[Buddha-l] FW: Three year Research Associate, UK, Indian & Buddhist theories of self

[Richard Hayes]

On Wednesday 01 August 2007 17:21, jkirk wrote:

> What I meant, which  was
> quite clear beyond your limited rendering as per above, was that although
> various brands of psychological counselors do not hold with a "fixed in
> nature" self, they nevertheless hold with a Self-- an entity to be
> developed, pondered over, deconstructed via anlaysis or whatever their MO
> is, and then reconstructed in more --what? socially suitable attributes &
> motives? or less dysfunctional ones? or more supportive of the individual
> personality ones?

Thanks for the clarification. What you are now describing is precisely the 
sort of self that classical Buddhism also accepts. What it rejects is a self 
that cannot be changed or modified in any way at all. But I think that very 
few people nowadays believe in a fixed self in that sense.

> aso. 

You have taken to using Japanese?

> You have interjected a twist to this thread --beliefs-- that was not there
> before--

It seems to me that the question of belief has been part of this discussion 
from the very beginning. After all, the Buddhist doctrine of non-self is 
meant to be a corrective to a false belief. And what I have been doing from 
the beginning of this discussion is trying to clarify what kinds of things 
various people believe about the self.

> and a kind of academic snobbery to boot, by warping my unimportant 
> metaphor of 'ballpark' by misusing it. But then that's your style,isn't it.

Making puns and being playful with words is my style. I can't help it. I come 
from a family of people who can't resist wordplay and making puns, no matter 
how bad they may be. The academic snob in me, of course, disdains bad puns. 
Snob that I am reputed to be, I prefer more lerned forms of humour.

-- 
Richard