7 Ego and Ahaṁkāra: Self and Identity in Modern Psychology and Indian Thought

7 Ego and ahaṁkāra: Self and identity in modern psychology and Indian thought K. Kiran Kumar Salagame ‘Know thy self’ and ‘ko’ham’ (who am I?) probably epitomize the Western and Indian approaches to the problem of human identity from ancient times. While the dictum, ‘know thy self’, is an injunction from the ‘other’, ko’ham, is an inquiry from ‘within’. Though both of them aim at realizing the nature of one’s true identity, they may be considered as representing the second person and first person or objective and subjective perspectives, and have formed the foundations of two different types of self—psychologies offering different perspectives on human nature per se. Ego and ahaṁkāra are representative concepts from Western and Indian traditions, which refer to human identity at a psychological level. They have been used synonymously and often ahaṁkāra is translated as ego. However, there are certain conceptual similarities and dissimilarities between the two. The purpose of this chapter is to examine these two concepts and their implications for human development and well-being. In contemporary psychological discourse, the formulations related to psychological functioning in almost all domains are ego-centred. For example, psychodynamic theory uses a language that is replete with terms such as ‘ego- strength’, ‘ego-weakness’, ‘ego-boundary’, ‘ego-loss’, ‘strengthening of ego’ and ‘ego-functions’. Similarly, Piaget, in his theory of cognitive development, iden- tified ‘egocentrism’ as one of the characteristics of the stage of pre-operational thinking. Egocentrism is difficulty in seeing the world from another’s outlook. ‘Ego resilience’ is another concept recently used in life span developmental context, which refers to ‘powerful personality resource that enables people to handle midlife changes’ (Kail & Cavanaugh, 2004, p. 514). Similarly, the goals of psychotherapy are conceptualized as ‘promoting auton- omy’, ‘enhancing self-esteem’, ‘increasing self-regulation’, ‘achieving self-efficacy’, ‘facilitating self-actualization’, and so on. It is observed that in general, the Western conception of the self is of an individual who is separate, autonomous and atomized (that is, made up of a set of discrete traits, abilities, values and motives), seeking separateness and independence from others (Markus & Kitayama, 1991). 1-7-KiranKumar.indd 134 30/07/10 4:28 Ego and ahaṁkāra: Self and identity in modern psychology and Indian thought 135 Prevalence of ego related constructs in modern psychology can be under- stood, both as a cultural phenomenon and as a matter of the range and depth of human consciousness studied. As a cultural phenomenon, these constructs gain importance because the psychological theories and methods developed in the West in general, and in the United States in particular, adopted the individual as the basic unit of analysis, affirming the individualistic bias of Western culture (Kim & Berry, 1993). Berry et al. (1992) observe that the notion that a person is a bounded individual has been central to the discipline of psychology in general, and to personality psychology in particular (Much, 1995). Since psychodynamic and other theories are rooted in Western culture, the formulations of psychopa- thology and therapy as well as the mental health profession per se, are guided by the Western ethos. The Western view of the relation between ego and consciousness is spelt out clearly by Carl Jung, who does not admit consciousness without ego at its centre (Jung, 1971). The Indian tradition agrees that in the ordinary waking state the ego seems to be the centre of one’s consciousness, but it does not limit consciousness to the ordinary waking state. It considers the ego too limited a construct to encom- pass the entire range of consciousness and human identity, and asserts that there also exists a type of pure consciousness, beyond all the dualities, called cetanā in its awareness aspect, and caitanya in its energy aspect. It is in this pure consciousness that it locates the real/true identity of a person, his puruṣa. From this perspective, the altered states of consciousness can be considered more appropriately as altered states of mind, pure consciousness being the substratum which remains change- less (Salagame, 1988). The distinction between pure consciousness and mind is crucial in the Indian tradition and has far-reaching implications for understanding human self and identity. It is only in the last four decades, with the emergence of transpersonal psychology, that Western researchers have paid attention to the distinction between pure consciousness and mind, and the corresponding identity sense. In Eastern cultures the conception of a transcendental ‘Self’ is more prevalent than in West- ern cultures. It should be noted that Abraham Maslow in his last days recognized that human beings have a ‘need for transcendence’ and spoke of ‘Being-Needs’ (or ‘B-Needs’ for short), ‘Meta-Needs’ and ‘meta-motivations’ (Maslow, 1971). He was responsible for the establishment of Transpersonal Psychology. Transpersonal psychology emphasizes the spiritual dimension of human nature. It considers man as divine and spiritual in addition to being an animal and uniquely human. Sigmund Freud, a physician by profession, boldly postulated a theory of unconscious mental process out of necessity to account for certain disorders. In a similar way, some Western psychologists and psychiatrists took the bold step of establishing Transpersonal Psychology (Sutich, 1969; Tart, 1975) and Transpersonal Psychiatry and Psychotherapy (Cortright, 1997; Scotton, Chinen & Battista, 1996) when they encountered ‘peak experiences’ and altered state phenomena. Within the discipline of psychology, psychoanalysis and transpersonal perspectives may be considered as marking a distinct shift from body to mind, 1-7-KiranKumar.indd 135 30/07/10 4:28 136 K. Kiran Kumar Salagame and from mind to spirit. They have turned towards Eastern traditions, such as Buddhism and Hinduism, in their attempt to formulate new theories and models. Thus psychology has completed a full circle, recovering the soul/spirit that was lost on its way (Salagame, 2006). Identity and self in Indian thought The Indian perspective views human beings as bio-psycho-social-spiritual organ- isms. Hence, there are many concepts related to identity and self, referring to different aspects. Among them are: ātman, puruṣa, jīva, dehī, kṣetrajña, ahaṁkāra, ahambhāva, asmitā, jñātā, bhoktā, and kartā, which are used in different contexts with specific meaning and significance. They represent transcendental, empirical (physical) and psychosocial dimensions of human nature. On the transcendental level, identity refers to ātman in Vedānta and puruṣa in Sāṁkhya. Since the Upaniṣads declare that the transcendent Self, ātman, is iden- tical with the highest principle of the universe, brahman, (ayam ātmā brahma), the Upaniṣads also declare that this self is brahman or ‘I am Brahman’ (ahaṃ brahmāsmi). The notion of a transcendent Self, ātman, requires further elaboration because it is said to be beyond the distinction of subject-object. Viewed in this context, transcendence is really not an ‘experience’ in the ordinary sense because, transcendence implies no experiencer or experienced. The transcendent state of consciousness, if it can be called a state at all, is itself called Self, ātman. Hence, the idea of self here is not the same as the idea of self-sense on the empirical level or its psychological referent, and it is cogently articulated in Māṇḍūkya Upaniṣad as follows: The Fourth (turīya), the wise say, is not inwardly cognitive, nor outwardly cognitive, nor cognitive both-wise; neither is it an indefinite mass of cognition, nor collective cognition, nor non-cognition. It is unseen, unrelated, inconceivable, un-inferable, unimaginable, indescribable. It is the essence of the one self-cognition common to all states of consciousness. All phenomena cease in it. It is peace. It is bliss, it is non-duality. This is the Self, and it is to be realized (MU, 7, Trans. Swami Sarvananda, 1976). Thus turīya or the so-called fourth state of consciousness, vis-à-vis the other three—jāgrat (waking), svapna (dream) and suṣupti (deep sleep)—is the substratum of all phenomenal experience, irrespective of the state. Hence, as one follower of Vedānta put it (personal communication), turīya is the original condition and the real state; and all other phenomenal states of consciousness, including waking, are altered states from the Upaniṣadic point of view (Salagame, 1988). Thus, turīya is the ‘ground’ of awareness, on which waking, dream, deep sleep, and other experiences happen with a ‘subject-object/self-other’ duality as ‘figure’. Therefore, turīya was considered as the essence of the one self-cognition common to all the other states, and was regarded as the Self to be realized—sa ātmā sa vijñeyaḥ. This ‘subject/self’ of phenomenal experience is termed as jīva or dehin in the 1-7-KiranKumar.indd 136 30/07/10 4:28 Ego and ahaṁkāra: Self and identity in modern psychology and Indian thought 137 Indian tradition, and they are incorporated into the linguistic structures of many regions. The person who undergoes the cycle of birth and death is jīva and it is at empirical plane. It is also referred to as dehī in the Bhagavad Gītā (II. 22). vāsāṁsi jīrṇāni yathā vihāya navāni gṛhṇāti naroparāṇi | tathā śarīrāṇi vihāya jīrṇānyanyāni saṁyāti navāni dehī || Just as a human being casts off worn-out clothes and takes

Load more