chapter is concerned wit11 modern concepts of scif that shape our econcsmic, political,

legal, and cultural institutions, religious ideologies, assumptions about buman nature,
and so forth.
7. The passages from Meditndons on Fzrst Philosophjj that T cite in tillis section are
taken from "Meditation TI: Of the Nature of the Human Mind; and that it is more
easily kncswn than the Body."
8, As with other "alternative" constructions frtxn Buddhism, Mamism, and femi-
nism, it sht-3uldbe otvic~usthat ebcre is no single Hindu conccpt of self and no single
Hindu critique of modern Western concepts of self. Most of the quotations in this
section are a k e n from IZadhakrislinan's translation of the Cl'td in Sarvclpalli Radha-
krishnan and Charles A. Mcaore, eds,, A Soctrce Book in 11~diarzPhiiosophy (Prince-
ton: Princeton University Press, 1457), pp. 101-1 63.
9. M. K. Gandhi, "The Message of the Gita," in Mahadev Xfesai, The Citd Acmrd-
ing to Gandhz (AhmeJabaJ: Navajivan Publishing House, 1446), p. 130.
10. Angtatt~ra-nikaya3,134, in Henry Clarkc Warren, ed., Ktld&ism i~ Transka-
tions (New Y&rk: Atheneurn, 1963), p. xiv. "7'17e Three Characteristics" are anatta,
anicca, and drakkha.
11. Samyldtta-nikdya 3.66, in Radtrakrisfrnan and Moore, eds., A Source Book in In-
dian I"hiiosaphjr3pp. 28&281; ,$amyuttd-nikaya 22.85 and 22-22, in Warrl.cn, ed., Bud-
dI3km in Transtdtlsns, 138-145, 159-160. M y brief for~nutationof arzdtta is typical of
the Buddhist scriptural teachings of "no-self." In recent years, studies have challenged
such unqualified scriptural interpretations as reflecting the hegemonic social position
of the Buddi~istmonkhood, given its interlocking power relations with the privileged
ciasscs of socicty, and as ignoring very different religious orientations of mass or "pop-
ular Buddhism," Xn Sepess Persons (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982),
Stevcn Cotiins convincindy argzles tliat tlie strict canonical anatysis of "no-set? was
intended only for elite monks or specialists and tliat Buddhisxn. itself always made pro-
vision for other interpretations of self" Elsewhere ("Religious-Poiiticd Conflict in Sri
Lanka: Philosophical Considerations," in Religzorz dnd inolitical CorzJzict in SOUGI~ Ash:
Jndb, Pakistarz, and Sri Lankcz, ed, I3ouglas Ailen [Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Pub-
lishers, 1992; Delhi: Oxford University Press, 19931, pp. 181-203 ill both pulsfications),
I try to make sense of the contradictions between contemporary (Sri Lankan) cultural
and historical consemctions of the Sinliala Buddhist "self," on the one hand, and the
anattcrt and other scriptural teachings of the Buddha, on the other.
12. Sanzyutta-nikaya x"t0 and Majjhtnza-nikdya 3,248-252, in Radliakrislinan and
Moore, eds., A Slottrct. Book in Indhrz I'hilosaphy, pp. 274-275,275-278.
13. Walpofa Rahuta, Whdt the Buddha Taught (Mew York: Grove Press, 1959), p.
51.
14, See, for example, Karl Marx, "The Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of
1844," in The Mdm-Engels Rea&r, ed. Roben Tucker (New York: Nonon, 1972), pp.
55-56; and Kart Marx, Crurtdrisse, trans, Martin hlicolaus (New York: Random
FTouselVintage Bc>oks, 1973), p. 83, Similarly; in his "Theses on Fcuerbxh" "(also in
The Mam-Engels Reader, p. 109), Marx criticized Fetxerbxh for presupposing an ab-
stract isolated individual and not realizing that his abstract individ-ttaj"beitoags in real-
ity eo a paaicufar form t ~ societyyff
f
15, O n e of many translations of this work is Karl Marx, Capita!, Vol. 1, trans.
Ben Fowkes (New York: Random HouselVintage Books, 1977).