?[22]

This objection is valid. Indeed, if there were an omnipotent God or compassionate saviors like Amida Buddha, the Eternal Buddha, or Dainichi Nyorai, then why does society continue to suffer in such a hellish state? Even parents in ordinary households, without waiting for their children’s pleas, provide bread and clothing according to the seasons. Yet, when it comes to seeking salvation, one must plead and even then receive only a meager offering of rice and salt. If we observe the pastors and priests themselves who preach such teachings, we see how many of them expose their disgraceful behavior and hypocrisy regarding economic issues. In human life, while bread alone may not be sufficient, the resolution of the foundational issue of bread becomes even more crucial. This should be understood. However, despite this, those who forcefully propagate illusory happiness and deliberately disregard economic problems not only further prove the impotence and nonexistence of God but also commit a despicable crime by deceiving and robbing the people of true happiness. In this regard, Lenin’s criticism is appropriate.

Religion teaches submission and endurance on earth to those who toil and suffer throughout their lives, comforting them with the hope of heavenly rewards. However, for those who live off the labor of others, religion teaches them to practice charity on earth, thus offering a cheap way to justify their exploitative practices while selling them tickets to heavenly happiness at a considerable price. Religion is the opium of the people.[23]

In response to this famous charge, leading temples and religious institutions such as Higashi 東 [East] and Nishi 西 [West] Honganji 本願寺, Mount Minobu 身延, and Mount Kōya 高野 have no choice but to solemnly submit without room for rebuttal. Opium is a narcotic, and those who sell such a deceptive narcotic while disguising themselves as wise and virtuous must be considered enemies of the people. Furthermore, if we consider the prevalence [within these sects] of superstitious practices such as fortunetelling and the interpretation of good and bad luck, they reflect a complacent attitude that seeks happiness by relying on external controlling powers, disregarding social transformation and personal effort. Such superstitions may generate social sins that distort the normal evolution of culture, including the development of fields like medicine. The aversion to certain marital unions expressed in the Chinese astrological sign hinoe-uma 丙午[24] and the reliance on the “twenty-eight mansions”[25] to determine auspicious and inauspicious dates are representative examples of foolish superstitions. The emergence of these superstitions is also related to the delusion associated with the belief in supernatural gods and buddhas. Therefore, the clarification and promotion of atheism must be an important foundational move to sweep away these superstitions wholesale.

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.”[26]

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. Thevaiśyas, born from the abdomen, belonged to the third caste engaged in economic activities, and theśūdras, 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”[27] and the “twelve links of interdependent co-arising,”[28] 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.”[29] 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.

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.[30]

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”[31] 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.”[32] 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.

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)[33]

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.

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,[34] 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).[35] 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.[36] 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).[37]

And according to Master Shinran:

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.[38]

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.”[39] 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:

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.[40]

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.[41] 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,[42] 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.”[43] 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?”[44]

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.”

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)[45]

Thus, liberation[46] is attained by viewing life in a certain way. The Buddha explained this to a Brahmin called Seniya as follows:

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)[47]

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”[48] 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.”[49]

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:

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.[50]

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

  1. Kōbō Daishi 弘法大師 (a.k.a. Kūkai 空海, 774–836), Hōnen (1133–1212), Shinran (1173– 1262), and Dōgen (1200–1253). Nichiren (1222–1282) was the last of the major Kamakura 鎌倉 period (1185–1333) Buddhist founders and established the eponymous Nichiren (a.k.a. Hokke 法華, or Lotus) sect, dedicated to the 1st–2nd c. Mahayana Buddhist text known as theLotus Sutra (Skt.Saddharma Pu'̱ͫ'arīka Sūtra). Though Seno’o was raised in a Shin Buddhist household, an encounter at a young age with a local tofu maker led him to become a devotee of Nichiren’s teachings—an attachment he would eventually modify but never completely sever.
  2. Jōgu bodai ge ke shujō 上求菩提下化衆生. According to the Digital Dictionary of Buddhism (https://tinyurl.com/3kcp223m): “‘Seeking what is above’ is one’s own quest for enlightenment, and ‘saving those that are below’ refers to the bodhisattva’s altruistic activity in seeking to save others”; see, for example, Mohe zhiguan 摩訶止觀 (Great Concentration and Insight) by Zhiyi 智顗 (538–597); T no. 1911, 36: 4a10; 6a18–6b08.
  3. Confucius, Analects 2.11: wengu zhixin 温故知新 ( Jp.onko chishin).
  4. As is often the case throughout the essay, Seno’o here neglects to cite his source. The closest equivalent I have found comes from Song 宋 dynasty (960–1279) monk Yongming Yanshou 永明延壽 (904–975), who said: “Faith without understanding enhances ignorance, and understanding without faith enhances distorted views” (Robert Traer, “Faith in the Buddhist Tradition,”Buddhist-Christian'Studies 11 [1991], p. 91). This sentiment was later picked up and further elaborated by Jinul 知訥 (1158–1210), Korea’s great twelfth-century Son/Zen monk; see Traer (1991) above, p. 91.
  5. Compare with the well-known motto of Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci (1891–1937): “Pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will” (L’Ordine Nuovo, March 4, 1921). Though they are exact contemporaries, I have seen no evidence that Seno’o ever read Gramsci—whose works, at any rate, were only first translated into Japanese in 1961, the year of Seno’o’s death—so this could be considered an example of what we might call “convergent ideological evolution.”
  6. “Was vernuenftig ist, das ist wirklich; und was wirklich ist, das ist vernuenftig” (G. W. F. Hegel, Grundlinien der Philosophie des Rechts, 1820–1821). This is commonly translated into English as “What is rational is real; and what is real is rational.” See, for example, S. W. Dyde’s translation of Hegel’sPhilosophy of Right (London: G. Bell, 1896), p. 10.
  7. The Soga clan, one of the most powerful noble kin groups of the early Japanese state, was largely responsible for the spread of Buddhism in Japan in the sixth century.
  8. The Taika reforms were carried out according to a set of doctrines established by Emperor Kōtoku 孝徳 (596–654; r. 645–654)'in 645. The reforms strengthened the power of the imperial court after the defeat of the Soga clan and helped promote the adoption of Chinese ideas and practices.
  9. T no. 276, 9: 717b04. TheSutra of Infinite Meanings (Ch.Wuliangyi jing, Jp.Muryōgikyō 無量 義經), closely associated with theLotus Sutra, is generally considered an apocryphal Mahayana Chinese text composed before the 5th c.
  10. Originally published in Die Neue Zeit 4, 5 (1886). For this English translation, see “Friedrich Engels: Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of German Classical Philosophy,” Marxist Internet Archive, accessed August 28, 2024, https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1886/ludwig-feuerbach/ch03.htm. Whereas Engels used this phrase to criticize the attempt by Ludwig Feuerbach (1807–1872) to salvage a “religion” without God, Seno’o appears to be employing it to suggest that even religions without “official” gods, such as Buddhism, fall for the same “delusions” as theistic ones.
  11. Kuon jitsujō no honbutsu 久遠実成の本仏 (lit. the “True Buddha of Eternal Realization”) is a concept found in theLotus Sutrathat suggests that rather than attaining enlightenment at the age of thirty, Śākyamuni Buddha had already attained buddhahood in the distant past. See, for example, ch. 16: “The Life Span of the Tathāgata” (T no. 262, 9: 774c–776c).'However, out of compassion he chose to manifest in human form via many rebirths before finally being born as Śākyamuni Buddha and attaining enlightenment.
  12. Skt. Mahāvairocana, also known as the Great Sun, or Cosmic, Buddha.
  13. Skt. Bhaisajyaguru, also known as the Medicine Buddha.
  14. Anti-Dühring by Frederick Engels 1877; Part III: Socialism; V. State, Family, Education,” Marxist Internet Archive, accessed August 28, 2024, https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1877/anti-duhring/ch27.htm.
  15. Karl Marx, from the introduction to A Contribution to Hegel’s “Philosophy of Right” (1844); Marxist Internet Archive, accessed September 24, 2024, https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1843/critique-hpr/intro.htm.
  16. V. I. Lenin, “On the Attitude of the Worker’s Party Toward Religion,” 1909. Lenin is citing Paul Henri Thiery, Baron d’Holbach, who wrote: “When we seek the origin of things, we shall find that it is ignorance and fear that created the gods; that imagination, enthusiasm, and deception have adorned or disfigured them; that weakness adores them; that credulity nourishes them; that custom respects them; and that tyranny supports them in order to take advantage of men’s blindness.” (Translation by the author.) A PDF of the original French, Système de la nature ou des lois du monde physique et du monde moral (1770), may be found at https://tinyurl.com/7a9feahj; the quotation is found on p. 423. Of course, this line of thought in the West dates back much further to classical atomists such as Epicurus.
  17. Johannes de Gorter (1689–1762) was a Dutch physician and early modern atheist.
  18. Engels certainly paraphrases this Feuerbachian idea throughout the essay but see the following note, where I suggest that Seno’o is actually using Bukharin here.
  19. Though Seno’o appears to imply that this second quote is from Engels, it is in fact taken from Nikolai Bukharin’s Historical Materialism: A System of Sociology, originally published in Russian in 1925 and translated into Japanese in 1927 by Hiroshima Sadakichi 広島定吉 as Shiteki yuibutsuron no riron 史的唯物論の理論 (Komeiji Shoten), p. 296. For an English translation, see “Nikolai Bukharin, Historical Materialism, A System of Sociology,” Marxist Internet Archive, accessed September 18, 2024, https://www.marxists.org/archive/bukharin/works/1921/histmat/index.htm.
  20. Izumo Taisha, dedicated to the deity Ōkuninushi, is associated with creation, happiness, and good relationships, and is one of the most important, and possibly the oldest, major Shinto shrine in Japan.
  21. Kannazukifalls in October. In Izumo, where thekamiare said to gather, October is known askamiarizuki 神有月 or “the month with gods.”
  22. William Montgomery Brown (1855–1937), who came to be known as “Bad Bishop Brown,” was a provocative American Episcopal clergyman and author who, after reading the works of Darwin and Marx, “converted to science” in 1913, which led to his trial for heresy in 1924—the first such prosecution of an Episcopal minister since the Reformation. Seno’o is here citing from a 1930 Japanese translation (Kami to shihonka 神と資本家 [lit. God and the Capitalist; Daihōkaku Shobō]) of Brown’s 1920 workCommunism and Christianism, subtitled “Banish Gods from Skies and Capitalists from Earth and Make the World Safe for Industrial Communism” (Galion, OH: Bradford Brown). The translator was Kamichika Ichiko 神近市子, the feminist, socialist, journalist, writer, and critic who had studied at Tsuda 津田 University and contributed to the radical feminist magazineSeitō 青鞜 (Bluestocking), which ran from 1911 to 1916, after which it was suppressed by the Taishō administration for being “disruptive to society” and “injurious to public morals.” See Ian Beardsley, The Bluestockings of Japan: New Woman Essays and Fiction from Seitō, 1911–16 (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 2007), p. 12.
  23. V. I. Lenin, “Socialism and Religion,” Novaya Zhizn 28, December 3, 1905. An English translation, taken from Lenin Collected Works, vol. 10 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1965), pp. 83–85, can be found at Marxist Internet Archive, accessed September 18, 2024, https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1905/dec/03.htm.
  24. Hinoe-uma, orheigo, refers to the forty-third year of the sexagenary cycle of the Chinese zodiac— the year of the fire horse, renowned for disasters and the birth of women destined to kill their husbands.
  25. Nijū hasshuku 二十八宿. Ancient Chinese astronomers divided the visible stars in the sky into twenty-eight groups, called twenty-eight constellations or twenty-eight mansions, with seven constellations in each of the four cardinal directions.
  26. 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.
  27. Normally translated into English as “Four Noble Truths,”catvāri āryasatyāniimplies something closer to “four truths for those who seek nobility (of spirit/mind/practice).”
  28. Here, too, I have opted for a less-common translation ofpratītya-samutpādathan the more common “Dependent Origination” in order to emphasize—as Seno’o would no doubt prefer—the radical interdependence andmutual relatingof all being.
  29. 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: “Part 3: Conversion of Śāriputra and Maudgalyāyana,” Wisdom Library, accessed September 19, 2024.
  30. 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).
  31. Mahāparinibbāna Sutta, DN 16: 12. An English version may be found at https://tinyurl.com/596xmjwu.
  32. 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.
  33. 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.
  34. 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.
  35. 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.).
  36. 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.
  37. Risshō ankokuron 立正安国論. This is the title of Nichiren’s most famous and influential work, written in 1260.
  38. Tannisho 2. For a contemporary English translation of this passage by Taitetsu Unno, see: “The Tannisho,” The Matheson Trust: For the Study of Comparative Religion, accessed September 18, 2024.
  39. 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 “Chapter XIII. The Mystery of Faith—The Mystery of Miracle,” Marxist Internet Archive, accessed September 18, 2024.
  40. 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.
  41. It is likely that Seno’o is here referencing one of the Jataka tales.
  42. Futaki Kenzō 二木謙三 (1873–1966) was a well-known bacteriologist, physician, and author.
  43. 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” (“Abstract from Chapter II: Morality and Law. Freedom and Necessity,” Marxist Internet Archive, accessed October 16, 2024).
  44. 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.
  45. 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: “Malunkyaputta Sutta: To Malunkyaputta,” Access to Insight.
  46. 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.”
  47. 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.
  48. Here, as elsewhere, Seno’o employs the neologism mugashugi (“no-self-ism”) to render anātman.
  49. 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.
  50. 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).