Message #16728

[Swami Peevananda]

Visiting yoga forums over time, I have begun to notice what I consider to be a misconception about the term "ego". In some ways this is an unfortunate term because it is used in different schools of thought as well as in common parlance, and in each instance it has a slightly different usage.

In popular usage it has to do with arrogance or pride or big headedness. Or just anyone who is generally unpleasant. "He's so egotistical." I think this is how yoga people use the term a lot as well.

In psychology the term changes a little bit. In Freudian terms there is the id, the ego, and the superego. People who are heavily involved in a religion are, in Freudian terms "super egotists". The super ego is the part of the psyche that is associated wih conscience, moralism, and general concern for group opinions and authority figures.

From my studies in eastern thought, this is not what is mean by ego at all. Ego is nothing more than the individual sense of "I". As in, I am aware of myself. So I am the greatest man ever is no different from I am the greatest sinner. The latter might look more humble and inspire praise from others, but I fact they are both ego statements. So yoga people often comment on each others egos, as if one could have more ego or less ego. This is, however, only their misuse of the term. They are using the term in the common sense, and not the way it is used in eastern thought.

So, from my understanding, there are not degrees of ego. Either you have an "I" or you don't. To support my statements I will paraphrase from ramana maharshi.

 "There are not two minds. The mind is of one type. When the mind is under the influence of auspicious impressions it is called good, when the mind is under the influence of inauspicious impressions it is called bad."

Ramana then teaches that the Self is beyond all qualities.