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

[jkirk]

On Wednesday 01 August 2007 12:07, jkirk wrote:

> I don't get Tricycle so haven't seen this article.
> Depends on what is meant by the term "ego."
> Is a reified Freudian concept intended here?

I think something like a Freudian or Jungian notion of ego is at work here.
I don't think the Freudian notions is reified. It is certainly not static
and unchangeable. As far as I can tell, the only view of self that Buddhists
denied was any notion that depicts the self as static, uncaused, unchanging
and permanent. But what the Buddhists denied is something that no one in
modern times ever affirms. In other words, the Buddhist view has really
become the standard view in modern thought.

> I agree with the idea that some sort of a notion of self is necessary 
> for survival, but that agreement doesn't refer to a notion of a 
> reified Self ( as anthematised in Buddhism), or something called the 
> Ego--any more than I go along with something called the Subconscious, 
> the Id, the Super-ego, et al.

Freud said nothing about th subconscious. That was the invention of later
followers of Freud. What Freud talked about was the unconscious (das
Unbewüsst), by which he meant psychologically active impulses to action of
which a person is not fully unaware. Buddhists talked about very much the
same thing, except they called it karma-vipaaka. I don't think anyone who
agrees with Buddhist teachings on karma would dispute the claims of depth
psychologists that a great deal of what influences our behavior is hidden
from us. Commitment to karma seems to require a commitment to the notion of
an unconscious.

--
Richard P. Hayes
===========
Of course, I was not rejecting the notion of unconscious feelings, ideas,
motives, etc--only the common (if not accepted by intellectuals) idea of "an
Unconscious". (I first used the term unconscious, then changed it to
sub-conscious--oops). After Freud, many of his key ideas became reified.
There were even diagrams of the psyche, showing where every entity was
located.

Modern intellectual and critical developments may have decided to view ego
or a self as non-static and changeable. However, that is critically not the
idea of selfhood that pervades a lot of psychological and other sorts of
counseling today. It's also the common or vernacular idea--that self is a
Something, that it should be (if it is not) unchangeable, one must be true
to one's self, etc etc. The contemporary preoccupation with/fad for identity
concerns is a case in point here.

Identity phrased as, say, tribal or religion-affiliation, is generally
considered to be a desirable feature of selfhood, to be retained (at all
costs?--depends..). So, although intellectuals and academics might agree
with the Buddhist view of self as variable rather than uncaused, permanent
etc., the day to day ballpark  view of people neither intellectuals nor
academics, nor monks, et al--is that self is a Thing-- to be discovered,
then cherished, developed, merged with some kind of cultural identity, aso.

Joanna  

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.11.0/929 - Release Date: 7/31/2007
5:26 PM