Do We Need the Ego? A Reflection on Self, Boundaries, and Emptiness 

What if the ego isn’t the enemy?  

I assume that’s a question that most people would never think to ask, but those of us who have, or are, studying Buddhism might have heard phrases like “you need to crush you ego”. The Buddha said that the root of suffering is ignorance of our true self, and that’s often translated as the ego being the root of suffering. But the more I sit with this, and the more my understanding of Jungian psychology grows, the more I wonder if Buddhists are misunderstanding what the ego really is?  And is the word ‘ego’ the right word for what the Buddha meant?

Watch the video or read on for my reflection. The written form includes some points that aren’t in the video.

Common Belief: The Ego as the Villain  

For many of us, the word “ego” carries a lot of baggage, even without the Buddhist viewpoint. We think of it as arrogance, self-importance, or that inflated sense of self that makes someone unbearable to be around. And in spiritual teachings, the ego is seen as something to be eradicated, a false construct that keeps us trapped in illusion.  

In Buddhism the word ego is described as meaning ‘a false sense of self’ —something that doesn’t exist in the singular, independent and permanent way that we tend to think it does. And the cause of suffering is clinging to this false self. We act to protect it and provide for its desires, and in so doing we create suffering for ourselves and others. Hence to avoid suffering we need to know who we really are and act from that, not from this false idea of who we are. 

I find that all quite logical, but I question the use of the word ‘ego’ to describe this false sense of self. It seems to me that that word brings in a lot of confusion, and it can lead to what I’d call “ego bashing,” where the goal seems to be to strip away any sense of self entirely.  

And here’s the thing: Without a sense of self, how do we navigate the world? How do we set boundaries, make decisions, or protect ourselves from harm?  

Reframe: The Ego as a Vital Tool  

What if the problem isn’t the ego itself, but our misunderstanding of it?  

In Jungian psychology – where the modern understanding of the word ‘ego’ comes from –  the ego is the part of the mind that mediates between our conscious and unconscious selves. It’s responsible for reality testing and gives us a basic sense of self, a sense that we exist. In this sense, the ego isn’t some villain to be vanquished—it’s a vital tool. It helps us make ethical decisions, set boundaries, and engage with the world in a healthy way.  

Jungian psychology also recognises a false sense of self, but this is not the ego, it’s the persona. Our persona is not our self; it’s essentially a social mask, and we can have more than one adapted for different circumstances. Even personas are seen as necessary sometimes – for instance we probably have a work persona, and so long as we know it’s a construct for a specific purpose and not us in our entirety and we can drop it outside of the times when we need it, it’s no problem. 

In the Jungian view of self, a psychologically healthy person not only doesn’t mistake the persona for the self, they also don’t mistake the ego for the self – it’s only a function of it, just one part, and it plays a necessary role in our lives. There is no good reason in this view for thinking one should abandon or destroy the ego. There is simply a need to recognise it for what it is and not mistake it for our whole self.

But isn’t this very close to the actual meaning of the teaching on ego in Buddhism? Not that the ego should be destroyed, but that we need to realise its true nature. Once we realise that it isn’t inherently existent, we realise egolessness. But what we ‘destroy’ isn’t the ego itself, but our attachment to it as a solid, independent, permanent ‘thing’. On the ultimate, or quantum, level of reality it doesn’t exit, but at the same time it does exist in a functional sense. It’s what allows us to operate in the world.  

When Ego Bashing Goes Too Far  

I’ve seen what happens when the teachings on abandoning our attachment to ego are subtly misunderstood to mean “abandoning the ego” itself. This can be taken to such an extreme that we lose our sense of self entirely. In our effort to follow the instructions of a teacher we trust, we stop setting boundaries, leave our common sense at the temple door, and even hand over our autonomy to a teacher.  

This creates a dangerous dynamic. Without a healthy sense of self, we become vulnerable to manipulation and abuse. And for those in positions of power, it’s all too easy to exploit students they’ve taught to suppress their ego at all costs. Fostering that kind of belief is one of the the marks of a destructive cult.

But I’m pretty sure this isn’t what the teachings are meant to do because what you end up with is someone who, instead of looking inwards to discover their own Buddha nature, are looking outwards, expecting to find it through servitude to someone else. The teaching on the futility of seeking the elephant in the forest when it is already at home in our living room is a warning against this.

As I understand it, the teachings on egolessness are not about destroying or erasing our basic sense of self as it operates in the material world; they’re about understanding the true nature of our ego self. When we realise the true nature of ego, our attachment to it naturally drops away because there is no ‘it’ to be attached to – even while it still functions as a necessary part of our ability to navigate life.

In fact as I see it, the whole idea of crushing the ego indicates a misunderstanding of its true nature, because that idea depends on thinking that there’s something to crush. You can’t crush something that isn’t solid to start with. In fact, by looking for something to crush, you may be solidifying it. 

What I’ve Come to Understand 

Here are a few things I’ve come to understand about the ego:  

• The ego isn’t inherently bad; it’s our sense of self and a tool for navigating the world.  
• A healthy ego sets boundaries, protects us from harm and is our ethical barometer.
• The problem isn’t the ego itself, but our attachment to it as a permanent, independent, singular self that we think is ‘me’.
• In Buddhism, the teaching on egolessness doesn’t require us to actually destroy the ego, but to realise its true nature, and drop our attachment to it.
• We need the ego to function in the world, but we also need to see through the illusion of its solidity.  

Why This Matters  

This matters because it’s about balance. It’s about holding two truths at once: that the ego doesn’t exist in the way we think it does, and that it’s still necessary for living in the world.  

When we understand this, we don’t feel the need to inflate our sense of self or protect it at all costs. We can let go of the fear that drives much of our ego-driven behaviour. At the same time, we can maintain a healthy sense of self that allows us to set boundaries, make ethical decisions, and engage with the world in a meaningful way.  

But it’s hard to retain a healthy sense of self and develop the ability to hold the two truths at once when we’re in a community led by a teacher who tells us to ‘crush’ our ego – as if it’s something solid we can fight against and defeat – and who insists that having no boundaries in complete subservience to them is the same as – or a path to – recognising the boundless nature of mind and reality. It’s really not.

That kind of ‘teaching’ is psychologically unhealthy for the student – it leads to a collapse of their sense of self-worth and negates their ability to make ethical decisions – but it’s great for a teacher who wants willing slaves who won’t complain if he abuses them. So who does this angle on these teachings serve?

For me that kind of angle on the teachings on egolessness means it time to find a better teacher, one who doesn’t solidify ego by making it into an enemy.

What’s the Real Question?

So maybe the question isn’t, “How do I get rid of my ego?” but rather, “What is the true nature of my ego?”  

What would it look like to hold your sense of self lightly—to see it as both real and not real, necessary but not solid?  

I don’t have all the answers, but I think it’s worth exploring. After all, we’re not here to destroy ourselves or be manipulated by someone else. We’re here to understand, to realize, and to embrace the paradox of being human.