Escaping life with your ego intact

You would think that a Buddhist would kind of have his ego in check, and philosophically, I suppose I do. I know what the ego is from any number of perspectives ranging from the Freudian to the Nietzschian, having used that knowledge to argue my way to victory in many battles of rhetoric and wit.

But therein lies the problem, as my labeling and subsequent disregard for the ever-lurking beast has bitten me on my rhetorical butt. See, once you pretend that you know exactly what the ego is, when you pretend that you have it completely neutralized, that’s the moment when your own ego goes into cruise-control. That’s why those who seek to make themselves humble servants or martyrs to a cause tend to have the most hubris of all.

It always starts innocently enough. I am on the side of right and reason. You are on the side of piddly squabbling. I possess knowledge of something greater. You poor child. And maybe for a while, that’s exactly true. But then at some point, something snaps. That cruise control button gets pushed. A metamorphosis occurs.

My time is important. Your time is not. I am doing something vital and great. You are all wrapped up in petty concerns.

In Taoism, duality begets duality. From the chaos, there arose Yin and Yang. Yin and Yang divided into the elements, which further divided such that there are things of all shapes and sizes in this world. And it’s no surprise that the Bible tells a similar story: “And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness” (Genesis 1.4). Humanity revels in its own divisiveness; we like to categorize things. It’s just easier to fight the name.

Gottlob Frege spoke of the “sense” and “reference” of words (German, being the superior language for philosophy and industrial rock, used the words sinn and bedeutung). The “reference” was what was being referred to, the connotation. The “sense,” on the other hand, was the “cognitive significance” of something, what it really meant. Sometimes, I feel that we as humans, caught up in the innovation and utter chic-ness of our mode of communication, like to divide ourselves along the lines of reference rather than digging deeper into the sense.

“Jealousy” is what you are doing. “Selflessness” is what I am doing. So the ego-stroking continues.

But you can see what it does. All these senses and references flying around, all these labels and names, all these egos, they divide the lightness from the dark, but they don’t stop there. The divisions continue on and on, separating us from one another. That is the legacy of the Tower of Babel. The result of Yin’s estrangement from Yang. It is the resounding statement of atman (the Buddhist ego, a non-existent illusion) against atman causing delusion and misery.

My contribution to this divided state has been immense, and I intend to end it here. I think the first step to that long road is reflection, to look into the depths of our spirits, not like Narcissus enthralled with his image, but more like…more like…Simba (yes, Simba), who upon truly seeing himself also saw the oneness of all things (and James Earl Jones). When we let our egos go, we can see eye to eye—Yin and Yang can finally be one.

Follow Rafiki, he know the way.

Sunday, January 14th, 2007 : Philosophy : 1 Comment

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.