Review of and response to Mark Siderits’s interpretation of not-self in Buddhism as philosophy: an introduction

Mark Siderits’s book Buddhism as Philosophy: An Introduction is an intriguing attempt to bring early Buddhist thought into dialogue with modern analytic philosophy. This review focuses on the author’s reconstruction of the Buddha’s argument of not-self. Using an ahistorical and philosophical approac...

Description complète

Enregistré dans:  
Détails bibliographiques
Auteur principal: Ilieva, Alexandra S. (Auteur)
Type de support: Électronique Review
Langue:Anglais
Vérifier la disponibilité: HBZ Gateway
Journals Online & Print:
En cours de chargement...
Fernleihe:Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste
Publié: Heidelberg Asian Studies Publishing 2017
Dans: Interdisziplinäre Zeitschrift für Südasienforschung
Année: 2017, Volume: 2, Pages: 131-147
Compte rendu de:Buddhism as philosophy (Aldershot : Ashgate, 2007) (Ilieva, Alexandra S.)
Sujets non-standardisés:B Compte-rendu de lecture
Accès en ligne: Volltext (kostenfrei)
Volltext (kostenfrei)
Volltext (kostenfrei)
Description
Résumé:Mark Siderits’s book Buddhism as Philosophy: An Introduction is an intriguing attempt to bring early Buddhist thought into dialogue with modern analytic philosophy. This review focuses on the author’s reconstruction of the Buddha’s argument of not-self. Using an ahistorical and philosophical approach Siderits reconstructs the Buddhist argument as an ontological denial of the self. However, I argue that a close analysis of early Nikāyic sources suggests a different understanding of not-self, one that is not an ontological denial of an essential self, but rather a far more complex, practical, and non-philosophical argument meant to show a path that avoids attachments, specifically to the self. I further argue that the methodology employed by Siderits in his book, although successful in recognising one level of sophistication in early Buddhist thought, is nevertheless less suited to the analysis of the specific arguments under consideration. Indeed it misses what I understand to be the more interesting and nuanced position taken regarding not-self, one that perhaps cannot be captured using a western analytic framework.
ISSN:2510-2621
Contient:Enthalten in: Interdisziplinäre Zeitschrift für Südasienforschung
Persistent identifiers:DOI: 10.11588/izsa.2017.2.1528
URN: urn:nbn:de:bsz:16-izsa-15289