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.
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 AndersonEast West Cultural Institute