 | |
List Price: $54.95 | | Publisher: RoutledgeCurzon
Salesrank: 415665
|
| Our Price: $44.75 |
| Used Price: $44.75 |
|
| Media: Paperback |
|
Editorial Review:
This careful analysis of early Buddhist thought opens out a perspective in which no permanent Self is accepted, but a rich analysis of changing and potent mental processes is developed. It explores issues relating to the not-Self teaching: self-development, moral responsibility, the between-lives period, and the 'undetermined questions' on the world, on the 'life principle' and on the liberated one after death. It examines the 'person' as a flowing continuity centred on consciousness or discernment (vinnana) configured in changing minds-sets (cittas). The resting state of this is seen as 'brightly shining' - like the 'Buddha nature' of Mahayana thought - so as to represent the potential for Nirvana. Nirvana is then shown to be a state in which consciousness transcends all objects, and thus participates in a timeless, unconditioned realm.
The Selfless Mind: Personality, Consciousness and Nirvana in Early Buddhism Reviews:
Extracts from 2 publishedreviews of The Selfless Mind 
2009-02-06 - "This is a bold, far-reaching study... The book sparkles with illuminating insights and astute discussions. ... In discussing the psychological underpinnings of the non-self doctrine, Harvey makes a brilliant observation... [Chapters 7-9] offer a wealth of original observations on subtle points of doctrine... his reflections are often incisive and illuminating. ... In sum, The Selfless Mind is in many respects a thought-provoking study which glistens with original insights"
(Bhikkhu Bodhi, Buddhist Publication Society, Sri Lanka, Buddhist Studies Review, 14, 1, 1997)
"the most penetrating discussion I know of the non-self doctrine in early Buddhism... the author masterfully elucidates many knotty points of early Buddhist psychology"
(J.S. O'Leary, Sophia University, Japan, Japanese Journal of Religious Studies, 26, 1-2, 1999).
-PS I did not add the stars to rate my own book- I could not delete them. I publish these review extracts as a counterweight to some of the negative reviews on this site.
Peter Harvey's misrepresentation of Gotamas doctrine 
2006-03-16 - Without resorting to unintelligent baseless claims and conjectures like Mr. Holloway below has done, the facts of the book as presented by Mr. Harvey do not reflect what Gotama taught. If Mr. Harvey, in his book, had presented his book as "the view of X school of tibetan Vajrayana", that would suffice, however the book itself presupposes to be "what Gotama taught", which is utterly without scriptural representation.
To contradict the egregious error below that "there is no such reference as SN 5.154, or SN 3.42",..this is incorrect, SN 5.154 refers to Samyutta Nikaya, book 5 (mahavagga), verse 154, standard Roman indexing,. the indexing system of Romanized Pali as used by English speaking scholars of the Nikayas (oldest texts of Buddhism). Having pointed out this inaccuracy, I must state that the overwhelming amount of doctrinal passages in Buddhist sutta do not accord with what Mr. Harvey has presented in his book, to wit, that there "is no permanent (niccato) Soul in the doctrine of Gotama".
Anatta in sutra is synonymous and interchangeable with the terms dukkha (suffering) and anicca (impermanent), and all three terms are often used in triplet in making a blanket statement as regards any and all phenomena. "All these aggregates are anicca, dukkha, and anatta."
Anatta refers only to the absence of the permanent soul as pertains any one of the psycho-physical (namo-rupa) attributes, or Khandhas (skandhas, aggregates). Anatta/Anatman in the earliest Buddhist texts, the Nikayas, is an adjective, (A is anatta, B is anatta, C is anatta). The commonly held belief to wit that: "Anatta means no-soul, therefore Buddhism taught that there was no soul" is a concept, which cannot be found or doctrinally substantiated by means of the Nikayas, the sutras, of Buddhism.
It is of course true that the Buddha denied the existence of the mere empirical "self" in the very meaning of "my-self" (this person so-and-so, namo-rupa, an-atta), one might say in accordance with the command `denegat seipsum, [Mark VII.34]; but this is not what modern writers mean to say, or are understood by their readers to say; what they mean to say is that the Buddha denied the immortal (amata), the unborn (ajata) and Supreme-Self (mahatta') of the Upanishads. And that is palpably false, for he frequently speaks of this Self, or Spirit (mahapurisha), and nowhere more clearly than in the too often repeated formula 'na me so atta', "This/these are not my Soul" (na me so atta'= anatta/anatman), excluding body (rupa) and the components of empirical consciousness (vinnana/ nama), a statement to which the words of Sankhara are peculiarly apposite, "Whenever we deny something unreal, is it in reference to something real"[Br. Sutra III.2.22]. It was not for the Buddha but for the nihilist (natthika) to deny the Soul.
In fact the phrase "Doctrine of anatta", or "Anatmavada" is a concept utterly foreign to Buddhist Sutra, existing in only non-doctrinal Theravada and Madhyamika commentaries. As the saying goes, a "lie repeated often enough over time becomes the truth". Those interested parties to Buddhism incapable of pouring through endless piles of Buddhist doctrine have defacto accepted the notion of a "Doctrine of anatta" as key to Buddhism itself, when in fact there exists not one citation of this concept in either the Digha, Majjhima, Samyutta, Anguttara, or Khuddaka Nikayas. Unless evoking a fallacy, we must stick strictly to sutra as reference, wherein the usage of anatta never falls outside of the parameter of merely denying Self or Soul to the profane and transitory phenomena of temporal and samsaric life which is "subject to arising and passing", and which is most certain not (AN) our Soul (ATTA). Certainly the most simple philosophical logic would lead anyone to conclude that no part of this frail body is "my Self, is That which I am", is "not my Soul", of which Gotama the Buddha was wholeheartedly in agreement that no part of it was the Soul, i.e. was in fact anatta.
The perfect contextual usage of anatta is: "Whatever form, feelings, perceptions, experiences, or consciousness there is (the five aggregates), these he sees to be without permanence, as suffering, as ill, as a plague, a boil, a sting, a pain, an affliction, as foreign, as otherness, as empty (suññato), as Selfless (anattato). So he turns his mind away from these and gathers his mind/will within the realm of Immortality (amataya dhatuya). This is tranquility; this is that which is most excellent!" [MN 1.436]
The term anatman is found not only in Buddhist sutras, but also in the Upanishads and lavishly so in the writings of Samkara, the founder of Advaita Vedanta. Anatman is a common via negativa (neti neti, not this, not that) teaching method common to Vedanta, Neoplatonism, early Christian mystics, and others, wherein nothing affirmative can be said of what is "beyond speculation, beyond words, and concepts" thereby eliminating all positive characteristics that might be thought to apply to the Soul, or be attributed to it; to wit that the Subjective ontological Self-Nature (svabhava) can never be known objectively, but only thru "the denial of all things which it (the Soul) is not"- Meister Eckhart. This doctrine is also called by the Greeks Apophasis.
Mr. Harveys book is, unfortunately, little more than a secular pseudo-intellectual attempt to "take Christ out of Christianity", or in this case to take the "only refuge (the Soul/Atman), out of Buddhism"
Problematic
2005-07-13 - There seems to be a growing concensus that this text is flawed in certain key areas. Astutely, several reviewers have cited Pali sources which flatly refute the somewhat nihilistic views of the author. On close reading, it is surely evident that a denial of the 'self' identified with the skandhas does not deny the 'citta' as basis. Still, I don't think this observation is helpful, when Harvey's critics succumb to the temptation to translate 'citta' as 'soul.' Even so, the positive use of citta
as base, viz. - that which is freed from the influence of the skandhas, certainly represents 'Self' as ground. In the Mahaparinirvana Sutra, the Buddha even reintroduced explicit reference to the 'Self' - as Mahatman. As one of the reviewers has noted, the Buddha even used the term 'svabhava' for it - despite everything else said about 'ni-svabhava' vis-a-vis 'pratitya-samupada' and the skandhas.
It is worth noting that the Hindu critics of Buddhism have frequently mistaken it for nihilism, despite the fact that the Buddha denied nihilistic doctrines. We need to redefine the terms we are using - and, recover the terms we have forgotten.
Nihilistic, contrary to scriptural Buddhism, disappointing 
2005-02-23 - The authors unsubstantiated conclusions begin within the very first paragraph and don't end until the very last. Namely the authors anti-foundationalism premise is that Buddhism is empiricism rather than an ontology, that Buddhism denies the Soul entirely, and the mind, or will (citta) is the empirical point of purification.
From the authors nihilistic non-buddhist Abhidhamma (sarvastivada/Theravada) perspective as a western empiricist, the author makes many errors in his book that I shall point out but just a few; as pertains the will (citta), Buddhism says otherwise; Sutta: [Nettippakarana 44] "The mind (citta) is cleansed of the five khandhas (pañcakkhandha'". This book is sadly lacking in substantiation and nearly all of the Authors claims are directly and 180 degrees refuted from the Suttas he presumes to be referencing. The entire basis of Buddhism is as regards the Citta (will) alone, but this author reduces it to merely phenomenological happenstance. The proof of this you ask in refutation to the authors claims? : "The purification of one's own mind (citta); this is the Doctrine of the Buddha" [DN 2.49]."How is it that one is called a 'Buddha'?...gnosis that the mind (citta) is purified (visuddham)...such is how one is deemed a 'Buddha'." [MN 2.144]. Buddhism Pali research is in its infancy and as of yet, there is no accurate book elaborating the will-philosophy and mind/mentation on Buddhism of yet.
The primary point of content of the authors, to wit that "Buddhism denies the (Upanishadic) atman/Soul" is purely a personal and unsubstantiated conjecture unfounded in the Nikayas. "The Soul (Attan) is ones True-Nature (Svabhava)" [Mahavagga-Att. 3.270]; "The Soul (Attan) is Charioteer"[Jataka-2-1341], "The Soul is the dearest beloved" [AN 4.97], "The Soul is the refuge that I have gone unto" [KN Jatakapali 1441],"To be fixed in the Soul is to be flood crossed" [Mahavagga-Att. 2.692], "The Soul is Svabhava(Self-Nature)." [Maha'vagga-Att. 3.270], "The Soul is the refuge to be sought" [Suttanipata-Att. 1.129], "Nirvana means the subjugation of becoming" [AN 5.9], and many thousands of other passages in the same kin.
Unfortunately the Author, Peter Harvey, has erroneously premised in his book that "anatta = no soul,...therefore Buddhism denies the Soul,..etc". However due to a complete lack of scholarship on behalf of the author, he has not contextually analyzed the the term anatta/anatman in Buddhist scripture. "what does Anatman mean Lord Gotama?....Just this only ,...form is Not-Soul (anatman), feeling is Not-Soul (anatman)....." [SN 3.195]. In fact the Pali term for "no soul" is Natthatta' (literally "there is not/no[nattha]+atta'[Soul]) has only five occurrences (all at SN 4.400). Contrary to the baseless conjectures of the author, at no location of the 376 Nikayan occurrences of anatta, does the adjective occur in the context of a denial of the Soul, but what the soul is not (na me so atta' = none of these empirical aggregates are my soul). Both the Upanishads and Adhi Sankhara (founder of Advaita) used the term anatman, both in the context of neti neti (not this not that) via negativa, common to the Monism of Vedanta methodology and ontology.
It is of course true that the Buddha denied the existence of the mere empirical "self" in the very meaning of "my-self" (this person so-and-so, namo-rupa, an-atta), one might say is in accordance with the command 'denegat seipsum, [Mark VII.34]; but this is not what our writers (above) mean to say, or are understood by their readers to say; what they mean to say is that the Buddha denied the immortal (amata), the unborn (ajata) and Supreme-Self (mahatta') of the Upanishads. And that is palpably false, for he frequently speaks of this Self, or Spirit (mahapurisha), and nowhere more clearly than in the too often repeated formula 'na me so atta', "This/these are not my Soul" (na me so atta'= anatta/anatman), excluding body (rupa) and the components of empirical consciousness (vinnana/ nama), a statement to which the words of Sankhara are perculiary apposite, "Whenever we deny something unreal, is it in reference to something real"[Br. Sutra III.2.22]. It was not for the Buddha but for the nihilist (natthika) to deny the Soul! "Nihilists (natthiko) [those who deny the Soul] go to terrible purgatory"[SN 1.96].
Anatta as a nihilistic dogma is a relatively modern Abhidhamma-borne conception only, of what was in earliest Buddhism, the methodology of negating (neti neti) all objective attributes falsely seen as Self/Soul, but which were in fact not the Soul (anatta). "None of these (aggregates) are my Soul indeed", arguably the most common passage in Buddhism. No place in Sutta does the context of anatta forward or imply the negation, the denial of the Soul "most dear, the light, the only refuge" [SN 2.100, AN 4.97], but rather instructs and illuminates to the unlearned what the Soul was not. Due to massive ignorance and ineptitude of the ancestors of modern-day Theravada, a teaching upon the denial of all phenomena as being utterly devoid of Selfhood (attan), has been subverted without basis in doctrine, as a nonsensical dogma advocating the non-existence of the Soul (natthika).
Author's conclusions, NOT Buddhism's conclusions.
2004-05-30 - Peter Harvey, in this books has concluded that buddhism makes claim to no-self, or no-soul, regardless of the fact that no sutta makes mention of any such doctrine.
"what does Anatman (anatta) mean Lord Gotama?....Just this only ,...form is Not-Soul (anatman), feeling is Not-Soul (anatman)....." [SN 3.195]The authors fallacy of composition is that since ABCDEF is not X (atman), therefore X does not exist.
The common and amateur error the author makes is total lack of knowledge as per the neti neti (not this, not that, i.e. Anatta) methodology of negation used to posit (thru Gnosis) of the Witness, the Self.
In "The Selfless Mind", the authors conclusions, which are not substantiated by scriptural citation, is that "there is no lasting soul, ....that one being is merely composed of the 5 aggregates of psycho-physical existence". While the authors claims are his to make, the grand error of this book is to subject the authors views upon the reader as the defacto teachings of Buddhism, which they are not, such as: "The Soul is ones True-Nature (Svabhava)" [Mahavagga-Att. 3.270]. "dwell with the Soul as your Light, with the Soul as your refuge, with none other as refuge."[SN 5.154, DN 2.100, SN 3.42, DN 3.58, SN 5.163].
However, the primary basis of this book is that the mind (citta), more technically the WILL, is merely phenomenal and corporeal as such as the author relates it, however Buddhism denies that anything but mentation (mano) and consciousness (vinnana) are Phenomenal, the will/mind (Pali: Citta) is transcorporeal and the point of liberation as such: [Nettippakarana 44] "The mind (citta) is cleansed of the five khandhas (pañcakkhandha')". It's assured the author never came across the common passage in Buddhist Sutta which refutes the entire theme of his book being: [MN 1.436] "Whatever form, feelings, perceptions, experiences, or consciousness there is (the five aggregates), these he sees to be without permanence, as suffering, as ill, as a plague, a boil, a sting, a pain, an affliction, as foreign, as otherness, as empty (suññato), as Selfless (anattato). So he turns his mind (citta, Non-aggregate) away from these; therein he gathers his mind within the realm of Immortality (amataya dhatuya)."
Anyone remotely read in the philosophy and doctrine of Buddhism cannot agree to the unsubstantiated conclusions of the author Peter Harvey, they are his own views which are wholly unreflected in Buddhist doctrine as such.
