Ego is not a dirty word.

[swilow]

Hello,

This is something I have pondered for many moons; why do people seemingly reject the ego? And, for many moons before that, why do so many people get caught up in the hateful trance of the ego?

I even had the audacity to think that egoism is delusion, or blind arrogance.

I've started to see that rejecting the ego structure is actually a defense engineered by the ego structure itself. It seems to comfort humanity to hate itself. I don't understand that at all. I also have very little feeling left in regards to the nature of humanity, except to embrace the parts I know and am..

I don't like the negative connotations of words like nihilism, moral relativism, existentialism, ect. But I defintely see that these qualities are rejected in fear of the ego, in fear that giving in to ones self is likely to cause unhappiness- unhappinness is also a facade or state of the ego. My dislike of these terms won't stop me from using them....

Obviously, paying to much attention to any state or structrure/artefact of mind is unwise, but in many ways, all states of mind are related (by the common bond of the mind), and each have both equal value and valueless-ness. If one gets caught up in a desire to seem powerful in the minds of others, that often leads to a fall; its unattainable. However, if one gets caught up in the desire to be powerful in their own minds- that is good; you are using your own perceptive powers to work the ego structure into a desireable state; it could be said that a desireable state is illusory, but then, every mental state could be seen that way.

Hmm, I am unsure if I've conveyed anything here:

Because I cannot grasp the moon, is it therefore sacred to me, an Astarte? If I could only grasp you, I surely would, and, if I could only find a means to get up to you, you shall not frighten me! You inapprehensible one, you shall remain inapprehensible to me only until I have acquired the might for apprehension and call you my own; I do not give myself up before you, but only bide my time. Even if for the present I put up with my inability to touch you, I yet remember it against you.

– Max Stirner, The Ego and Its Own

Perhaps a more brutal approach then my own thoughts, but- Max Stirner writes some interesting stuff.

Hating the ego is like tying an unending knot....

 

[beagleboy]

if one gets caught up in the desire to be powerful in their own minds- that is good; you are using your own perceptive powers to work the ego structure into a desireable state; it could be said that a desireable state is illusory, but then, every mental state could be seen that way.

I think thats something that aligns itself in the context of a relationship. If you actually have a relationship where status, power, rank, competativeness, pushing your group(s) ahead is the atmosphere, then in comes respect and the welcoming of talent for all to see.
Groups like the Military, Corporations and Government have a structure that resembles what I've just said. I know that some communication formats to express a persons ego are through storytelling and game type communication (where he's going, how talented he's proven himself to be in a competative environment and inside the context of agreement another person is allowed to express another persons ego creatively)

 

[being]

The ego (mind) is a part of humans. It's a tool meant for solving all kinds of different problems, which would increase our survival chance.

The misery comes, when one starts identifying oneself with its ego - all kinds of reoccurring thoughts of how something should or should not be related to this illusory sense of self. It is called desire.

Desire takes us away from the present moment, because we want something, that is not here in this moment (in the future or was in the past). And this desiring causes us suffering, because you can't feel good, when you want something, that is not there.

The only moment that ever really exists is this moment. And the only moment, in which humans can feel real contentment is this moment. But it's hard to feel it, if we are inside of these never-ending thought processes about past and future - never fully aware of the present moment. Time is created by our mind (ego). If there were no humans on this planet, would time be relevant?

The ego is insatiable. No ego attainment can ever make you feel long lasting satisfaction. For example 'you become' this or that and once you have arrived at this goal, you will start looking for another one to go for. Never feeling real peace, but just some glimpses of ego satisfactions.


I myself too at first thought I would like to 'kill my ego', when I was first introduced to these concepts, but over time I became understanding, that I don't want to kill my ego, but just give up my identification with it and use it only as a tool, not let the tool rule over 'me'.

The wise uses of this tool are never selfish.

A quote by Dalai Lama:
"If you try to subdue your selfish motives — anger and so forth — and develop more kindness and compassion for others, ultimately you yourself will benefit more than you would otherwise. So sometimes I say that the wise selfish person should practice this way. Foolish selfish people are always thinking of themselves, and the result is negative. Wise selfish people think of others, help others as much as they can, and the result is that they too receive benefit."

 

[swilow]

Desire takes us away from the present moment, because we want something, that is not here in this moment (in the future or was in the past). And this desiring causes us suffering, because you can't feel good, when you want something, that is not there.

I know what you are saying, and I've thought the same thing. But- if I examine the notion of desire, I can't see how it truly inteferes with happiness. I believe you can feel good/at peace even when you are seeking something you don't have. An attempt to emancipate oneself from that desire is still desire, however shrouded. Its a virtually impossible thing to do. It may as well be used- wisely though.

The only moment that ever really exists is this moment. And the only moment, in which humans can feel real contentment is this moment.

That answers its own riddle; the only moment being Now, the only attainable contentment also being Now. Thus, peace should be definite and unwavering, because it is bound by only one moment; the eternal moment of Now.

But its not that simple.

I find it hard to process the idea that the present is the only thing that matters; it makes a certain logical sense, but believing that is to put faith in something which changes constantly (through the passage of time/entropy/etc.) If peace can only be said to exist in something which is always changing, then peace cannot really exist.

But it's hard to feel it, if we are inside of these never-ending thought processes about past and future - never fully aware of the present moment. Time is created by our mind (ego). If there were no humans on this planet, would time be relevant?

The idea of the present moment is still a very small unit of ever moving time. If time is created by the mind, so is the measurement of time that we refer to as the present moment.

Time is more then a human construct; as mentioned above, the idea of entropy suggests that time is truly a physical component of the universe. Human time, or clock time, is illusory though.

The ego is insatiable. No ego attainment can ever make you feel long lasting satisfaction. For example 'you become' this or that and once you have arrived at this goal, you will start looking for another one to go for. Never feeling real peace, but just some glimpses of ego satisfactions.

I think that one needs to accept both the baser egoic satisfactions as well as the grander, longer lasting pleasures. There needn't be a duality between basic pleasaure (ie. sex, drugs, food, sensory stimulation) and the higher forms of happiness (inner peace, wisdom, compassion, empathy, etc.). They form a continuum, and should be used by all at will.

I myself too at first thought I would like to 'kill my ego', when I was first introduced to these concepts, but over time I became understanding, that I don't want to kill my ego, but just give up my identification with it and use it only as a tool, not let the tool rule over 'me'.

The wise uses of this tool are never selfish.

That is true. One can identify with all aspects of themselves. In fact, its almost absurd not too.

A quote by Dalai Lama:
"If you try to subdue your selfish motives — anger and so forth — and develop more kindness and compassion for others, ultimately you yourself will benefit more than you would otherwise. So sometimes I say that the wise selfish person should practice this way. Foolish selfish people are always thinking of themselves, and the result is negative. Wise selfish people think of others, help others as much as they can, and the result is that they too receive benefit."

I don't quite get that quote. It seems that the Dalai Lama is making a big assumption about states of mind he does not like; which could be said to be inspired by a "selfish motive" of his own.

But he also seems to be saying that one should do good, so one can reap the positive/beneficial aspects of that for their own self. Isn't that strikingly close to desire and indeed a truly proper and powerful use of the ego/minds desire for personal happiness, almost above all else?

Hmm, good word man...I enjoyed stretching my brain muscle.

 

[being]

An attempt to emancipate oneself from that desire is still desire, however shrouded. Its a virtually impossible thing to do.

I agree. That is why it takes so much practice and effort to rid oneself of all desires. Many don't even 'get there' with a lifetime of practice. But it is possible. And high levels of 'little desires' are obtainable for almost all humans.
There are certain paths, which can help one get to this state of mind, which by the enlightened ones are said to be the natural state of mind.

That answers its own riddle; the only moment being Now, the only attainable contentment also being Now. Thus, peace should be definite and unwavering, because it is bound by only one moment; the eternal moment of Now.

But its not that simple.

I find it hard to process the idea that the present is the only thing that matters; it makes a certain logical sense, but believing that is to put faith in something which changes constantly (through the passage of time/entropy/etc.) If peace can only be said to exist in something which is always changing, then peace cannot really exist.

Real peace, joy, creativity, compassion etc. are there inside all of us all the time. But they are covered with the heavy blanket of the mind (the ego). The more active it is, the less you will experience those sincerely positive feelings/emotions/experiences/states of mind.

The idea of the present moment is still a very small unit of ever moving time. If time is created by the mind, so is the measurement of time that we refer to as the present moment.

Time is more then a human construct; as mentioned above, the idea of entropy suggests that time is truly a physical component of the universe. Human time, or clock time, is illusory though.

There's a problem with trying to grasp the reality with rational thoughts. Stuff seems to get really confusing, if we try put everything into words. Try thinking of the Now as of an ever-changing singularity. Don't try to put it in the box labeled 'time'.
There's also a new theory coming out (hopefully), which will redefine our rational understanding of time and as far as I know about it, it will define it quite similarly - link.

I think that one needs to accept both the baser egoic satisfactions as well as the grander, longer lasting pleasures. There needn't be a duality between basic pleasaure (ie. sex, drugs, food, sensory stimulation) and the higher forms of happiness (inner peace, wisdom, compassion, empathy, etc.). They form a continuum, and should be used by all at will.

The big difference, why you can't put them in the same category, is that indulging in the egotistical pleasures in the large scale cause us/others suffering.

I don't quite get that quote. It seems that the Dalai Lama is making a big assumption about states of mind he does not like; which could be said to be inspired by a "selfish motive" of his own.

But he also seems to be saying that one should do good, so one can reap the positive/beneficial aspects of that for their own self. Isn't that strikingly close to desire and indeed a truly proper and powerful use of the ego/minds desire for personal happiness, almost above all else?

My interpretation of this quote, is that he wants to speak to the 'average selfish Joe' through metaphorical speech, saying, that when one acts unselfish, one will see more positive experiences happening to oneself. He doesn't really mean, that a selfish person can act unselfish - the 'wise selfish person' is meant as a metaphor here imho.


Thank you too, was a pleasure to answer.

 

[Shrooms00087]

Ego is important to our structure. Without it, we wouldn't have the self-confidence to first, help ourself, much less, anybody else. I don't like how the Llama preaches happiness as he commands a hierarchy with a cast system that is outdated for helping humanity and society flourish. In his own ego as the divine he pushes for China to free Tibet when they're educating and bringing business. He doesn't want the choice to be educated or work within a cast system. If they choose to then that's fine, but he hasn't been asking for choice. Basically what I am saying, getting rid of the ego is a farce. Dalai Lama taught me this.

 

[Jamshyd]

I have no problem with the word itself or the subject it points at. After all, the ego is what gives rise to being, and one can only hope to get a taste or two of not-being while alive - because the only other way to not-be is to die once and for all. That is my belief.

My problem is with how a lot of people use the word.

When you say "my ego," you are in fact inventing a "dummy" self that can take all the beating there is while you - ie. THE ego in question - sits and watches from afar, feeling comfy that "your ego" can take so much abuse and remain in one piece after all is said and done.

"My ego," is a very good defense and probably the single biggest mistake people make when they take psychedelics. Because no matter how many times "your ego" was humbled, YOU remain untouched, and probably fluffy with pride and arrogance.

(General "you" here.)

I've made a conscious effort to align my thought and language so that "my ego" is always "I" or "me". I never say "my ego," and I feel much more honest.

 

[.Lucid.]

^^ unless i misunderstand you, i highly disagree with your assertion that the ego gives rise to being.. its my understanding that being exists prior to form and i think thats the whole aim of spirituality - to disidentify with the temporary and limited prespective of the ego structure and identify with being itself, the awareness behind the ego.. ??

to the op, i think that people should focus more on working with and becoming aware of their own ego because its certainly not going anywhere. transcendent states, while useful and enlightening, are ultimately unsustainable. so i think all one can really try to do is just try be aware of the ego in them and not get lost in it.

I myself too at first thought I would like to 'kill my ego', when I was first introduced to these concepts, but over time I became understanding, that I don't want to kill my ego, but just give up my identification with it and use it only as a tool, not let the tool rule over 'me'.

 

[Jabberwocky]

My problem with ego is that it is monolithic. Have a million alternate selves or sub-personalities or be a single monolith. Ego vs true self is unnecessarily tense and artificial. Having one true self that encompasses all is artificial but at least its tension relieving. One artificial self vs one authentic self is better replaced with thousands of self fragments that make a whole self of sorts in a composite sort of way. Yeah, it does make you feel the need to pull yourself together at times. Except for transcendent glimpses we don't know true from false selves and I bet we are often mistaken on that count anyways.

I should only speak for myself, but I suspect other people are much like myself in regards to many shifting selves instead of one big anti-self. Ego even when criticized as dualism tends to be a new dualism. I don't think the road to avoid dualism is towards wholeness as oneness but to wholeness as myriad-ness.

 

[.Lucid.]

^^ the ego by its very nature is always changing shape.. all those sub personalities are different faces of the same ego.

 

[Jamshyd]

^ You are welcome to disagree, of course. It is my opinion that whatever this pure state you refer to is, it simply isn't adequately expressed by language, and therefore the best way to approach it is through apophasis - you can only imply it by pointing out what it is not, hence the words "not" and "nothing" being my favourites in both languages I speak. This is the bottom line of my personal system.

Being, if expressed in words, is automatically a lie as far as I'm concerned

 

[swilow]

Interesting. Jamshyd, do you believe that ego is an illusion/delusion?

I'm not sure myself, but maybe it is- it is a relatively new concept, and as far as meta-physics go, it is almost impossible to quanitfy or verify. Scientifically, ego could be easily disproven.

I think we are left with an unconquerable dillemma if we believe that desire, as a product of the ego, is what causes unhappiness/sufferring. Its an spect of buddhism that simply does not compute. Human beings and desire are bound, forever and ever- from ancient reptiliian desire for food/water, to modern day bleating for a new iPhone or soon-to-be-obselete-crap. I simply cannot see why people think desire causes unhappiness; when, the truth is (and this is rather crude really) satisfying desires can lead to happiness. It is a very buddhist thing to say that everything wrong with the world, all the sufferring, is born from desire, and subsequent disatisfation. And then to suggest that the salvation from sufferring is to desire the desire for nothing!!

I don't agree or disagree though. In my own experience, the partitioning of mental faculties such as I/self/ego/id/me breaks down very easily, and under relatively simple circumstances. Simple things, such as repetitive drunmming, meditating, chanting, all serve to demolish all illusions of self; the ego-illusion AND the I delusion, and the delusion that the two are seperate and the delusion that the two even exist. Something like ceremonial magick both expands the sense of self and also contracts the sense of individuality; awareness becomes infinite, and yet, the observer or the Aware becomes nothing.

Hmm.

 

[malakaix]

I dont believe desire itself creates suffering, its the identification we apply to it that does, you are not your desires,thoughts or emotions, any attachment to a form arising in your own awareness will indirectly lead to identification with a finite object which will cause suffering.

Something like ceremonial magick both expands the sense of self and also contracts the sense of individuality; awareness becomes infinite, and yet, the observer or the Aware becomes nothing.

Correct me if i've misunderstood; but as awareness becomes infinite.. does the observer really become nothing? or merely an infinitely unique perspective..

This is an extract from Ken Wilber's blog that i found interesting;

"The overall number of True Selves is but one. The same True Self in you is the True Self present in all sentient beings. But notice something. Let's say five of us are sitting around a table, and all five of us are 100% enlightened, 100% aware of the True Self. Each of us has transcended the ego--the small self, the finite self, the self-contraction--and is alive as the One True Infinite Spirit Self. But even though we are all equally the One Self, there is at least one thing that is very different for each of us: namely, the angle we are looking at the table from. Each of us has a unique perspective on the table--indeed, on the world itself. So the One True Self is actually taking on a different perspective in each of us. Each of us has a different view of the world, even though each of us is the One True Self. And that means each of us actually has not merely a One True Self, but an infinitely unique self.

The One True Self in each of us shows up as our own radically unique self.

Paradoxically, we each experience not only a singular True Self, the same in all, but a radically unique manifestation of that Self--special and unique to each of us. Each of us has different talents, different gifts, and different unique views, and enlightenment involves discovering and honoring our differences just as much as our sameness."

 

[Changed]

trying to describe the ego or the dissolution of the ego in words is like the tongue trying to taste itself.

I find myself agreeing with Dr. C. D. Broad, "that we should do well to consider much more seriously than we have hitherto been inclined to do the type of theory which Bergson put forward in connection with memory and sense perception. The suggestion is that the function of the brain and nervous system and sense organs is in the main eliminative and not productive. Each person is at each moment capable of remembering all that has ever happened to him and of perceiving everything that is happening everywhere in the universe. The function of the brain and nervous system is to protect us from being overwhelmed and confused by this mass of largely useless and irrelevant knowledge, by shutting out most of what we should otherwise perceive or remember at any moment, and leaving only that very small and special selection which is likely to be practically useful." According to such a theory, each one of us is potentially Mind at Large. But in so far as we are animals, our business is at all costs to survive. To make biological survival possible, Mind at Large has to be funneled through the reducing valve of the brain and nervous system. What comes out at the other end is a measly trickle of the kind of consciousness which will help us to stay alive on the surface of this Particular planet. To formulate and express the contents of this reduced awareness, man has invented and endlessly elaborated those symbol-systems and implicit philosophies which we call languages. Every individual is at once the beneficiary and the victim of the linguistic tradition into which he has been born--the beneficiary inasmuch as language gives access to the accumulated records of other people's experience, the victim in so far as it confirms him in the belief that reduced awareness is the only awareness and as it bedevils his sense of reality, so that he is all too apt to take his concepts for data, his words for actual things. That which, in the language of religion, is called "this world" is the universe of reduced awareness, expressed, and, as it were, petrified by language. The various "other worlds," with which human beings erratically make contact are so many elements in the totality of the awareness belonging to Mind at Large. Most people, most of the time, know only what comes through the reducing valve and is consecrated as genuinely real by the local language. Certain persons, however, seem to be born with a kind of by-pass that circumvents the reducing valve. In others temporary by-passes may be acquired either spontaneously, or as the result of deliberate "spiritual exercises," or through hypnosis, or by means of drugs. Through these permanent or temporary by-passes there flows, not indeed the perception "of everything that is happening everywhere in the universe" (for the by-pass does not abolish the reducing valve, which still excludes the total content of Mind at Large), but something more than, and above all something different from, the carefully selected utilitarian material which our narrowed, individual minds regard as a complete, or at least sufficient, picture of reality.

 

[being]

I think we are left with an unconquerable dillemma if we believe that desire, as a product of the ego, is what causes unhappiness/sufferring. Its an spect of buddhism that simply does not compute. Human beings and desire are bound, forever and ever- from ancient reptiliian desire for food/water, to modern day bleating for a new iPhone or soon-to-be-obselete-crap.

This is where your misconception starts from, I guess. There's a big difference between a desire and a physical need. Desire rises out of the ego (the mind). Reptiles don't think "mmm, if I only had water to drink in this desert, life would be so wonderful". It's only humans that do that.
To illustrate it with a story from bible: Adam & Eve were in the paradise (not a physical place, but a metaphor for a state of being), once they developed desire with the evolution of our mind, they began creating suffering for themselves and were banished from that blissful place.
It implies, that even humans did not have desires long time ago.
Not that I have read Bible or would follow Christianity/believe in god as some entity, but just like this particular allegory from it.

I simply cannot see why people think desire causes unhappiness; when, the truth is (and this is rather crude really) satisfying desires can lead to happiness. It is a very buddhist thing to say that everything wrong with the world, all the sufferring, is born from desire, and subsequent disatisfation. And then to suggest that the salvation from sufferring is to desire the desire for nothing!!

Could you give us an example, where satisfying a desire can lead to happiness?
Also desiring to desire for nothing won't get anyone anywhere. And it is actually a very common stumbling-block for many beginning practitioners.
The practice is about becoming very aware of your own desires/ego, which in return automatically decreases your levels of desires, identification with your ego.
This is what meditation practice is all about. Becoming aware/increasing your level of awareness. From that arises all the positive 'stuff' I mentioned before.
If you believe that you are your thoughts, then I encourage you to do this test with yourself: Close your eyes and try not to think at all for 60 seconds.
Can you do it? If not, what does it tell you?

 

[Jabberwocky]

It isn't thought or ego that is bad little grasshopper it is attachment to these things.

I remember a Capuchin priest talking about how humility is the hardest charism, because you notice you have accomplished something moving towards humility and you instinctively pat yourself on the back for it and boom, pride is back. A single ego I still think is the problem here, for me anyways. Many people on the trip for themselves or others to eliminate ego create an adversary that has only become real and substantial by one's having opposed it. Not resisting the ego seems to create fewer ego problems than resisting it. Better to tell someone to try to identify most with what is true and eternal than to tell them to stop identifying, because identification is a normal part of psychic processes that need not be pathological, though like anything else it can be if its distorted or runs amok.

 

[swilow]

This is where your misconception starts from, I guess. There's a big difference between a desire and a physical need. Desire rises out of the ego (the mind). Reptiles don't think "mmm, if I only had water to drink in this desert, life would be so wonderful". It's only humans that do that.

But- the desire for water in a desert is a physical need, is it not? And also a want- but yeah, there is a difference between 'physical need' and 'desire'. Its a very subjective difference though; you could say that the difference and the recognition of the difference arises from the ego ascribing a value to that difference.

I've been very interested in Buddhism for over a decade now; really, ever since I was about 17, in a hormonal rage of lust and desire and confusion, I felt drawn to the calm quiet of Buddhism. The belief system made "sense".

However, I don't really understand why attachment is said to cause sufferring; and I also don't see quite why sufferring is seen as so bad in the first place...Its (suffering) a collective state of mind as real and artificial as all other states of mind that are given a concrete word. I can see that attchment to sufferring is destructive- its easier (for me at least) to adopt a certain positive apathy to 'bad' expereinces.

To illustrate it with a story from bible: Adam & Eve were in the paradise (not a physical place, but a metaphor for a state of being), once they developed desire with the evolution of our mind, they began creating suffering for themselves and were banished from that blissful place.
It implies, that even humans did not have desires long time ago.
Not that I have read Bible or would follow Christianity/believe in god as some entity, but just like this particular allegory from it.

Isn't it more correct to say that they sinned and were banished? Sinning by trying to attain the powers of God; one would presume that those powers have little to do with desire and mind, seeing as god neccesarily exists outside of any mental confines....

Could you give us an example, where satisfying a desire can lead to happiness?

I'll give two examples:
- Sex with a beautiful girl I knew; which ultimately lead us to sharing our lives together. I slaked the thirst and wanted more, and was happy in this want.
- I desired the understanding of some esoteric/occult systems. In turn, I began reading; I then began practising. I then saw through the illusion's, albeit briefly.

This is what meditation practice is all about. Becoming aware/increasing your level of awareness. From that arises all the positive 'stuff' I mentioned before.
If you believe that you are your thoughts, then I encourage you to do this test with yourself: Close your eyes and try not to think at all for 60 seconds.
Can you do it? If not, what does it tell you?

No, I can't try not to think; trying to do anything in the mind causes thought.

But I know what you mean; I meditate daily, as well as the aforementioned ritual occasions- a certain "prayer" directed at a certain "entity" and the repetition of that prayer didn't really cease thought- consumed it.

We are actually saying quite similar things, just on different sides of the coin. I value detachment and peace as much as I value my attachments and chaos. Because I cannot see how everything has to be opposed by something when it can just as easily be embrace and assimilated, I don't believe that any state of mind causes pain, except pain itself.

My thing is: both ego and self are so entwined that trying to negate one mutually negates the other. Without self, we would have no awareness of the ego; but without the ego structre, we would have no reference point for self, even if that reference point is biased and artificial. All states of the mind eventually seek a vector of homestasis. Like gravity, one should push and pull with equal and opposite force to remain stationary and calm.

 

[being]

Buddhism has no belief system. Actually Buddha has said the following: “Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.”

Also I see no sense in being happy, when you desire something.
When you have a desire for something, it means that you are thinking along the lines "If I had it, it would be great", but since you don't have it at the moment of desiring, you can't feel great.
Or the negative version (aversion), "If this situation was not like this, I would feel good". Again I don't see how one could feel good with such thoughts.
These thoughts in my mind would only cause me misery. And it would mean, that I was resisting the reality for what it as that certain moment. I would live in some illusion I have created for myself, rather than be here in this moment.

I have agreed with you from post one about the misunderstanding of many beings, who want to get rid of their ego and I also explained, how I think this misconception has come to existence - it's not about the ego, but the identification with it. A tiny difference in words, but a big difference in the meaning.

But I do believe, that we could exist without ego. And I also believe we have. Animals exist without it and this is enough proof for me, that we also have existed without. But it also means that we were a lot less 'intelligent' at solving difficult problems. Then again I'm not saying that this should be a 'desirable' state for a human. We can go way beyond it.
A quote by Eckhart Tolle: "Your mind is an instrument, a tool. It is there to be used for a specific task, and when the task is completed, you lay it down. As it is, I would say about 80 to 90 percent of most people's thinking is not only repetitive and useless, but because of its dysfunctional and often negative nature, much of it is also harmful. Observe your mind and you will find this to be true. It causes a serious leakage of vital energy."

The ego has come to being from the mind, that evolved purely just for the benefit of our survival. And at some point it kind of got so complicated, that we started identifying ourselves with it (the thinking). And from this identification desires and all kinds of confusion arose, which started causing us needless suffering.
I do believe we are on our way of evolving out of this, tho, as I see more and more people becoming more and more aware of these concepts and start practicing awareness.

 

[bronson]

Let me preface this by saying that I think everyone should be treated with respect and fairness.

Now, in the world, there are certain people that are simply better than most of the rest at some things. It's only natural that these people deserve to feel superior and thus have what I would define as an ego.

In itself, I see no issue with that so long as they are willing to share and help others with their particular gift.

 

[Jabberwocky]

Buddhism has no belief system.

Your Buddhism may aspire to have no belief system. A portion of Buddhist scripture may seem to indicate it is desirable to have no beliefs. Thousands of Buddhist sects- and if we start to critique them and compare them I think we'll see that the differences between them are different beliefs. So often people tell me that Buddhist don't believe in reincarnation as the continuation of an individual soul- some Buddhists do. Buddha nature is not taught in Theraveda, its emphasized in mahayana. Theravedans have sidartha as a buddha and buddahs before him only- mahayana has many buddahs including post buddah buddah's if you will. I consider those differences in belief.

I only did the one big split-but both of those schools have many, many splits and they do believe differently. Belief is an essential characteristic of the human psyche and I don't believe Buddism has ever gotten away from it anymore than other groups.