Sakyamuni denied Atman, an immortal soul

1
Sakyamuni denied Atman, an immortal soul that is completely separated from the body. "I" is just a lump that temporarily combines my body, my living memories, and my relationship with others. "I" even denies the reality of being, but there is no room for the concept of a soul that is eternal.

2
There seems to be a controversy in the Buddhist world because Monk Hyangbong made remarks that seemed to deny reincarnation and karma. Denying reincarnation is clearly against the teachings of the Buddha.
However, from the point of view of acting and selflessness, the core of Buddhism, the concept of reincarnation and karma is a little strange no matter how I look at it.
What is the meaning of reincarnation if you have no body change and no memory at all? It is easy to assume something beyond the body, such as soul, artman, true... It is easy to assume that reincarnation and karma exist as entities that exist in the natural world.

3
No, there were only causes and effects from the beginning. The process itself, which flows according to causes and effects, can be regarded as reincarnation. (Woo-Oh-ga and Yu-ji's view)
Life does not exist and disappear, but life was only a cause and effect from the beginning. Life is nothing more than a temporary compound of ozone. It is not that something existed and was destroyed, but the cause is extinguished and no more results occur.

4
In Hong Chang-sung's view, karma and reincarnation do not exist in the natural world, but are merely concepts or directives. It is only a language created to express the process of acting described by Sakyamuni, and is not an independent entity in itself.
From this point of view, it seems excessive that Monk Heo Jeong strongly criticized Monk Hyangbong's denial of reincarnation. Rather, the essence of Sakyamuni's self-control and acting theory can be escaped from the attitude that seems to embody reincarnation and karma.

5
Of course, it is difficult to conclude that Hong Chang-Sung's interpretation is absolutely correct. However, can't his view be viewed as an attempt to reinterpret reincarnation and karma from the perspective of acting and selflessness, the core principles of Buddhism? Shakyamuni only taught common sorts of people to escape suffering. Because of the remaining sin, Shakyamuni says that he should be reborn as an animal through reincarnation and pay it back? It's hard to imagine.

And in fact, this eagle was almost written by Claude.