Self & Non-Self in Early Buddhism [Hardcover]

Joacquin Perez-Ramon (Author)

Product Details

• Hardcover: 400 pages
• Publisher: Mouton De Gruyter (December 1980)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 9027979871
• ISBN-13: 978-9027979872
• Product Dimensions: 9 x 6.1 x 1.1 inches
• Shipping Weight: 1.6 pounds
• Average Customer Review: 4.0 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (4 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #3,179,341 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

21 of 32 people found the following review helpful:

1.0 out of 5 stars Words of Caution, June 30, 2001

By 

Appicchata "Appicchata" - See all my reviews

This review is from: Self & Non-Self in Early Buddhism (Hardcover)

I feel strongly compelled to caution readers against this book. Although there were many schools of Buddhism, it was the Theravadan Tipitaka (the rough equivalent to a Buddhist bible) that was passed down orally, written in Pali around 2000 years ago, and managed to survive until the present day. The Tipitaka is considered to be the earliest known exposition of Buddhist teachings and philosophy. Within the Tipitaka, the Buddha is repeatedly portrayed as teaching that there are three rudimentary truths of experience: impermanence, suffering, and non-self. The realizations of these truths are considered to be among the conditions that are necessary for enlightenment. In his book, Joaquin Perez-Ramon chose to tackle the third of these facts, that of non-self. Mr. Perez-Remon constructed his manuscript using a hypothesis, that the anatta doctrine "has no absolute value" and that these early texts "...not only does not annul the reality of the self, but reaffirms it..." Mr. Perez-Remon acknowledges that his hypothesis is in contradiction to what are considered the accepted teachings of Buddhism. In exploring the texts to support or negate his hypothesis, Mr. Perez-Remon singles out many of the occurrences of the terms and concepts of both self (atta) and non-self (anatta). Unfortunately (and this is where the Mr. Perez-Remon's book seems to have gone awry) he used translations (of his own making? - see his "Preliminary remarks") that starkly highlighted the words and concepts he was examining, creating rather new meanings to the original writings. These new meanings were occasionally harmless, but more often than not, actually served to contradict commonly accepted Buddhist philosophy on this subject. Mr. Perez-Remon's excellent documentation however, allowed a side-by-side comparison to other translations. Works by translators such as Bhikku Bodhi and K.R. Norman, provide a far more plausible and philosophically coherent rendering of these early texts on this crucial Buddhist concept. Mr. Perez-Remon compounds his dubious translations with assertions and rationalizations that serve only to support his hypothesis. For example, he reasons enlightenment must liberate something (the self), rather than recognizing that enlightenment is the dissolution of the (mental construct of a) self. While inferences may be drawn on what one does not find in the texts, Mr. Perez-Remon pushes this method to extreme, going so far as to assume and assert the Buddha's convictions in a self. Among Mr. Perez-Remon's conclusions, he finds that the different philosophies of self and not-self must be equally valid and require synthesis/transcendence. The end result of Mr. Perez-Remon's work is that much of what is unique to Buddhism is explained away and rendered meaningless. The Buddhist concept of non-self is one that, at least initially, has been difficult for many to grasp and/or accept. Although Mr. Perez-Remon's book is written in an academic manner, I believe that his analysis of this subject is deeply flawed and is misleading to those exploring this concept. I do not recommend his book for beginning or even intermediate students of Buddhism, but only, and reluctantly at best, for those who have a good background in Buddhist philosophy, a challenging attitude, and the resources with which to check Mr. Perez-Remon's work against other trusted materials. I see this book as useful only as an example of how faulty translations and misleading assertions can be used to systematically undermine the concepts of a philosophy, perpetuating the very ignorance that Buddhism seeks to dispel. For intermediate or advanced readers who are seeking scholarly writings on the subject of anatta or non-self, without the misrepresentation found in Mr. Perez-Remon's "Self and Non-Self in Early Buddhism," I recommend Steven Collins' book "Selfless Persons."

0 of 2 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars The Truth about Buddha's teaching, February 2, 2010

By 

Mario De Grossi (USA) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

Amazon Verified Purchase

This review is from: Self & Non-Self in Early Buddhism (Hardcover)

Buddhism as we know it today is a partisan and partial appreciation of Buddha's words largely due to commentarial misunderstandings originating soon after Buddha's death. For the past 2300 years if not longer this ossified eastern and western scholarship has been reluctant to stray from its unfortunate and benighted interpretation championing a Buddhist `no Self' view of man. Finally Joakin Perez-Remon backed by a profound knowledge of Pali with impeccable insight and scholarship brings to light the true interpretation of Buddha's words showing the profound difference of meaning between the `Self' , `egoist self ` and no-Self hermeneutical dispute. His brilliant and ground breaking `Self and non-self in early Buddhism' makes obsolete most if not all other literature on Buddhism published in the past 100 years, and should together with Peter Harvey's `The Selfless Mind', be read and studied carefully by all those truly interested in the original teaching of Buddha.

[ [ ISBN-10: 9027979871, Self & Non-Self in Early Buddhism (Exotic Lizards Series) (Hardcover) ] ]

13 of 26 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars accurate book that scares Nihilists and Anihilationists., September 26, 2001

By 

Kenneth L. Wheeler "Buddhologist, Philosopher" (Ocala, Fl) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

This review is from: Self & Non-Self in Early Buddhism (Hardcover)

Out of 2317 books on Buddhism that I own, this book ranks as top 10 outside of the scriptures themselves. If you notice the diatribe 1 star review below, no evidence is given to refute the 1000s and 1000s of Suttric quotes given by Perez proving that Buddhism deplored nihilism and most especially Theravada notions of empiricall emptiness.

The entire Doctrine of ANATTA AN(not) Atta'(True Self, Attan, Atman) is the netti netti ( not this, not that) doctrine to demonstrate to the monks that which cannot be construed as the everlasting self as such.

Know you and know you well that nothing is refuted in the entirety of Buddhism other than that the Attan (true self, deathless) cannot be associated with the Khandhas ( 5 aggregates of phenomenality). To prove otherwise is imposible by scripture.
There are opinions and conjecture, and there are facts and quotes from Sutta ( Nikayas). Those who embrace the notion of no-self empircally have not one dot of evidence to back them up in Scripture period.

Nowhere within the Scriptures of Buddhism is the True Self denied, but
only that is must not be identified with the transitory
and ephemeral aggregates of phenomena. Such that forms, feelings,
perceptions, impulses, and mental machinations of the
mind are temporal, unreal, arise and pass, and are of the realm of
phenomena and cannot be construed as what is everlasting,
best, real, and most dear of the True Self and therefore must not be
identified with the Attan as such.

Even now the world standard for Pali-English translation reference being
the new "A Dictionary of Pali" by Margaret Cone
states about the Attan (atta): [Sanskrit Atman], The self, the soul, as
a permanent unchangeable, autonomous entity; p.70, Pali
Text Society

Without an entity that fares on, there are no grounds for rebirth,
nothing which could be perfected, and Buddhism flies apart
at the hinges without a basis. Since there is nothing of any substance
of the aggregates which can recollect previous lives,
and nothing everlasting within such temporal phenomena to be perfected
to dwell within Perfection;

There cannot be assumed even loosely that Buddhism can exist without the
concept of the Attan, so offhandedly rejected by
sectarian nihilism which runs contrary to sutta.We are more interested
in what the Buddha said than what he didn't say, and
as it pertains to the Attan, nothing is rejected but temporal
aggregates, not the Attan.

The greatest mistake made after the passing of Gotama Buddha was the
arising of the non-doctrinal notion that Buddhism
somehow preaches empirical-extinction. The much discussed doctrine of
Anatta [an (not) Atta (True Self)] which occurs a
little more than 240 times in the entirety of the Buddhist Nikayas is
used only to describe that which cannot be identified
with or clung to as genuinely real and everlasting, or possessed of the
True Self in its proper identity.

In some secular translations, the Atta has been translated in its
various forms and compounds as a reflexive, i.e. oneself,
himself, themselves; but no such reflexive terminology exists within the
Pali language in which the Buddhist canon is
recorded. The Atta (True Self) or the Attan, both in standalone and
compound occur more than 23,000 times within scripture.

DN 2.157 Therefore Ananda, stay as those who have their True Self as the
illumination, as those who have their True Self as
supreme refuge, as those who have no other as the refuge; as those who
have the true law Dharma as the illumination, as
those who have the Dharma as refuge, as those who have no other refuge.
KN 3.78 And whoever, Ananda, either now or after my end will stay as
those who have the True Self as the illumination, as
those who have True Self as refuge, as those who have no other as the
refuge...they among my bhikkhus shall reach the peak
of immortality, provided they are desirous of training their True Self.

AN 1.81 There is monks, an unborn, an unoriginated, an unmade, and an
unformed. If there were not monks, this unborn,
unoriginated, unmade and unformed, there would be no way out for the
born, the originated, the made and the formed.

Bravo to Perez for pulling back the horror in refutation against Sectarian Nihilism not found in Buddhist Sutta.

Dr.of Buddhology S.A.