On the subject of ego in Buddhism, first of all, I am not going to call anyone an under educated dolt for using the term ego in a negative, derogatory way. However, on that previous note, it hardly shows any intelligence to use ego in a way it was never intended to be used or to imply that the concept of ego was known by early Buddhists. Let’s start with the last, first. I think this quote from Mrs. Rhys Davids sums up all that can be said about the notion of ego in Buddhism.
“Remember that our modern oddly depreciated idea of "self" and selfishness as "egoism" did not exist for the Indian of old, any more than it existed for say, Samuel Johnson. The modern Buddhist as more or less learnt this from us. The self as egoistic is practically non-existent in Buddhist Suttas.”
Anyone who has gone through the Pali Nikayas finds almost nothing that might remind them of the modern notion of ego that was arguably popularized by Freud. So what did the good doctor mean by ego?
“In popular language, we may say that the ego stands for reason and circumspection, while the id stands for the untamed passions” (New Introductory Lectures).
Whoops! That doesn’t fit too well with the way ego is used in a modern day Zen center which is treated in a pejorative way. Here is still more from Freud.
“The ego has taken over the task of representing the external world for the id, and so of saving it; for the id, blindly striving to gratify its instincts in complete disregard of the superior truth of outside forces, could not otherwise escape annihilation” (New Introductory Lectures).
The ego sounds like the good guy if you ask me. The ego here is more like a Bodhisattva trying to save the intoxicated id from its own self-destructive tendencies.
Frankly, in my humble opinion, the negative use of ego smacks of cult dynamics, in particular, depersonalization. Indeed, there is a lot to be gained by depersonalizing students, and by the use of other brainwashing techniques if you are a Zen teacher whose authority comes by way of a certificate which, itself, rests on no actual authority since the Buddha never transmitted his teaching to a successor. Incidentally, the stories of having transmitted to a successor are apocryphal. Period. In point of fact, the Buddha in the Avatamsaka Sutra even said great disciples like Mahakasyapa “were not capable of perpetuating the lineage of Buddhas.” (One wonders how this particular section of the Gandavyuha chapter has gone unnoticed for so long?)
Turning to the Four Noble Truths, the cause of suffering is not the ego at all—nor the atman. In particular, the cause of suffering is craving the Five Aggregates which are not the self (anatma). In other words, it is craving that which is not our true self which causes suffering. This is not too far from Freud who saw the problem as being not with the ego but, instead, the id.
Is there a "true" self? How can "false" self crave that which is not true self, or anything at all, for that matter? If the false self is seen to be false, the craving is also seen to be false. Seen by whom or what? No-self. How is this possible? No idea. At some point, maybe every point, nothing makes sense. Literally. In a dualistic universe, without the ego (or sense of segregated self), there's no point, so ego is the "good guy". In reality, there is no problem at all, nor ego, nor suffering, nor pleasure, no cause, and no effect. Of course, this doesn't go over real well in most circles. (This isn't nihilism, as there is no self to annihilate. What is it then? Don't know, don't care. It just seemed like an interesting topic.) Vive l'ego!
Posted by: JC | July 22, 2009 at 08:51 PM
Modern Western society tends to confuse ego with narcissism (e.g. "He has a big ego"). Still, I think the basic idea of craving is expressed -- in this case, as represented by craving for identity through recognition, acquisition or validation.
I agree that many teachings suggest that "forgetting the self" is the way to free yourself from suffering. But I also think that this is an attempt to homogenize individual expression by reducing the "self" to a malady that must be "cured".
BTW my favorite quote from Freud -- who based nearly all his theories on the examination of a handful of neurotic Victorian-era women -- is "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar." ;)
Posted by: edmund66 | July 21, 2009 at 06:32 AM