It's the id stupid, not the ego
I vote that the word "ego" (and this implies non-ego) be taken out of the English lexicon (yeah, right— it ain't gonna happen dude). Cults use it not to mention Dharma centers which are more or less cult-like enterprises. (The term "ego" has so many definitions it's worthless.)
Go to YouTube. There are plenty of non-ego pontiffs and Godmen trying to market their non-ego philosophies—and for a good reason. Let's face it, the modern concept of ego only serves to hide the real problem we face. That problem is the id which Freud said is "untamed passions." From a Buddhist perspective our biggest untamed passion is clinging to the psychophysical body (the five Mara aggregates) wanting to use our psycho-physical body for a pleasure giving machine. Thank goodness in Buddhism the Western notion of ego is absent. What we have is this:
To think 'etam mama' (this is mine) is to be in the grip of craving.
To think 'eso aham asmi' (I am this) is to be in the grip of pride.
To think 'eso me attâ' (this is my self) is to be in the grip of wrong view.
This triad is generally connected with the Five Aggregates which are always synonymous with suffering. We can never attain nirvana or the same, liberation, by regarding the aggregates that make up our psychophysical body as this is mine, I am this, and this is my self. But we do—it's the modern way—and we do so by a variety of clever and self-deluding means.
We refuse to accept the limits of our the psychophysical existence. By not really accepting the inevitable suffering of our psychophysical organism which includes its impermanence, we set ourselves up for more samsara. This is not the fault of the ego which Freud says represents reason and circumspection—it's the problem with our id. We want to indulge in the flesh. The psychophysical body is our pleasure giving machine until it craps out.
Comments
Post a Comment