Buddha on the structural hypothesis
One might ask at this point whether the Buddha ever spoke about anything like the structural hypothesis of Freud. In fact he did in different words. He used an analogy saying that there are three kinds of people in the world.(10) One is blind in both eyes, the second is blind only in one eye, and the third has vision in both eyes. What are these eyes? The first eye is the eye that sees how to satisfy one’s desires. The second is the eye that sees what is good and bad. If we compare this statement with the structural hypothesis, it is clear that the person with both eyes blind is the id. And the person with the one eye open is the one whose ego has developed, because the first eye that sees how to satisfy desires is the ego. The second eye that sees what is good and bad is obviously the super ego. The second eye is also called by the Buddha hiri-ottappa, which means “abhorrence and remorse” (sometimes translated as “shame and fear”), which is the “reluctance to do evil and repentance for having done evil.” The activity of the super ego censuring the ego is referred to as, “the self reproaching the self” (attanam atta upavadati).
What Freud saw, as the problem, was that the id comes in conflict with the ego and the super ego. The id is unaware of the external reality and it demands immediate satisfaction. The id is aware only of what it wants; it is not concerned about how it is obtained. The ego on the other hand is aware of the external reality, and only the ego knows how to gratify the id. The ego wants to gratify the id, but it can be gratified only within the confines of reality. Immediate gratification is not always possible. Therefore, the ego might have to postpone gratification. This, the id does not like. The id is uncomfortable till it is gratified.
This conflict, between the id and the ego, sounds very much like the familiar conflict between the child and the mother. The child cries for food but only the mother knows how to get it. But then, the mother has to prepare it before the child can have it. This takes time. Therefore, the satisfaction has to be postponed. But the child wants food immediately, and is unconcerned about how it can be got. The child remains hungry and cries till the food is given. The child, according to Freud, is mainly the id, and is dominated by the pleasure principle. The emotionally mature adult, on the other hand, whose ego is strong, is dominated by the reality principle. Even in the emotionally immature adult, the ego is in control, even though it is weak.
If the child makes demands that are detrimental to itself as well as to others, and the mother is undecided, in such a case the father may intervene and demand that the mother must not cater to the child’s irresponsible demands. If the mother follows the father’s advice, the child will not be satisfied at all, and it will continue to cry. So the mother has to find a way of satisfying the child while at the same time following the father’s advice. This is an analogy where the father represents the super ego, the mother represents the ego, and the child represents the id. The super ego does not deal with the id directly, but only through the ego. The ego is always in control even when it is weak. The ego has to find ways of satisfying the id as well as the super ego. The ego becomes the mediator between the id, the ego, and also the external reality.
(10) Monks, there are these three persons found existing in the world. (Gradual Sayings I, p111, 29.)