At the university where I teach, there is a large and active deaf community. I would guess that being in such a community promotes psychological health for deaf people, whereas being in a situation without the support of such a community might be harder and lonelier.
?
Yeah, it could be one of the possible factors for these kinds of issues. They will get lonelier at early ages compared to the normal ones, I guess.
There is a peer-reviewed journal paper on the topic, we discussed last time.
" Violence in Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing People".
After reading the abstract, my understanding towards the inabilities affecting the psychological structure of a person is becoming stronger. 
I think, it is better to directly observe instead of relying to such information.
Look what is implied in your question: we are not capable of conceiving a universe without ourselves, aren’t we?
This question cannot be answered speculatively, it’s like putting the cart before the horse.
Discover, see, understand who are you first, something which is within our reach, and then maybe the question will be answered.
I did not found such motive in the question “Is there a non-ego I ?”
The same question can be viewed as,
Is there a self, an identity that is not a product of the ego, of thought?
May be I am missing the whole point in your reply.
please explain your view
Yes, you are.
K’s teachings concern the self-knowledge, the self-awareness, the self-study. So when I ask that question: "is there a non-ego I? " And I investigate about from where that question arises, in myself, I can, if I’m aware enough, detect and so understand that it comes from my incapacity of conceiving a world without me. The whole idea scares me, I want to continue, I want to exist, if I don’t exist nothing exists, so there must be another “better” I which is there when this ugly one is not here anymore. You see the trick? It’s the same old trick the religions have done. In India they say, there is the ego, the lower self, but there is a divine self (atman). This shows our unwillingness of getting out of the cage, of the prison of the I, and so we project a copy of it in another plane or call it non-ego I. Don’t you see it’s all a construction of the thought?
So let me repeat what I have said: discover, directly, autonomously, by yourself, what you are, what actually is this thing you call “Myself”. That is the only important and decisive thing to do.
Unless you do that you can discuss untill doomsday without grasping anything.
I did not have this in mind when I asked the question: “Is there a non-ego I?” What I had in mind was what sivaram said: “Is there a self, an identity that is not a product of the ego, of thought?”
This is one possible reason why the question “Is there a non-ego I?” might have arisen. It was not my reason. Consciously, in any case. Unconsciously … by definition I don’t know what drives me from my unconscious storehouse of thoughts, memories, reflexes.
Krishnamurthy said that self knowledge is the starting point for wisdom. I think it is okay to discuss openly in this forum.
This question “Is there a non-ego I ?” arises if the mind has understood the implications of self to some extent. I do not know why you think about the incapacity of conceiving world?
I do not have any idea what you said.
Associating the state of mind with terms like cage and prison will enslave the mind to sensations.
Thanks for sharing your view
This is what you expressed but you haven’t enquired from where that expression arised. That is: are you not aware of your/our psycological needs, reactions, etc.? I can see the product of my thought process, which is the content or the expression of my thinking, like your question, and this the superficial level which we all are familiar with, but only if you delve at a deeper level you can be aware of the psycological structure which prompted that question. It’s not so difficult, in this case, if you observe yourself, your spontaneous reactions. Unless you have clogged your mind adopting a “right way of thinking” which makes you see only what you want to see, you can easily sense that you don’t want to disappear, you, me, us. We can do nothing to change this attitude, this psychological need. It’s there, solid like a rock.
So whay you can’t see it?
That is the problem.
I have inquired about the motivation behind this and similar questions that I’ve posed. And learned a lot about what makes me tick. But the process doesn’t end there for me. Self inquiry is a powerful tool for learning about the nature of reality, but I don’t think it’s the only powerful tool. Sometimes looking ‘outward’ is the better way to go.
What do you mean by looking outward? Of course we can learn looking at the behaviour of our fellow men and to what is happening in the world, that’s part of the process, but unless we know clearly ourselves, unless we have delved in the very nature of what we are, seeing the behaviour of others will not help.
Last but not least, if with “looking outward” you mean the discussion you may have with others like here, this to me is a mere illusion. Often it is just an escape for not working at the main thing: ourselves.
At present, I am not thinking about betterment. Therefore, I do not have any tendency to move away from what it is at present. I do not believe in the concept of atman and other sorts of things.
Why it is problem not having an idea about this kind of aspect?
Hey, I am just asking in a humble way to know whether I am missing something. You can share if you want.
Please Sivaram, read again your reply and my reply. From what you say now it seems to me that you are not focusing on what I have said.
You quoted a part of my reply where I was describing to you what I feel, what every healthy, normal human being in this earth feels, that is: I want to continue, I want to exist. In other words: I don’t want to die. And you said “I do not have any idea what you said.”
So to me this means that you don’t have any idea of the fact that human beings want to live perhaps eternally or so. That’s is the problem, you are not aware of your own psychological needs, feelings, fear. It’s a problem because if you are not aware of this fundamental human nature, we cannot explore together this problem raised by nobody whether there is a non-ego I.
Am I clear?
The above statement made me go into confusion.
Now, I understood your intention behind those statements.
No it is not like that, I just did not want to have any conclusion without properly understanding the perspective of your words.
I like to explore about the aspects of mind.
Thanks for sharing your view.
Good that at last we managed to understand each others! 
Sometimes it needs a lot of explanations untill we are in sync.
Yes, it requires some good amount of attention what other person is saying.
Seems like you are having some understanding Jiddu teaching.
You’re implying that you “understand who you are”. Could you tell us more about this understanding?
Not at all. My statement does not imply that. You are still in the habit of separating a sentence from its context and so distorting its meaning. My statement referred to the topic of discussion which was that I want to exist, to continue, etc. and because Sivaram did not understand that, I invited him (or her, I don’t know) to enquiry into himself to see if it was so. To me it’s so evident, obvious that I, we don’t want to disappear or to die. This is part of the self-knowledge and part of the understanding we may have.
Here is what you said: “DIscover, see, understand who are you first, something which is within our reach”.
How can you give this advice if you don’t “understand who are you”? How can you know that this understanding is “within our reach” if you aren’t holding it?