"The most common ego identifications have to do with possessions, the work you do, social status and recognition, knowledge and education, physical appearance, special abilities, relationships, personal and family history, belief systems, and often political, nationalistic, racial, religious, and other collective identifications. None of these is you." ~Eckhart Tolle
I've not read Tolle – this quotation was sent to me as is – so I don't know the context. Taken as is, this statement is both true and not true. If none of those are me, do I still have responsibility for them? Cannot others describe me accurately, if incompletely, by referring to them? It's true that none of the qualities, singly or in aggregate, are a complete definition of us, but they do serve a function in knowing who we are, so they are not useless or entirely false.
I'd posit that the best definition of us is the aggregate of what we have done, for good or ill, in our lives up to this moment. We'd like to define ourselves, of course, as something higher than our own and others' experiences of us, as something ethereal. But doing so denies our common humanity, which is a damned mess AND glorious, and binds us all together.
My concern with many alternative or new age philosophers is that they would apply to humans one of the "heresies" (I would call them concepts, but whatever) often applied to Jesus: that he was really fully divine and not human/flawed at all. (Was it Docetism?) Some theories of humanity seem to want to deny our messiness – our combination of surprising heroism, courage, generosity, etc., with our capacity for greed, callousness, self-centeredness, etc. They seem to favor an ill-defined, but more polished, version of human nature that is not our experience, or is our experience only at times. It may be what we aspire to be, but that is not us, either.