ON THE EGO, OUR ENEMY AND TOO OFTEN OUR
CLOSEST FRIEND II
Rama P. Coomaraswamy, MD
"the ego is like the clown in the circus who is always putting in
his oar to make the audience think that whatever is happening is his
doing." [1]
Freud
The identity of the Ego and
the “I” or “self,” is assumed by both psychologists and spiritual writers. Yet
they clearly envision the role of the ego in diametrically opposite ways. Those
brought up within the Freudian tradition see the ego as the core of the human
person and are desirous of fostering “ego strength,” while spiritual writers of
all the major traditions see the ego as an inconstant and illusive entity,
which along with the psyche is the seat of pride and the other passions, and
advocate its subjection to the indwelling Spirit of Truth.
These contrasting attitudes
are grounded in philosophical differences.
Those imbued with modern psychological theories see the ego as “the
superficial portion of the id, or as the primitive infantile mind which develops
out of the id in response to stimulation from the infant’s physical and social
environment. It follows then that the ego is seen as equivalent to the self
and as such the individual’s conception of himself. The chief functions of
the ego are 1) reality testing, or learning to distinguish between self and
environment; and 2) mediating between
the demands of the id and the superego which embodies the critical and moral
aspects of the self.” Not all
psychologists place the “I” or “self” exclusively in the ego. The American
Psychoanalytic Association holds that the I or self is better defined as “the total person of an individual in
reality, including one’s body and psychic organization; one’s ‘own person’
as contrasted with ‘other persons’ or objects outside one’s self.”.Yet another
source describes the self as “a depth psychological concept referring to the
nuclear core of the personality... the center of initiative, the recipient of
impressions, and the depository of the individual’s constellation of nuclear
ambitions, ideals, talents and skills...” When however one searches the
psychiatric literature for clearer definitions one finds great confusion and
such is not surprising as the ego is a constantly vacillating entity. Yet, in
so far as one cannot directly explore either the id or superego, psychiatrists
are forced to deal with and work through the ego if they are to assist their
patients.
Modern psychiatry is limited
by its conscious or unconscious adherence to Descartian dualism, which
understands the total human person as consisting of body (res extensa)
and thinking (res cogitans).It follows that their views of the ego and
psyche are forced to fit within this framework. The traditional view of man
which prevailed throughout the ages and even today is accepted by the majority
of cultures, reject this duality and sees man’s nature as tripartite,
consisting of Body, Psyche (which includes the res cogitans), and
Spirit, though often Body and Psyche are considered as one psycho-physical
entity.[2] In this view there is a hierarchy in man which
requires that body and psyche (which includes our thinking and feeling
faculties - our egos)[3] be subordinate to the Spirit of Truth (also called
“the Image of God”) which dwells within every individual.[4] Those who deny the reality of this higher Spirit must
explain or explain away that inner sense which speaks to us of what is right
and wrong, true and false, real and unreal - the sense we all have within us
that it is wrong to wantonly kill or steal our neighbor’s goods. Both
evolutionary theories and hypotheses about the origins of the superego attempt
to do this.
B
This psycho-physical entity,
which is by its very nature in constant flux - our thoughts and feelings change
from moment to moment, as does indeed our physical bodies - is also referred to
by traditional writers as the “ego” or the lesser “self,” as distinct from our
true and stable greater “Self.” This ego, as Philo says, is the seat of grievous
and well-night incurable diseases, inflicted by pleasures and desires and
griefs and fears, by acts of covetousness, folly and injustice and the
countless host of other passions and vices.” (The Contemplative Life).
This lesser “self” or ego, with its desires and passions, constantly seeks to
function autonomously, and to rebel against any superior controlling Spirit.
This results in inner conflicts which not infrequently lead people to the
psychiatrist’s couch. Thus it is that St. Thomas Aquinas, teaches that “duo
sunt in homine,” that there are two
forces in man which two are frequently in conflict. As St. Paul said: “I do not
do the good that I want, but the evil I do not want is what I do. Now if I do
what I do not want, it is no longer I that do it, but sin dwells within me. So
I find it to be a law that when I want do right, evil lies close at hand. For I
delight in the law of God in my inmost Self, but I see in my members another
law at war with the law of my mind and making me a captive to the law of sin.”
(Romans 7:20-24). In similar manner the Qur’an states that there are two
in man - “one is a disbeliever and one a believer, and Allah is Seer of what ye
do.” Again, the Katha Upanishad speaks of these two, stating that “it is well
for him to takes the better,” and that “he fails of his purpose who chooses the
more pleasant.
If there are three components
to every human being, we are as it were forced to choose in which of the two -
or three - areas we wish to center our lives. Some choose the body in the sense
that any physical impulse is followed regardless of consequences. Most of us
choose to center our lives in the psyche where feelings, emotions and thoughts
take priority.[5] Few have the strength or desire to center their lives
in the Spirit, for to do so is to accept a life of constant warfare- the
struggle to live by Truth rather than by feelings and personal opinions. Such a
view is of course incomprehensible to those who believe there is nothing higher
in man than reason. It should be remembered that while the Truth is always
reasonable, reason alone cannot lead us to the Truth.[6]
Adam and Eve had no
psychological problems when in the Garden of Paradise. Made in the Image and
likeness of God, they were at peace with themselves. The faculties of their
souls were well ordered, which is to say that the Spirit of God directed the
psyche which in turn directed the body. With the Fall, they lost the likeness
but retained the Image; they were no longer centered in Truth, but in their
feelings and desires. Their “self will” led them to disobey the Divine
prohibition. We who have centered our lives in our egos are like fallen Adam.
We have lost the “likeness” and no longer conform ourselves to the interior
Image. If we would enter paradise - if we seek to find true happiness and
peace, we must engage in a Spiritual warfare aimed at getting this “likeness”
back.
It is in the light of what
has been said above that one can understand the different attitudes which
psychiatrists and spiritual directors have with regard to the ego. The
Psychiatrist seeks to penetrate, and to help his patient understand the forces
at play in the ego. Given his philosophical premises, he sees these as
biologically rooted and “normal, ” which can lead the patient to accept them
and hence to damn his soul with serenity.
The spiritual director, while recognizing these forces and the value of understanding them, at the same
time aims to lead his patient away from the psyche to the Spirit. Or more
specifically, he aims at centering his patient’s life in the Spirit rather than
in his ego. It is within this framework that he would also have the other
faculties of the soul such as the memory and the will, be subject to the Spirit
rather than to the whims and desires of the ego. With regard to the past he
admits its importance, for as both Freud and St. Thomas held, nothing happens
by chance. However, with regard to the past, his advise like Christ’s is to
“let the dead bury the dead.”
The ego, being subject to
feelings, desires and random thoughts is a very inconsistent entity. It, like
our bodies, is never the same today as it was yesterday Thus it follows that
one must not only understand that these “passions” afflict all of us, but even
more, that we must bring these them under control. In colloquial terms, we
“must get hold of ourself.” But under control of what? Clearly under control of
the Spirit which is our true “Self,” and the only part of us that truly
warrants to be called “I.” This can be described as transforming the ego, but
also as destroying the ego. Thus it is that in genuine meditation - not
meditation undertaken for the sake of feeling good - one must give up the
independence of the ego - the false idea that the ego is my real self. Avram
Davis’ commentary on Jewish meditative techniques is pertinent. “people often
equate meditation with a transelike state or with simple relaxation. Trance and
relaxation are splendid conditions, but generally speaking, Jewish meditation
is no so interested in inducing these alone. Meditation will indeed often
produce a relaxed state or lowered blood pressure, but these are not the
central reasons for meditation, since meditation is neither a drug nor
hypnosis. Instead, meditation is meant to transform us from a state of
ignorance to a state of wisdom, from a state of bondage (be it psychological or
personal) to a state of being free.” Teachers of true meditation “present
strategies to annihilate ego. This is an ultimate desire of the meditative
path, for herein lies the infinite bliss of God,” for, as Issachar Baer (an 18th
century Hassidic teacher) said, “the essence of serving God is to understand
that...you are simply a channel for the divine attributes... and that you have
no independent self.”[7] We must then be at war with this ego which claims for
itself an independent reality. The ego’s claim to independence results in
everyone deciding for themselves just what is true. It destroys the possibility
of absolute truth or any fixed code of morality. As one of the Jewish Fathers
said, to think that one’s ego is the source of truth or reality is the worst
kind of idolatry. In so far as we center our lives in the ego, we are all in
varying degrees egomaniacs. It is good to remember that an egomania occasioned
the fall of Lucifer who would be “like the most High” (Isa. 14:14), or
as Thomas Aquinas says, “by the virtue of his own nature.” (Summa 1.63.3c)
Similarly the Muslim Tabari described Lucifer as crying out: “Who is like me in
Heaven or Earth.” In so far as we persist in being egomaniacs, we become the
followers of Satan..The ego complex then is “Original sin,” or as the Vedantist
says, the cause of “ignorance.”. Satan’s claim to equality with God, is
equivalent to his assertion of the independence and self-subsistence of the
Ego. It is ultimately a Mortal or Deadly sin. The eating of the forbidden fruit
is an assimilation to and a self-identification with things as they are in
themselves, not as they are in God, therefore, a venom that is deadly from the
standpoint of eternal life, and one that closes to us the Gates of paradise.
The ego then is seen as an
enemy either to be overcome or tamed, and thus either an enemy or when tamed, a
friend. As Thomas Kempis said “there is no worse, and no more grievous enemy to
thy soul than thyself, if thine flesh be not well agreeing to the will of the
spirit.”(Imitation of Christ) All spiritual practice aims at overcoming
the ego’s independent influence in our lives. Asceticism or mortification, far
from being as sort of psychological escapism, is in fact hard work - perhaps
the hardest work anyone can undertake, for it involves curbing and killing love
of self in all its manifestations. Again, as St. Vincent de Paul said: "A
man's value is his prayers and the value of his prayers is that of his
self-denial."
Those who are excessively
attached to their egocentric self have no room for others to enter in. They
cannot sacrifice or love even on the purely human level, and indeed, in
divorce, it is this same self love often disguised as defense of one’s ego,
which usually plays a major role.. Those who feel called to the spiritual life
must even go beyond this and give up any attachment to their ego and any desire
to live in their lesser “selves.” Their goal must be to regain the Adamic
state, to regain that likeness which Adam lost by conforming themselves to the
Image of God which they bear within themselves, and thus to enter once again
into Paradise.
“it
is indeed a stern warfare in which two principles struggle for the mastery. It
is no jest: there must be determination to fight for the knightly garland, and
no man attains to it unless he be victorious. He must break the power of the
earthly will which, however, he is unable to do of his own might. But, if he
sink himself out of the earthly reason with his inner will into Christ’s death,
he will sink through Christ’s death, through God’s wrath, into the paradise
world, into the life of Christ, in spite of allo opposition of the devil. He
must make his will as it were dead; thus he will live to God and sink into Gods
love, while yet he lives in the outer kingdom.”
Jacob Boehme, On
the Incarnation of Jesus Christ.
ă R Coomaraswamy, 2001
[1] Freud, quoted in The Drive for Self by Ed.
Hoffman, Addison, Welsley, 1995
[2] I have avoided the word “soul” as the term is
ambiguous and may or may not include within its aegis the spirit. Hence there
is a soul which is to be saved, and another soul which is to be utterly
rejected.
[3] Those who adhere to what can be called the
tradition view of man reject the idea that our thoughts and our reason are at
the apex of our human nature. As Boethius said many years ago, the man who sees
himself as only a reasoning animal, has forgotten who [or what] he is.
[4] It is unfortunate that Descartes used the
term spiritual with regard to the res cogitans which goes to further
confuse the issue.
[5] “Our mind, preferring its own opinion to the
common and universal Logos, desires to use all for its own purposes and
enjoyment. A sort of mental fornication takes place, in which the mind
debauches and loses itself among a welter of. concepts and images which it
divides, multiplies, contracts, enlarges, orders, disarranges ad infinitum... a
decline into unreality and meaninglessness is inescapable....” Philip Sherrard,
Quoted by Alvin Moore in his review of Philip Sherrard’s book Christianity
[6] Reason is dependent upon premises and these
are in many cases subject to feelings and prejudices.
[7] Meditation
from the Heart of Judaism, ed. Avram Davis, Jewish Lights Publ., 1999 “the
aim of meditation is to break through the masks that deceive us, the lies that
hinder us, the ephemeral that depresses us....to actually experience the
divine.”