Re: [INDOLOGY] New Book: The Ātman-Brahman in Ancient Buddhism

[Birgit Kellner]

A penetrating study of both Buddhist and brahminical theories is Claus
Oetke, "'Ich' und das Ich. Analytische Untersuchungen zur
buddhistisch-brahmanischen Ātmankontroverse". Stuttgart 1988: Franz
Steiner Verlag Wiesbaden GmbH.

(Works treated include Pāli suttas, Milindapañha, Abhidharmakośabhāṣya,
proofs of ātman in Nyāyasūtra, -bhāṣya and -vārttika, in Vaiśeṣikasūtras
and Padārthadharmasaṅgraha, in Kumārila's Ślokavārttika, plus a
philosophical evaluation of proofs, arguments and refutations.)

For Dharmakīrti in particular, see more recently Vincent Eltschinger and
Isabelle Ratié, "Self, no-self, and salvation: Dharmakīrti's critique of
the notions of self and person." Wien 2013: Verlag der Österreichischen
Akademie der Wissenschaften.

With best wishes,

Birgit Kellner


Am 16.05.2015 um 06:08 schrieb David and Nancy Reigle:
> Dear Dean,
> 
> Since no one has yet replied to this, I will just give some
> bibliographic information (not exactly recommendations). I do not know
> of a systematic scholarly study of the Buddhist position on anātman that
> lays out and compares the two sides of this question.
> 
> 
> The widely accepted view, that the Buddhist anātman/anattā teaching
> denies the existence of an ātman/attā, not only in the person but also
> beyond the person, is represented in this study:
> 
> 
> /Selfless Persons: Imagery and Thought in Theravāda Buddhism/, by Steven
> Collins (Cambridge University Press, 1982).
> 
> 
> Another study also represents this view, although the author
> distinguishes his position on it from that of Collins (p. 7):
> 
> 
> /The Selfless Mind: Personality, Consciousness and Nirvāṇa in Early
> Buddhism/, by Peter Harvey (Curzon Press, 1995).
> 
> 
> The view that the Buddhist anātman/anattā teaching denies the existence
> of an ātman/attā only in the person (pudgala), i.e., in the five
> aggregates (skandha) that make up a person, is represented in Kamaleswar
> Bhattacharya’s book and in another study:
> 
> 
> /Self and Non-Self in Early Buddhism/, by Joaquín Pérez-Remón (Mouton
> Publishers, 1980).
> 
> 
> Bhattacharya notes, however (1993, p. 26 fn. 2): “Despite an apparently
> identical standpoint, there is a gulf of difference between
> Pérez-Remón’s approach and mine—a difference which, unfortunately, has
> often been missed by scholars.”
> 
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> 
> David Reigle
> 
> Cotopaxi, Colorado, U.S.A.
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 8:34 PM, Dean Michael Anderson
> <eastwestcultural at yahoo.com <mailto:eastwestcultural at yahoo.com>> wrote:
> 
>     Have there been any systematic scholarly studies of the Buddhist
>     positions on anatman that someone could recommend?
> 
>     Bhattacharya:
> 
>     "It is sometimes said that although the texts that have been used
>     prove that the Buddha did not deny the Upaniṣadic /ātman/, or even
>     that he accepted it, there are others, thousands of others, which
>     prove just the opposite. Well, since the names of those texts have
>     not been revealed so far, I will stick to my position until it is
>     /proved/ wrong."
> 
> 
>     Best,
> 
>     Dean Anderson
>     East West Cultural Institute
>      
> 
> 


-- 
----------
Prof. Dr. Birgit Kellner
Chair of Buddhist Studies
Cluster of Excellence "Asia and Europe in a Global Context - The
Dynamics of Transculturality"
University of Heidelberg
Karl Jaspers Centre
Voßstraße 2, Building 4400
D-69115 Heidelberg
Phone: +49(0)6221 - 54 4301 (Office Ina Chebbi: 4363)
Fax: +49(0)6221 - 54 4012