In *I Am That*, the ego is portrayed as a false center of identity, a mental construct built from thoughts, memories, desires, and fears that gives rise to the sense of being a separate, limited person. It is essentially the identification “I am this body–mind–person,” which obscures the more fundamental sense of being, the simple “I Am.” By taking this constructed personality to be real and autonomous, the ego creates the illusion of separation and limitation, and with it the entire drama of personal history, relationships, and psychological tension. Nisargadatta Maharaj consistently points out that this “person” is not the true Self but only an appearance in awareness.

Because of this mistaken identification, the ego functions as the primary obstacle to self-realization. It veils pure awareness by constantly mixing the basic sense of existence with roles, stories, and self-images, thereby generating attachment, desire, fear, and the whole field of psychological suffering. All the restless seeking, comparing, and defending that characterize ordinary life arise from this misidentification with the ego-mind complex. Thus, the ego is not merely a neutral feature of experience; it is the central mechanism by which bondage and dissatisfaction are perpetuated.

Yet the teaching does not advocate a violent struggle against the ego, nor does it insist on its literal destruction as a psychological structure. Rather, the emphasis falls on disidentification and clear seeing: the ego is to be treated as an object of investigation, not as the subject that one truly is. Through self-inquiry—questioning “Who is this ‘I’?” and tracing the sense of “I” back to its source—the supposed solidity of the ego is exposed as illusory. When it is recognized that the ego appears and disappears in awareness, it loses its status as the real “owner” of experience.

In this light, the ego retains a merely practical, functional role in everyday dealings, but it is no longer taken as the essence of what one is. The sense of being a separate individual becomes transparent, a tool for communication rather than a prison of identity. As attention rests more steadily in the pure feeling of being, the “I Am,” ego-identification naturally weakens and its grip on experience loosens. What remains is the recognition of oneself as the awareness in which the entire ego-process arises, plays out, and subsides.