I want to point out something about the word `
ego.' This word is from the Latin (I'm sure we all know that), meaning simply
`I,' or
`I myself.' And the pronoun
`I,' like the word
ego, brings several things to mind for all of us.
Among these, we should not forget the Biblical account of God's answer to Moses, when the latter inquires about God's Identity. God simply replies,
"Tell them I AM sent you."
Sometimes we also see God's response translated as
`I am THAT I am,' and in the East, sages would once ask their disciples, "Kas twam asi?" (Who are you?), to which the reply was, "Tat tvam asi" (Thou art THAT).
I also wanted to mention that modern psychology did
not originate the term
`ego,' but only popularized its usage ... as part of Freud's breakdown of the
psyche, connotating roughly the
conscious mind.
Buddhism, too, has contributed to our understanding of
the ego, in pointing out that
like all else, the mortal, individual self is
transitory. Our
ego, in other words, is certainly NOT our
Real Self, if indeed there is one.
In the teachings of Occultism, more specifically 19th Century Theosophical teachings
(The Voice of the Silence, presented by H.P. Blavatsky
), we come across the statement,
"The mind is the great slayer of the Real. Let the disciple slay the slayer." The word `mind' here equates with the
misleading power of ego of Buddhist or Hindu teachings ... the
false self, which tries to pass itself off as our true nature. Thus, a modern rewrite of HPB's
Voice of the Silence might well read:
"The EGO is the great slayer of the Real."
But the term
ego was around
long before it was borrowed by Freud and his peers, and used to designate our
conscious, LOWER mind (or
lesser self, in one of its three aspects). Theosophists used this word in a more neutral sense, but also tended to equate it with our SOUL, the
Immortal, Spiritual aspect of our nature (though technically the
middle principles, and not
the Highest).
In H.P. Blavatsky's
The Secret Doctrine, published 1888, we find the following commentary on the
nature of the Spiritual Ego (or `Higher Self,' as it was called a full
Century before the
`New Age' spiritualities of today) ... under a section on the
`Creation of the First Races' of Humanity.
The Sanskrit terminology may be unfamiliar to some readers, but the key point that
Ego has to do with
MIND (or
Intellect) can nevertheless be intuitively understood by everyone.
ON THE IDENTITY AND DIFFERENCES OF THE INCARNATING POWERS.
THE Progenitors of Man, called in India "Fathers," Pitara or Pitris, are the creators of our bodies and lower principles. They are ourselves, as the first personalities, and we are they. Primeval man would be "the bone of their bone and the flesh of their flesh," if they had body and flesh. As stated, they were "lunar Beings."
The Endowers of man with his conscious, immortal EGO, are the "Solar Angels" -- whether so regarded metaphorically or literally. The mysteries of the Conscious EGO or human Soul are great. The esoteric name of these "Solar Angels" is, literally, the "Lords" (Nath) of "persevering ceaseless devotion" (pranidhana). Therefore they of the fifth principle (Manas) seem to be connected with, or to have originated the system of the Yogis who make of pranidhana their fifth observance (see Yoga Shastra, II., 32.) It has already been explained why the trans-Himalayan Occultists regard them as evidently identical with those who in India are termed Kumaras, Agnishwattas, and the Barhishads.
How precise and true is Plato's expression, how profound and philosophical his remark on the (human) soul or EGO, when he defined it as "a compound of the same and the other." And yet how little this hint has been understood, since the world took it to mean that the soul was the breath of God, of Jehovah. It is "the same and the other," as the great Initiate-Philosopher said; for the EGO (the "Higher Self" when merged with and in the Divine Monad) is Man, and yet the same as the "OTHER," the Angel in him incarnated, as the same with the universal MAHAT. The great classics and philosophers felt this truth, when saying that "there must be something within us which produces our thoughts. Something very subtle; it is a breath; it is fire; it is ether; it is quintessence; it is a slender likeness; it is an intellection; it is a number; it is harmony. . . . . "(Voltaire).
All these are the Manasam and Rajasas: the Kumaras, Asuras, and other rulers and Pitris, who incarnated in the Third Race [Lemuria, 18 million years ago & hence], and in this and various other ways endowed mankind with Mind.
-- The Secret Doctrine, Vol. 2, Pages 88-89.
Another excerpt, from an
Online Theosophical Glossary (Purucker's), may be even clearer in explaining for us something of the significance of
ego, both as our Higher, or
Intellectual/Spiritual Principle (which is Immortal in
every case), as well as the lesser, mortal reflection ... the
ego of modern psychology and Buddhist teachings.
Egoity I-am-I-ness, ahamkara; human egoity is dual, but egoity really should mean individuality, not personality. The characteristic or swabhava of individuality is egoity or the essential root of I-am-I-ness, while the characteristic or swabhava of the personality is egoism, the faint shadow of egoity drunken with the sense of its own exclusive importance in the world. Further, both egoity and egoism are sharply distinguished from essential selfhood; paradoxically, the stronger the idea of essential selfhood in the human being, the less is there of egoity, and the least there is of egoism, for even egoity is a reflection, albeit high, of spiritual selfhood, which recognizes its oneness with the All. Thus ego is defined as I-am-I, consciousness recognizing its own mayavi existence as a separate entity, hence often called reflected consciousness. Essential selfhood is the characteristic of atman in the human constitution; egoity arises in the conjunction of atma-buddhi with manas; whereas personality or egoism is the faint reflection of the latter working in and through the lower manas, kama, and prana.
And to show that the term
`ego' was indeed around well before psychology seized ahold of it, here is the list of references from the Index of HPB's
1888 The Secret Doctrine:
Ego(s).
See also Higher Self, Self, Spiritual Egos
aroma of all births clings to II 632n
cognizes itself II 241
creation of, by ideation I 329n
divine I 309, 445; II 548
divine reaches, thru buddhi I xix
early races had no II 183, 610
effort of, to be free of senses II 587
evolved fr spiritual beings I 282
first differentiated, archangels II 242
gods are conscious spiritual I 632
hierarchies of intelligent, nature of I 629
higher self the real I 445
human, is higher manas II 79
human, latent in sleep I 429
karmic, of Gnostics II 604-5
limitations of personal I 329-30
Logos & Adversary reflected in II 162
lower, has upper hand II 109-10
Manu the non-dying I 248
monad becomes personal I 245
must experience on all planes I 329-30
not separate fr universal ego I 130-1
Plato's definition of II 88
progresses thru effort I 17
progressive awakenings of I 40
real immortal II 241
reincarnating, & sterility II 780
self-conscious, organizing principle II 654
Self parent source of I 129
shape of vehicle in other rounds II 289n
strung like beads on sutratman II 79, 513
Subba Row on I 428
Egoism, Egoship, Egotism I 535
absorbed by buddhi I xix
ahamkara and/or I 197, 452; II 614
buddhi & I xix
I-am-ness or II 419-20
leads to error I 536n
Mahat & I 75; II 614
monads have no sense of I 275
mortal man moved by II 422
our globe in state of I 260
self-consciousness I 334, 335n
Clearly, the terms
egoism, egotism and probably
egotistical have been around for quite some time, yet it is worth pointing out that in the popular consciousness, a greater awareness of
the Spiritual EGO as our `true self,' or Immortal SOUL ... still needs a little
work.
