Discarding the Ego as a Way to Happiness?
After having suffered from major depression for about a decade, I had a year-long reprieve during which it seemed nothing could affect my continued state of contentment. I believe this came about mostly as a result of therapy and self-help books. During this time (which was considered to be hypomanic by some), I was very thoughtful and creative. I developed a framework and tools that I thought might be able to help others achieve that enduring peace of mind.
The framework was as follows:
Develop Awareness
You are not your thoughts - your true self is the formless observer that is aware of your thoughts
Presence - presence is achieved by using the five senses without background inner dialogue
Stop Judging
Human Nature - authentic human nature is to seek peace, and to act with love and integrity
Illusion of Control - the ability to choose is an illusion; everyone is a function of their physical being and their experiences; a person has no control over their creation, nor their initial environment, and therefore no true control over whatever follows (Keep in mind that this is not justification for inappropriate behaviour. Rules and laws are still necessary, and corrective action is still required when someone is negligent, or inflicts harm on others. People need to know that acts of carelessness, violence, and cruelty will result in a suitable consequence.The difference is that people are not condemned or deemed unworthy because of their actions. Instead, rules are made and consequences are determined with a mind free of bias or discrimination; not with punishment in mind, but rather the intent of helping someone live a life based on integrity and love.)
Forgiveness - observe, without attaching positive or negative connotation to your thoughts and words; with judgment removed, you can replace condemnation with compassion, and truly forgive yourself and others
Discard the Ego
Human Importance - humans are animals; our level of intelligence is what allows the ego to form
Sense of Self - we build our sense of self out of beliefs, and attachment to material forms
Equality - while there may exist differences in physical and mental form, everyone is equal at the level of the authentic self; no one is inferior or superior to anyone else
The idea was that you had to develop awareness before you could constructively address your negative thought processes and start viewing yourself and others with compassion. The final step I envisioned was shedding identity - along with the criticisms and self-imposed restrictions that often accompany it - in order to achieve lasting peace of mind. At this stage, identity loses its importance, and becomes just another choice of how one lives their life.
I am most interested in your thoughts on whether enduring contentment (in the absence of familial loss or threats to survival) could be achieved by lessening the importance of identity. However, I welcome your comments and criticisms on the first two stages presented above as well.
The framework was as follows:
Develop Awareness
You are not your thoughts - your true self is the formless observer that is aware of your thoughts
Presence - presence is achieved by using the five senses without background inner dialogue
Stop Judging
Human Nature - authentic human nature is to seek peace, and to act with love and integrity
Illusion of Control - the ability to choose is an illusion; everyone is a function of their physical being and their experiences; a person has no control over their creation, nor their initial environment, and therefore no true control over whatever follows (Keep in mind that this is not justification for inappropriate behaviour. Rules and laws are still necessary, and corrective action is still required when someone is negligent, or inflicts harm on others. People need to know that acts of carelessness, violence, and cruelty will result in a suitable consequence.The difference is that people are not condemned or deemed unworthy because of their actions. Instead, rules are made and consequences are determined with a mind free of bias or discrimination; not with punishment in mind, but rather the intent of helping someone live a life based on integrity and love.)
Forgiveness - observe, without attaching positive or negative connotation to your thoughts and words; with judgment removed, you can replace condemnation with compassion, and truly forgive yourself and others
Discard the Ego
Human Importance - humans are animals; our level of intelligence is what allows the ego to form
Sense of Self - we build our sense of self out of beliefs, and attachment to material forms
Equality - while there may exist differences in physical and mental form, everyone is equal at the level of the authentic self; no one is inferior or superior to anyone else
The idea was that you had to develop awareness before you could constructively address your negative thought processes and start viewing yourself and others with compassion. The final step I envisioned was shedding identity - along with the criticisms and self-imposed restrictions that often accompany it - in order to achieve lasting peace of mind. At this stage, identity loses its importance, and becomes just another choice of how one lives their life.
I am most interested in your thoughts on whether enduring contentment (in the absence of familial loss or threats to survival) could be achieved by lessening the importance of identity. However, I welcome your comments and criticisms on the first two stages presented above as well.
Comments (46)
(Y) Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I would sign off on it and agree with that. Glad that it has helped pull you through difficult times. I seem to know (hopefully) what you are getting at, and have had more or less similar discussions with people close to me. It is hard to put things like these into words, though imho your post is well-worded. It is mostly clear by your explanation what you mean by the word "discard"; that one would assume that you don't mean it in some absolute, otherworldly, or impractical way. I would not want someone to read the thread title, and jump to conclusions.
When i have had discussions with others about this general point of view, sometimes that misunderstanding accidentally occurs. They may think i am saying the ego is bad, or that humans are selfish thus bad, or that I think everyone has an ego problem except me. (Which is not the case). Just trying not to get locked into some self-made prison of static identity, which tends to be limiting like prisons are. The aim perhaps is to make one's ego into a secure home which can offer protection from various elements and creatures, including other humans. While avoiding turning one's inner self into kind of an armed, windowless and isolated fortress (so to speak). Have tried that and it is not very pleasant or productive. I think that was your point overall, and please respond if you'd like. Thanks again.
To discard the ego is only possible at a certain level of consciousness. Is this success/failure I can't tell because if you look at it one way, ants and bees, egoless workers with only one thing on their mind - the colony, are very successful creatures but from another vantage point they're dumb.
Perhaps I'm distorting your POV. May be you don't really want to discard your ego. Rather you wish to moderate the ego's role in life.
Is this overly optimistic, or achievable given the right set of circumstances?
Sounds like you have just given a general description of Buddhism. :)
2) One can't stop judging. We are continuously judging in order to set direction (this is coupled with awareness).
3) No way to discard the ego except via suicide. It is who we are. What we can do is moderate desires. Lower highs and higher less lows. Moderate waves. The Middle Path.
As far as happiness it's concerned, it comes and goes like waves, always followed by sadness. Best we can do is moderate the cycles.
I think its achievable and I especially like what you said:
Quoting CasKev
It makes your success a thing to applaud. I hope you succeed.
I have never received an apology, not once in my entire life despite some hefty wrongdoings made against me. It has always been my fault. It was very hard living with the suffering and remorse was a welcome desire in an attempt to alleviate that suffering, but the likelihood of this is extremely rare. I recommend watching Dead Man Walking. In the end, there is no forgiveness necessary, just a desire for their penitence so that the experience can become past-tense and you can move on peacefully. In the event that this is not possible, come face to face with it and see it for what it is, teaching yourself to continue walking upright and ignore the hurt so that you don't change who you are.
Quoting CasKev
Is this no different to being rational and objective? That through introspection, one should observe the validity of their own thoughts without the influence of their emotions?
I believe that negative emotions exist for a reason, a subjective language telling us what reason cannot articulate. It is subjective pain; we feel physical pain to prevent hurting ourselves, a biological survival instinct. Negative or bad emotions are subconsciously telling us something is wrong, but because we don't understand what exactly, our subjective instincts seek out pleasure to avoid this sensation of subjective pain. Just like when we are physiologically fit and healthy - our natural state - we feel energy and movement, happiness, in my opinion, is our natural state, a freedom from these negative feelings. We are loving by nature, and so, it is an attempt to return back to our state of nature, yet our subjective instinct in this case is failing us because we avoid what our negative emotions are trying to tell us.
Peace is not the absence of emotions, but rather being capable of articulating what our emotions are trying to tell us; when we reason accurately as to why we feel this subjective pain rather than avoid it by justifying and seeking out fleeting ways to make us feel better, we are able to eliminate the toxic that influences these feelings because we get to the root cause. We find the antidote. Once eliminated, we return to our natural state. That very peace you speak of.
I do agree that control is an illusion, but reason is absolutely necessary so that our judgements are appropriate for both others and for ourselves. Sometimes being uncharitable can strengthen and benefit others, for instance. We just need to doubt our judgements, to not believe in it as one believes they have absolute control. Angry people tend to be the most presumptuous, telling themselves that what they believe must be true.
I am my self (a subject having unique life experiences). Since self awareness (the combination of sentience and self identification) produces personal experience, if I am not my thoughts (and physiological processes), then I am not a subject, hence; do not exist.
Also, my awareness of my thoughts (meta-cognition) is itself a mental (thinking) process. So, if I am not my thoughts, how can I be my thoughts about my thoughts?
Sensory stimulation doesn't occur without producing sensation (a mental experience). As long as you are conscious, that switch doesn't turn off. At best, it can be relegated to background noise during semi-conscious states (e.g., trance). Which form of trance or other altered state of consciousness are you calling 'presence'?
I couldn't disagree more. Human history is largely the history of human conflict. If not intuitively obvious, an experiment could be developed to test the following hypothesis: human beings are primarily concerned with satisfying corporeal desires, then social desires, and finally, ethical desires.
I agree. However, I disagree with all remaining points.
Are you = your thoughts? Or do you have thoughts? That is quite a leap to say if one is not equivalent to their thoughts then they do not exist. It seems a bit unnecessary to take it that far, but of course, who's to judge? I believe the reference was to the "unseen seer" in Eastern traditions which is distinguished from the usual flow of thinking per se. Some find it a useful and specific difference, especially in calming the mind, as you were probably aware.
It's logic (or algebra), not leap:
I=my self=a subject having unique life experiences.
Therefore, if I have no experiences (produced by physiological process and thought), I don't exist.
With regard to Eastern traditions, the OP uses psychological and sociological terms, as opposed to the terms of any particular worldview. I think these terms have been misused.
I also think it's a good idea to try to construct, or explain, a worldview in terms of social science. But the use of these terms should correspond with current science, and with common sense where science is lacking.
One could address the OP in a variety of ways, of course, and not be limited to a certain lingo. But recognizing the potential limits of the human identity/ego is somewhat of a central topic of Eastern philosophies, to be general. So if there is some valuable psychological knowledge there, it can potentially be looked at "scientifically", not necessarily as a matter of faith or belief. Western psychology, from what I have seen, does approach the subject, and various pathologies. Eg. the work of Freud and especially Jung. But it seems the prevailing current view of the self/ego/identity is something like "what limits? why be such a downer! we are all superheroes! full speed ahead". IMHO, YMMV.
Quoting Galuchat
Certainly! No problem with science or logic at all. (Y)
My views on self identity are influenced by the sociologists, George H Mead and Robert E Park. For example:
Self identity is the distinctive combination of personal and social attributes which describe a human being at a particular point in time, and cause him/her to be recognized by others, including: corporeal and mental characteristics, social roles, social group affiliations and values, and personal preferences and goals.
I would definitely agree with that. It is the part mentioning social group roles and affiliations that seems key. Many would agree that over the past 50 or 60 years, there have been tremendous changes in the cultural, economic, educational circumstances that have seemed to have a weakening effect on the "fabric of society". Why and how might be another topic, but the general effect leads many people to not find their place in the world around them. Some have compared the situation to that of the Native Americans after their cultures were overrun and destroyed. Even though many physicially survived, their way of life was in ruins.
For a somewhat more hopeful example, witness the powerfully stabilizing effect that inner city USA ("Black") churches have. In areas where the economy, education, and the government have failed and in the midst of crime and violence, these churches are the oasis and foundation which prevents total chaos. Cultural collapse has gone mainstream, and it is here to stay. We may live in an area untouched by war, but in some ways we are living in the rubble and ashes, scrambling to survive and make sense of the world. Even when there is some measure of unity, there is no guarantee of success. But a people divided will fall- without fail.
All i can say about the ego is i think it is what i would describe as "evolutionary biological programming" that constructs an artificial identity so as to facilitate it expressing its biological drives like jealousy, vengence, violence, hate etc.
To say we are nothing but ego is to not understand the formless presence that can observe the ego. To say we are nothing but ego is to reduce the human form to purely what arises from our biology.
I am having similar thoughts recently. Good luck :)
I agree that the fabric of Western society has been weakening over the past 50 or 60 years (if not longer). But this is not a new phenomenon. Societies throughout history have prospered and collapsed; sometimes due to the (mis)management of their political economies, and sometimes due to the actions of other societies.
I suspect that current societal collapse in the West is largely self-induced, as it was for Rome. If the cause of collapse is self-induced, which sub-groups benefit from division at the expense of the entire group?
This is a valid comparison. The displacement of a culture produces culture shock (i.e., the re-alignment of a person's social identity), fragments society, and leads to tension and conflict.
Quoting Arran
Is quite in keeping with the 'myth of the fall' and as 'adam' representing all of those drives and imperfections.
However most Christian teachers interpret these ideas literalistically, whereas the 'Eastern' understanding is generally more nuanced. There are exceptions, however.
First off, congratulations on feeling better and persevering through your illness. I suffered from major depression for about a decade as well and have no felt pretty much full recovery for more than year. It's an amazing feeling to be happy, isn't it? My treatment involved a combination of medications that at the very least did not make me worse, CBT and DBT therapies, as well as self-help books too. I especially find a lot of Buddhist influenced works to be helpful. Two of my favorite works are "Radical Acceptance" by Tara Brach and "Self Compassion" by Kristen Neff. Both amazingly helpful to me. Anyway, kudos to you, and may you continue to live your life in health and happiness! : )
I agree that there are similarities in the teachings and moral codes of the world's major book religions and systems of moral philosophy, including self-denial. However, identity-denial (as the OP proposes) is not one of them, and for good reason: the destruction of a person's identity destroys the culture they are part of, and vice versa.
Peoples identity is the formless observer behind their false, constructed identity.
Hence "identity-denial" is innacurate description of what OP is suggesting.
The realisation of this identity does not occur on the intellectual level, it is an experiential event. Meditation and observation of ourselves leads to this insight. :)
Seriously?
All that is not identity falls away and are seen as manifestations of the identity.
Quoting CasKev
Plus, no one in this thread is claiming to be an enlightened master or an expert in this somewhat murky subject. Looking for the questions first. If any answers turn up, then that's a bonus. X-)
Well, you can't discard your ego. As the term is used, it's "you". You may not like everything (or anything) about your self, but "you" is all you've got, so accept it. "Acceptance" is another piece of happiness. By acceptance, I don't mean either abject submission or a narcissistic celebration. "Acceptance" is just that -- accepting who you are, now, as the starting point, whatever comes next.
Quoting CasKev
IF ONLY we could just find the precise point where hypomania could go on forever! Unfortunately, we tend to either slide up into mania (which can be real trouble) or we slide down into depression, which can be just as much trouble.
But... maybe you had a reprieve. I'm a long term depression case (30+ years) and am very grateful that for the last 3 or 4 years I've felt normal, effective, healthy, and productive. Maybe retirement had something to do with that, I don't know, but it's been great.
Quoting CasKev
Oh yes! Got to have it. Know thyself, the unexamined life is not worth living, and so on, unto thy own self be true, etc.
Quoting CasKev
Acceptance again. It helps, in as much as one can, to accept other people. If someone you know is a gauche obnoxious slob, there's probably nothing you can do about it other than arranging one's schedule to avoid this person. But gauche obnoxious slob they will probably stay. I, myself, have been a gauche obnoxious slob at times.
Quoting CasKev
I said it already, but you still can't discard your ego. Accept that you have it, and stop judging yourself so harshly. Why should you be perfect? Nobody else is. (Some therapists think that guilt in failing to live up to perfectionist expectations is a component of depression. Some validity to that idea, I think.)
Quoting CasKev
I don't know... I don't think I agree (not that my opinion should ruin your day).
"self" starts to form early in life, before beliefs, attachment to material things, and all that comes along. Indeed, I think our sense of self guides our acquisition of beliefs or how we feel about material things. Some of self is genetically programmed. All humans have it, and we have it early on. As we age into maturity, we find we have complex selves which contains contradictions. As Walt Whitman said of himself, "I contain multitudes". Not sure what all Whitman meant, but I mean we aren't just simple, little wrinkled up, peach-pit selves. We're full of stuff. A simple, little self is to us as an asparagus stem is to a head of cauliflower. We burst out.
I don't know about that. 'Identity' is not something set in stone, it is dynamic. Basically the OP is picking up some principles based on Eastern teachings and practices which do indeed challenge the centrality of the ego. 'Stop judging' is non-discriminative awareness - to be aware of thoughts and emotions as they come and go, without either engaging in them or trying to suppress them. You find that in mindfulness teachings derived from Buddhism but they're found in other sources - even the 12 step programs.
What specifically don't you know about?
Self Identity is composed of Personal Identity and Social Identity.
1) Personal (i.e., Relational) Identity: the set of heritable attributes which remain essentially unchanged throughout the course of a person's life.
2) Social (i.e., Contextual) Identity: the set of social attributes which have their basis in social learning and change throughout the course of a person's life.
How is the static and dynamic nature of Self Identity relevant to the OP's proposal that identity should be denied?
"Some principles based on Eastern teachings and practices" is not the same as "similarities in the teachings and moral codes of the world's major book religions and systems of moral philosophy." Does the latter category include teachings which encourage identity-denial (as opposed to self-denial)?
The following is a list of the world's major book religions and systems of moral philosophy, including approximate dates of origin, appurtenant moral codes, and approximate number of adherents as a percentage of world population (2010):
1) Hinduism (5000 BC): Yamas and Niyamas, 15.0%.
2) Judaism (1400-1300 BC): Ten Commandments, 0.2%.
3) Jainism (900-600 BC): Mahavratas and Anuvratas, 0.1%.
4) Buddhism (600-400 BC): Five Precepts and Noble Eightfold Path, 7.1%.
5) Confucianism (500 BC): Analects (Lun Yu), 3.4%.
6) Taoism (400 BC): Daodejing and Taishang Ganying Pian, 3.4%.
7) Christianity (33): The Golden Rule, 31.5%.
8) Islam (610): Quran, 23.2%.
9) Sikhism (1500): Guru Granth Sahib, 0.4%.
10) Bahai Faith (1844): Kitáb-i-Aqdas, 0.1%.
Where do mindfulness teachings and 12 step programs rank on this list?
What does "challenging the centrality of the ego" mean? Is it:
1) Endorsing self-denial, identity-denial, or something else entirely?
2) A teaching which is common to all the above religions and moral philosophies?
I read the OP again - I don't think it is worded very well. But I interpret it as a philosophy of learning to rise above the reflexive sense of ego which is generally pretty central to human nature. I think, overall, being less ego-centric is a plus - wouldn't you? I don't know if 'shedding identity' is a particularly good way of putting it - 'abandoning one's sense of self-importance' might suffice.
I also don't really agree with the OP that 'humans are animals', precisely because humans are capable of both being ego-centric, and also going beyond it. Ego, generally, is a product of the self-awareness that only humans are capable of.
But I think what the OP is actually getting at is that the ego is in some sense a product of the kind of instinct for self-preservation and 'animalistic' in that sense; and one which we need to see through. The OP didn't say exactly that, though, I will grant that.
Quoting Galuchat
Notice the phrase in the OP
Quoting CasKev
which is, I think, a principle that is found in Eastern texts, especially Vedanta, which posits a 'higher self' that is superior to ego and the nature of which is inherently joyful. As aspect of these philosophies is that the ego has to yield itself to the 'higher nature' through sadhana, 'spiritual practice'. So certainly this involves 'shedding' or abandoning one's instinctive or reflexive egotism, but that is what is required to realise a higher and more satisfactory state of being.
Quoting Galuchat
Mindfulness is derived from Buddhism, ultimately from a scripture called the 'Satipatthana sutta'.
12-step programs originated with Alcoholics Anonymous. Though it's not a religious ideology as such, it draws on a kind of 'secular spirituality' to overcome alcoholism and addictive behaviours generally; one of the steps is 'recognising a higher power that is a source of strength'.
It seems fairly obvious that it is neither possible or desirable to discard one's genetic and experiential history. I think it likely that this is not the ego that folks are talking about discarding. Rather, it must be something that is ubiquitous, but superfluous to a functioning human. One might suggest that it is not the facts of what or who one is, but the image.
Thus identification is a thought process that fixes an image of self that one then conforms to, protects, and makes the centre of one's reality. Thus one's religion, one's nationality, one's politics, are part of this structure, not just as neutral facts, but as allegiances. It is unsurprising, then, that established religions are a bit ambivalent about discarding such identifications.
with this in mind, I think it is clear that while there is no great difficulty in conceiving the possibility of discarding such identifications, the identity of 'one who has discarded all identifications' is a performative contradiction. Thus one arrives quite naturally at mindfulness as the practice of observing oneself without the separation of the observer and the observed, which is the process of accumulation of self-knowledge, and the fixing of identity in thought.
Thanks for the summary. It makes sense.
Thanks for the clarifications. It makes sense to understand the OP's "ego" as egocentricity. As such, the OP would then be an endorsement of self-denial rather than identity-denial.
If it became at all widespread, it would have a transformative effect, ending division between 'us' and 'them'. I can't begin to imagine how pleasant that would be for everyone.
Is mindfulness then self consciousness (meta self awareness)? And by "fixing identity in thought" does it construct identity independent of social influence?
But when it is the "self itself" trying to hyper-expand to fill the void and deal with a sense of emptiness, it is harder to deal with because it is not visible. Not visible, but existent nonetheless. A feeling of disconnection and isolation from other humans and the rest of the world is perhaps one of the most common feelings. When one feels as separate, small and powerless as a ping pong ball floating on the ocean, it seems like we are battered about at the mercy of the wind and waves. The first inclination might be to do something like the expression "go big or go home". But if one completely identifies with the Isolation, and believes that they are totally separate from everything else, "going big" might just make the situation worse. Instead of being a "ping pong ball self" floating on the ocean, there is a "beach ball self" floating on the waves.
Well, the "beach ball self" is definitely bigger. Sometimes in certain circumstances bigger is better, but sometimes not. The reflexive habit to expand our identity while keeping the walls of that identity air-tight can lead to a ballooning effect. The more air pumped into a balloon, the larger it becomes. But the air pressure is also increased which may lead to a sense of tightening constriction. The larger an inflated balloon becomes, the thinner its skin is. This makes it more vulnerable to pinpricks and the like. A beach ball on the ocean may have lots of room to bob about. But imagine a room filled with many beach balls, all inflated to the max. They are "feeling" (so to speak) internally pressured from the air, and externally pressured from all the other beach balls pushing against their thin vulnerable surfaces. One can then imagine the sorts of dynamics and conflicts arising from this hypothetical situation. This describes in a very general way many of the interactions around us, imho.
Those who say that this situation is the way things are and is unavoidable, and it boils down to "survival of the fittest" are probably concerned with becoming the largest beach ball on the block, while trying to deflate their competition.
And there are those who know this dynamic exists, but are looking for other ways of existing. Those that look long enough might find something. Like still having an identity with boundaries and walls, but being conscious of the necessity of doors and windows in those mental walls.
So I am English, male, middle class, and white. These are historical and biological facts, but they also have a social meaning. It would be silly for me to deny either the facts or their social meaning. Other people tend to treat me in certain ways and make certain assumptions about me based on the social meaning, and this is again a fact of life.
Psychologically, since these meanings are congenial, by and large, I am inclined to adopt them; where they are uncongenial, I am inclined to deny them, which is to adopt their negation. So I imagine myself as civilised, intelligent, competent, tolerant, restrained, strong, etc etc. I emphasise 'imagine' because this image is not created by me right now, by looking at myself as I am, rather it is already there in my thoughts as an image built out of my responses to those social influences that come from the social meaning ascribed to historical and biological facts. In short, I develop an image of myself as a jolly fine fellow.
This leads inevitably to an inverse not-identity that I project onto 'them'. Where 'they' are females, foreigners, toffs or peasants.
Quoting Galuchat
Mindfulness, then is looking at all this that is going on in my mind all the time, looking at what is happening, at the operation of these images, but without operating on them or judging them, and without making a separation of the mindful self looking at the unmindful self, but rather of the unmindful self being mindful for a moment of its own unmindfulness.
I don't know if this is at all answering your questions, and it is said without authority, as my own best understanding. Most of it is stolen from here.
Quoting 0 thru 9
I think this is very much in the spirit of what I am proposing - being conscious of identity and how it formed; knowing what comprises the mostly immovable foundation, and moving along the spectrum of need versus choice, to what lies in the realm of completely flexible options; being open to new information and reconsideration of what we believe to be true; and making choices that truly benefit self and others.
That's great. Thanks very much. I will need to work on the psychology of mindfulness. Perhaps Krishnamurti and Bohm will be of assistance.
Very interesting interview. What I get from it is that instead of just 'being', the brain gets caught up in 'becoming' something more, and protecting what we have 'become' so far. Our basic survival instinct mistakenly applies itself to our created identity, which we are constantly trying to improve, never being totally satisfied with where we are at any point in time. The constant wanting for material things that many of us experience is reflected inward, by always wanting to 'be' more.
Aristotle and the buddha may seem like theyre saying similar things, but theyre proponents of very different things.
(Y)
Yes, just trying to 'Solve for Happy' (Mo Gawdat), without relying on a belief in grand purpose, or any sort of afterlife. It continues to amaze me that despite the astounding advances in technology, no one has figured out a sure-fire way to achieve lasting peace of mind. I've learned a lot of skills that have at least minimized the mental suffering, but I would pay almost every last cent I have to be rid of the last traces of depressed thinking and feeling.
Then maybe what you need is a worldview instead of a bag of mind tricks.
My mind seems to have trouble finding satisfaction in a worldview, when part of me can't seem to find the value in a finite existence. However, having decided to continue living (mostly to avoid causing suffering to the people who care about me), I'm trying to do the things that keep the major depression at bay, and I think the mind tricks do more good than harm.
The ego I speak of is the sense of identity a person develops throughout life, to which he/she can become desperately attached, affecting them via negative self-judgment and poor life choices.
But if we are talking about trauma, pain, etc. then what I believe David Smail said (from a clinical psychology perspective, not a religion/mysticism/spiritual perspective) is what I would say: the damage is done and all we can do is learn to live with it.