A question about DN 23 and existence of soul

"Soul" for most Westerners is a Christian loaded term, implying that something of the self survives after physical death in immortal (unchangeable) form. Since Buddhism does not subscribe to this perished self being real, by consequence what most people mean by "soul" is also an illusion. In Buddhism, the term anattā (Pali) or anātman (Sanskrit) refers to the doctrine of "non-self", that there is no unchanging, permanent self, soul or essence in phenomena. Because there is no unchanging permanent essence, Buddhists sometimes talk about energy being reborn, rather than souls.

The Buddha criticized the doctrine that posited an unchanging soul as a subject as the basis of rebirth and karmic moral responsibility, which he called "atthikavāda". He also criticized the materialistic doctrine that denied the existence of both soul and rebirth, and thereby denied karmic moral responsibility, which he calls "natthikavāda". Instead, the Buddha asserted that there is no soul, but there is rebirth for which karmic moral responsibility is a must. In the Buddha's framework of karma, right view and right actions are necessary for liberation.

The word "soul" translated here (DN 23) by Bhikkhu Sujato is "jīva". In the context of this sutta, this word means "life force", and not "self".

The sutta is trying to say that although you cannot see the soul leaving, still there is rebirth. That means that according to Kassapa, there is rebirth without the movement of a life force or soul.

So, it is this very sutta that says there is no soul.

How this may work is explained in Milindapanha 3.5.5. This means that rebirth without transmigration of the soul from one place to another, takes place like a transfer of information.

The king asked: "Venerable Nagasena, is it so that one does not transmigrate and one is reborn?" "Yes, your majesty, one does not transmigrate and one is reborn." "How, venerable Nagasena, is it that one does not transmigrate and one is reborn? Give me an analogy." "Just as, your majesty, if someone kindled one lamp from another, is it indeed so, your majesty, that the lamp would transmigrate from the other lamp?" "Certainly not, venerable sir." "Indeed just so, your majesty, one does not transmigrate and one is reborn." "Give me another analogy." "Do you remember, your majesty, when you were a boy learning some verse from a teacher?" "Yes, venerable sir." "Your majesty, did this verse transmigrate from the teacher?" "Certainly not, venerable sir." "Indeed just so, your majesty, one does not transmigrate and one is reborn."

So, this means that a person who lives then dies, has some information transferred elsewhere that results in the rebirth of the idea of the self.

However, according to MN 38, there is no permanent consciousness that moves throughout one's life and then is reborn after death:

Then the Blessed One addressed a certain bhikkhu thus: “Come, bhikkhu, tell the bhikkhu Sāti, son of a fisherman, in my name that the Teacher calls him.”—“Yes, venerable sir,” he replied, and he went to the bhikkhu Sāti and told him: “The Teacher calls you, friend Sāti.”

“Yes, friend,” he replied, and he went to the Blessed One, and after paying homage to him, sat down at one side. The Blessed One then asked him: “Sāti, is it true that the following pernicious view has arisen in you: ‘As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, it is this same consciousness that runs and wanders through the round of rebirths, not another’?”

“Exactly so, venerable sir. As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, it is this same consciousness that runs and wanders through the round of rebirths, not another.”

“What is that consciousness, Sāti?”

“Venerable sir, it is that which speaks and feels and experiences here and there the result of good and bad actions.”

“Misguided man, to whom have you ever known me to teach the Dhamma in that way? Misguided man, have I not stated in many ways consciousness to be dependently arisen, since without a condition there is no origination of consciousness? But you, misguided man, have misrepresented us by your wrong grasp and injured yourself and stored up much demerit; for this will lead to your harm and suffering for a long time.”

MN 38 continues with a discussion on dependent origination.

You wrote ...

(Payasi argues there is no soul so no afterlife.)

However, Kassapa, one of the principal disciples of Gautama Buddha, argues there is a soul.

... but I don't think so. Instead I think the dialog or argument in the sutta is:

• Payasi: there is no afterlife because we don't see a visible soul leaving the body at death
• Kassapa: the existence of a visible soul is not necessary for there to be an afterlife (for example when you dream there's no visible soul living the body) -- the non-existence of a visible/separating soul doesn't prove there is no afterlife

That (saying "the existence of a soul isn't necessary, and needn't be assumed") is not the same thing as saying "there is a soul". The main argument is about "afterlife", it is not about "soul".

Secondly the argument in Pali uses various words like:

• āyu
  life; vital power; duration of life, life-time; long life.

• jīva

Those words are used in several suttas -- in MN 63 for example, where various questions about the body and soul are declared to by the Buddha to be "not declared":

And why haven’t I declared these things? Because they aren’t beneficial or relevant to the fundamentals of the spiritual life. They don’t lead to disillusionment, dispassion, cessation, peace, insight, awakening, and extinguishment.

Thirdly, even if Buddhist doctrine did say that something like that existed, and if someone translated that statement or that word as "soul", I'd try to doubt whether the word "soul" there has the same kinds of meanings as is taught by other religions