The ego is a logically incoherent notion. This can be demonstrated deductively.

1. What exists is either formless or formed (law of the excluded middle). (Ultimately, form does not exist, but for the purpose of this writing, we’ll presume that it does.)

2. The ego can be defined as a “quasi-formless” entity that can acquire or lose forms—without itself being changed by this acquisition or this loss. For instance, it’s thought that the ego-I that woke up this morning is now reading this piece. But when reading stops, this very same ego-I will then stand up. In short, the ego-I in “I woke up,” in “I am reading,” and in “I am standing up” is believed to be the same quasi-formless, changeless entity that nonetheless is capable of acquiring—without being tied to—forms like waking up, reading, and standing up. Key, here, is the particular manner in which the seemingly changeless, quasi-formless entity is apparently able to continue to exist “in the midst” of changing forms.

3. Is what is laid out in 2 even possible? 

4. Remember the first statement: whatever exists is either formless or formed. If the ego is a form, then it is itself undergoing change. That is, it is perishing when the activity of reading perishes. But nobody really believes this. Otherwise, it would feel as if, moment by moment, one were perishing and then newly born.

Moreover, taking an Atmananda-style direct path approach: let there be only four basic forms—thoughts, feelings, sensations, and perceptions. Test to see that, in each case, there is nothing to thought but a thought; nothing to feeling but that feeling; nothing to sensation but that sensation; nothing to perception (e.g., seeing) but that perception. There is nothing else in the arising—nothing to or in or “about” the arising itself except for the arising. (Set aside the fact that the arising is, in the final analysis, Atman or Consciousness.) 

5. The ego, therefore, is not a form. It was said in 2 that ego is a “quasi-formless entity.” What does that mean? Suppose that we investigate formlessness. Where will we look? Clearly outside of forms—meaning outside of all thoughts, feelings, sensations, and perceptions. Yet what do we find in this thought-free “state”—that is, in formlessness itself? Do we find an ego there? No! All we find it borderless, boundary-less direct experience. Nor can we find an ego there—because formlessness is, well, totally formless.

6. We can restate the puzzle that pertains to the alleged existence of the ego. Somehow ego has to be (a) “in conversation with forms,” yet (b) continuously present, (c) invisible, and (d) bounded somehow (the Andrew ego is not same as the John or Jane ego; if there were only “unbroken, seamless, boundless ego,” that, of course, would be Atman).

We’ve already discovered that there’s no such thing as “being in conversation with” forms. A form is just a form—and nothing else. As for (b), if the ego is continuously present, this can only be because it’s timeless, which means formless. But if it’s formless, then, again, where is this ego in the direct experience of formlessness? Nowhere! Likewise, if it’s invisible (c), then how is it to be directly experienced when there are no forms—that is, no thoughts, feelings, sensations, or perceptions? And that discovery of an invisible something cannot be made since, again, it’s runnning together the formless (invisible) with form (something). And—most damning of all—if ego is “somehow” formless yet also bounded, how is this not logically incoherent? How, for instance, would a formless yet bounded space ever be experienceable?

7. The logical point is very simple. What is formless is Atman and what is formed—we’ll say for the purposes of this post—is an arising. Here we have—for now, we’ll say—a bona fide case of the law of the excluded middle. There’s only form or formlessness–and not-a-thing else. Ego, thus, is a spurious entity and, as such, is no more logically possible than a squared circle or a married bachelor.

8. The illusion of ego (maya) makes sense, but the actuality of the ego makes no sense. Not only that; it’s been argued above that it can make no sense. Know this and be as you are.