Core Of Being

Poul Anderson, Harvest The Fire, Chapter 7.

We have discussed Inner Change. (Scroll down.)

Falaire, describing "'Psychocorrection.'" (p. 123) lists:

neural alterations;
re-education;
elimination of the potential for violence;
castration of the inmost self;
the changing of a poet and adventurer into "'...a placidly contented citizen.'" (ibid.)

Nicol agrees, first, that any personal change should be self-chosen and, secondly, that no such changes should "...go to the core of his being." (ibid.)

Why not? And what is "the core of his being"? The Buddha suggested that introspection reveals only transient, changing mental states and not any permanent, unchanging self. Physical and mental elements have come together as an individual being and later will part. What then is the individual? "Whatever has an uprising must have a passing away." See here.

Since the status of the being has changed from nonexistent to existent and later will change back from existent to nonexistent, why should it be regarded as having an unchangeable core during its brief existence? Should we not instead welcome the realization that every individual is empty of permanent underlying substance? Self-chosen change, yes. Defense of a supposed "core," no.