The Exorcist-Burying The Ego-Part II

Add as a preferred source on Google

We have to put aside the fears that were discussed in the last chapter and tackle the ego if a new life is to dawn, if life is to be lived in all its fullness. It is on the truly courageous, the 'dhiras', who can be the heirs to spiritual freedom. What does tackling the 'ego' imply and how is one to go about it? Wrongly laying the blame at the door of the possessions many have wasted long years in vain.

Kings have renounced their kingdoms and retired to forests. People have resigned their jobs for the search of truth. Householders have left their families in the lurch. Some have donned the ochre robe. The hope of being free of ego is the motivation. But where has it led them? Is one handling the ego problem by these acts? An ardent devotee, Bose, suddenly took to sannyasa and came to Ramana. Ramana told him “When you were young you said, 'I am a student', next 'I am a married man', now 'I am a sannyasi'. It is useless to change the attribute when the subject remains intact. What you have to renounce is the 'I'". “The crux of the problem is to tackle the possessor, as the things he possesses are ad-on's. So long as the true nature of individuality is not understood, the problem is not even faced".

Ramana narrated a story from 'Yoga-Vasista' to Paul Brunton to emphasize this point. An elephant was being constantly teased by its keeper. Once the keeper accidentally fell in front of the elephant which could have easily trampled its tormentor under its feet. Instead of doing so, it allowed him to escape out of misplaced sympathy. The keeper later dug a pit for the elephant in the forest and killed it. The tormentor, the ego, should be trampled straightaway through the power of self-enquiry backed by strong vairagya, in the same way as the elephant should have killed its mahout when the opportunity arose.

Perhaps this accounts for the failure of many mental methods of dealing with the ego problem. It is generally believed that if one is constantly humiliated, constantly loaded with insults, constantly humbled, constantly made a door-mat, this would rid the person of the ego. It is believed that his ego would thereafter be well and truly tamed. Does it work out this way? If things take a different turn, will this meekness superimposed by circumstances last? The pseudo humility would be just a fleeting phenomenon. There are advocates of the opposite method too. It is said that the best counter would be to sublimate the ego or turn it towards God. Here again sustaining the God-ward turn of the ego is circumstantial, dependent on situations and there is no guarantee that the ego would not be polluted again by worldliness.

Bhagavan would relate the story of a person who carried a bitter gourd during his pilgrimage throughout India. He dipped it in the various sacred rivers. But was it possible to rid it of its basic bitterness? Similarly, the purity of the ego cannot be sustained for delusion is ready in the wings, waiting to catch up. For that matter methods which aim at pruning or trimming the ego are bound to fail because of the faulty assumptions on which they are based.

Where does the fault lie? What is the mistake in this approach? Such methods proceed on the assumption that the ego is real or that it is a separate entity which can be dealt with. Herein lies the beauty of Ramana's solution.