How do we define "Ego Death"?

[Synkromystic]

When people here discuss ego death, they are talking about a transient state of being brought about by psychedelics - and If you've experienced this, you know it. It's the point at which the sense or awareness of self is completely obliterated - where for lack of a better description you simply cease being you. It is not some kind of lasting transformation that exists once the drug wears off. To achieve this, you will want to look into getting a lobotomy, or maybe just wait for the permanent physical death that will come to you naturally in time.

If you are a human being who is alive and conscious, you are going to have an ego. You can strive to live in a less egocentric fashion (and to that end, the use of psychedelics may either help or hinder), but that is hardly the same thing.

You're not going to "kill" your ego through the use of any substance, except as a brief and temporary phenomenon.

When reading it seemed to me that people had different ideas, at least slightly, on what this is, so i thought for the sake of common understanding, Everyone could give their ideas on the matter. Not what they think everyone else is talking about. even in this thread, people have defined it differently than what you just said, so please just give your idea and not what you think everyone's' is.

I am not intending this to sound rude or mean, just that i feel your post is not appropriate for this discussion. I would love to hear your ideas, which it seems you've stated, but i don't like "When people here discuss ego death". I don't believe you speak for everyone on the nexus.... If you do, then sorry to intrude on your authorita, but atleast put IMO or something, you sound like you're talking down :d

EDIT: I did not think Death implied murder, I think i said something about killing it earlier, but later stated, after collecting my thoughts better, that it to me is a detachment from the ego. To me its letting the ego die, not killing it my friend

Everyone is going to have a slightly different ''view'' of what ego death/loss is. This is because words only point in the direction. The words are not the ''thing''. Art's statement is widely accepted here on the nexus, and I would imagine off site as well, so when one speaks of ego death/loss here, that's generally what people are referring to.

Now, you may take Art's statement as purely opinion based, but if you dissect it and analyze it, research it, experience it :shock: and intuit it, you should come to a similar conclusion, that is if you are defining ego the same way he is.

The reality is that you can't exist in this body without an ego. Unless you redefine what ego is, which would help no one, because if we are all using different definitions for the same word, the words will point in too many directions, and the ''truth''(i'm using this term very loosely), will be elusive.

 

[indydude19]

Now, you may take Art's statement as purely opinion based, but if you dissect it and analyze it, research it and intuit it, you should come to a similar conclusion, that is if you are defining ego the same way he is.

The reality is that you can't exist in this body without an ego. Unless you redefine what ego, which would help no one, because if we are all using different definitions for the same word, the words will point in too many directions, and the ''truth''(i'm using this term very loosely), will be elusive.

This is precisely the purpose of this thread, through this discussion I have learned my view of the ego and its definition seem to be different from what most of the community defines and sees it as. My view is not dramatically different, but different enough for there to be some translation error for me from what i read to how i define it.

I am a stickler for definitions though, i like having the most accurate and concise definitions i can, which i why I made this thread. To better understand how others view and define it so i can better understand what others mean. After all the general definition is more important than my personal one. I'm just trying to get the best definition so the truth will be a little less elusive to me :lol:

EDIT: I would like to restate i intended no hostility in my response to Art, just that i feel his wording wasn't quite appropriate, again since i am such a stickler about definitions and wording, for what i was asking in this thread.

 

[Infectedstyle]

even in this thread, people have defined it differently than what you just said

Who did? I can not find any poster here besides you ofcourse, who defines Ego-death in a different manner than Art' did. Except maybe Zhoro did just by saying Ego-death is undefinable.

I was under the impression that you and Art' figured I was on the same page as you are. And it may seem that way, i also felt on an intuitive level that Art's post was more or less aimed at me as well since my post seems to imply 'lasting ego-less existence' and not a transient state of being ego-death.

Transient state of being ego-death is how I always defined Ego-death.

But i certainly do wish to imply that ego-death is a lasting existence. Just as mentioned by Zhoro in a later post, The experience of ego-death as described by him is more or less a rememberance of what I now think of as an eternal Zen-state. Thus, providing an Anchor in day-to-day life to live life in accordance with this primordial zen-state.

Certainly this thread enhanced my definition of ego-death. Since I haven't experienced it it is hard to understand. But I never meant to say that ego-death is permanent. I have been here on the Nexus for too long to make such a misstatement about ego-death.

 

[Sky Motion]

You forget that you exist as a person.

 

[indydude19]

You forget that you exist as a person.

That statement certainly struck a chord with me. I have an extreme detachment from other people. I love nature and animals, but don't feel much at home with people unless its in a learning setting.

I feel you may be right Sky. I don't identify much with being a person at this point, and this is something for me to work on. I viewed and still kind of view myself as just a part of the world, and a part of society. I don't view myself as a person first, but a part of a whole first. I used to think this was a more beneficial way of identifying myself, but now i am beginning to think i should change. I find myself void of most emotion in this current state of being, and attached to no humans :|

What a well placed statement Sky. This thread has proven a true benefit to me, and i have something new to work on now. Thank you everyone who has participated thus far.

 

[indydude19]

Transient state of being ego-death is how I always defined Ego-death.

But i certainly do wish to imply that ego-death is a lasting existence. Just as mentioned by Zhoro in a later post, The experience of ego-death as described by him is more or less a rememberance of what I now think of as an eternal Zen-state. Thus, providing an Anchor in day-to-day life to live life in accordance with this primordial zen-state.

Certainly this thread enhanced my definition of ego-death. Since I haven't experienced it it is hard to understand. But I never meant to say that ego-death is permanent. I have been here on the Nexus for too long to make such a misstatement about ego-death.

This is where i found a big communication error between others and myself here, to me ego death is a process to become ego-less, although it may not often be completed. While everyone else defines it as the transient state you all have, which would imply to me an event of ego rebirth as well. otherwise i would feel the term isn't appropriate to the transient state of what you all define as being ego death and i would define as being temporary ego-less or just separated from the ego.

I do realize this is playing semantics at this point, but that's where my translation error came from

 

[Cognitive Heart]

I feel ego death is an incorrect phrase to use in regards to ego-based thinking. I see it as a protective mechanism. Its just that not enough people have the opportunity, knowledge or awareness to transform their ego. You cannot really destroy ego. You can only transcend it in a way that it becomes insignificant to your life. We certainly can live this way and it would reduce a lot of destructive-based thinking and actions. This I can relate to. I don't experience ego-death, even with psychedelics or meditation. But it has transcended into a space that has less criticism, fear, judgement, analyzation, doubt and worry. Sure, we all experience these kinds of phenomena, they come and go. It is through realization that ego is no longer in control. In fact, that nothing is in control. That is true discovery. And what a joke!

 

[Infectedstyle]

I'd like to add that things scare me as a psychedelic journey progresses in such a way that my resistance and fear is a hindrance which is also ego-based I think but namely depicts me as a victim and doesn't involve other people.

 

[Aeternus]

Ego Death:

1. Abandonment of the "I" idea and realisation of true nature of the Self, Consciousness. That would be step into Enlightenment. Abandonment means end of identification by Consciousness with the form that arises within it.
2. Abandonment of the body by the Self, Consciousness. That would be expirance of material Death but if "I" remains dose ego survives in Soul/Consciousness?
3. Realisation of not being separate from the universe.

From the Consciousness point of view ego is the "I", which is simply an idea of mind. To the idea of "I" all other ideas attach itselves and creates egoic mind. "I" is the feeling of mind to be something separate, a limiting box in which consciousness is put. There are higher levels of mind beyond egoic part but Consciousness is that in which all minds manifests. When Consciousness is deeply involved, identified with the mind one perceives the "I" and all its implications as the true and only Self. When this involvment and identification ends its existance within Consciousness, one discovers that "I" and mind was and is just an illusion. The feeling of "I" has gone and mind is perceived as bundle of ideas that pops out within the observer and only observer remains while thoughts passes by. While the mind is the doer and consciousness is the observer, one sees that whatever appears is not that what one truly is. What one truly is, is the space in which all forms manifests its existance including the body and the soul (as higher to the body form of energy but still limited). Consciousness is above all forms.

What is the Ego Death then? Finial conclusion, it is the end of identification with the feeling of "I" and dissolution of individual conceptions as egoic mind. First ones step into Enlightened state of Consciousness.

There is no need for psychedelics to reach that state, it can be reached by meditation or contemplation of universal oneness and other techniques that serves consciousness expansion. Psychedelics are only catalysts of that Self realisation process.

 

[indydude19]

loving responses in this little resurge on this thread

Great responses and i agree with Aeternus on this, nicely structured response:thumb_up:

 

[nexusdisciple]

When people here discuss ego death, they are talking about a transient state of being brought about by psychedelics - and If you've experienced this, you know it. It's the point at which the sense or awareness of self is completely obliterated - where for lack of a better description you simply cease being you. It is not some kind of lasting transformation that exists once the drug wears off. To achieve this, you will want to look into getting a lobotomy, or maybe just wait for the permanent physical death that will come to you naturally in time.

If you are a human being who is alive and conscious, you are going to have an ego. You can strive to live in a less egocentric fashion (and to that end, the use of psychedelics may either help or hinder), but that is hardly the same thing.

You're not going to "kill" your ego through the use of any substance, except as a brief and temporary phenomenon.

Perfectly stated in my opinion. Every living human is going to have an ego until they die except for transient/peak/mystical experiences where one and all become the same thing. It is an "experience" of non-duality, in my experience anyway. During every day life when one speaks and lives among physical things an ego of some sort is essential. When one has a rare moment of "experiencing" (or lack of experience?) the death of ego, they essentially become "one with the universe". Any lines separating you from everything else are erased. One exists as the whole universe at once.

[youtube]

Check out this video and see if helps clarify this idea for you anymore.

Just my $.02

 

[indydude19]

I LOVE LOVE Alan Watts, thank you for posting that video

However, i feel the video supports my view that the term ego death is grossly inaccurate for what many use it for in the community. It would seem that according to Alan the ego persists as long as experience does. So to say that ego death is a transient state of being, we are still speaking of being and of experiencing.

Not only that but different brain activities are surely associated with this transient state, and many ways to reach it, which brings about the question of why confine it to psychedelics or try to define this state of being, which would also be a physical mind state, without physical evidence such as fMRI or PET scans.

I truly feel Ego death is not a word we should be using for this transient state. Recently i have heard many people, not on the nexus, but in real life trying to speak of ego death and they really have no idea what they are talking about. I feel these large misconceptions stem from improper labeling by the nexus and other, less satisfactory (lol) forums.

The only way for the sense of self, according to alan, and through this discussion, to my understanding, to be obliterated or discarded is to eliminate experience completely, or literally DIE.

It would seem then, the only people who have experienced ego death are those who have actually physically died and then came back to life, most likely through the use of a defibrillator, or in John Travolta's a syringe full of adrenaline :lol:

Please rebut if you feel the desire, i am really enjoying this thread

 

[Orion]

My definition of ego death:

Probably one of, if not the most profound experiences you can have as a human being. After breakthrough and before loss of awareness is ego death, where any fear is no longer possible, as in this time there is no concept of self. I think ego death is a fleeting moment, that ego is immediately restored in full as soon as the experience is over. People under the delusion of enlightenment from permanent ego death are mistaken or lying. It's a precious fleeting moment only attainable through high doses of psychedelics, and possibly deep meditation and physical death. If death itself feels anything like this, there's nothing to be afraid of.

 

[indydude19]

My definition of ego death:

Probably one of, if not the most profound experiences you can have as a human being. After breakthrough and before loss of awareness is ego death, where any fear is no longer possible, as in this time there is no concept of self. I think ego death is a fleeting moment, that ego is immediately restored in full as soon as the experience is over. People under the delusion of enlightenment from permanent ego death are mistaken or lying. It's a precious fleeting moment only attainable through high doses of psychedelics, and possibly deep meditation and physical death. If death itself feels anything like this, there's nothing to be afraid of.

That's a very subjective and variable definition, and not definitive of death, if it is restored immediately. I feel that labeling ego death to this definition is misconceiving.

I feel there should not be any comparison of breakthroughs to death. It is not known with certainty what DMT's purpose is in the brain, we have no clue if there's a similar release at natural death or non-drug mystical experiences, only speculation and the knowledge that some primates produce it in their brain.

Your definition leaves MUCH to be defined and leaves, atleast me, with more questions regarding the definition. Your definition disregards individual sensitivity to psychedelics, and who defines high dose? who has the authority to declare enlightenment a delusion?

This is a definition that is fraught with what i see as vital errors and assumptions, that are not backed up. This definitions reach far exceeds its grasp IMO

 

[anrchy]

Upon having an experience that causes ego death, your entire being is shattered. Upon returning from said experience you begin the stage of integrating your "self" back into the same life you had but now with a shattered ego. This "process of integration" is the tool in which you rebuild your ego based on what you have learned from the psychedelic experience and your previous life experience.

As you integrate, your ego is slowly rebuilt to better specifications. As long as you pay attention to the cues and properly adhere the teachings you will mold this new ego to work for you more rather than just "be" you. The ego cannot be killed permanently. Living life creates your ego based on what you see, what your taught ect. If you think that you can be ego less... Well maybe you don't understand what it feels like. Cause I can tell you it is near insanity.

 

[anrchy]

My definition of ego death:

Probably one of, if not the most profound experiences you can have as a human being. After breakthrough and before loss of awareness is ego death, where any fear is no longer possible, as in this time there is no concept of self. I think ego death is a fleeting moment, that ego is immediately restored in full as soon as the experience is over. People under the delusion of enlightenment from permanent ego death are mistaken or lying. It's a precious fleeting moment only attainable through high doses of psychedelics, and possibly deep meditation and physical death. If death itself feels anything like this, there's nothing to be afraid of.

That's a very subjective and variable definition, and not definitive of death, if it is restored immediately. I feel that labeling ego death to this definition is misconceiving.

I feel there should not be any comparison of breakthroughs to death. It is not known with certainty what DMT's purpose is in the brain, we have no clue if there's a similar release at natural death or non-drug mystical experiences, only speculation and the knowledge that some primates produce it in their brain.

I am pretty sure Orion was hinting that ego death and dying are possibly similar. Not that death and psychedelics are similar. Notice how he listed each thing that could cause ego death. The comparison was between Ego Death and Death, beings that when you die your ego dies, your soul/energy/spirit what have you, goes on to the next stage and your ego is not needed.

Plus it doesnt make a whole lot of sense to ask for opinions, then state they are incorrect since it is subjective. Isn't opinion (a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.)

Your definition leaves MUCH to be defined and leaves, atleast me, with more questions regarding the definition. Your definition disregards individual sensitivity to psychedelics, and who defines high dose? who has the authority to declare enlightenment a delusion?

This is a definition that is fraught with what i see as vital errors and assumptions, that are not backed up. This definitions reach far exceeds its grasp IMO

I dont see how his definition disregards individual sensitivity. He simply said "high doses", he did not specify a measurement. So taking that into consideration a high dose is different per person based on their own sensitivity. Who defines high dose? This questions seems fairly ridiculous. There is a general acceptance what a high dose is with different chemicals. That amount changes according to sensitivity, so then basically the term "high dose" is based on the level of intensity (or other aspects) of the experience.

I'll start by stating that i feel many take ego death too lightly. It seems to me that many have glimpsed ego death, have seen the path, but have not walked it.

This struck me in an odd way. Someone making this statement obviously has no idea what an ego death is IMO. I do agree that some people take ego death lightly. This is proven by the many people new to psychedelics that take way too much and then post about it here, how they "went too far" or "melted their face off" ect. What I wanted to touch base on the most though, was how you state that you think many have seen the path but not walked it. Well it is possible "in a way" for this statement to be true. Kind of like how some people think they broke through on DMT, then a few weeks later or even months, Oh no NOW I broke through. Some people may think they had an ego death experience but did not. I still dont agree that your statement fulfills this category. You either have an ego death or you dont. WHEN you do there is no mistaking it and you have no choice to walk it or not. It is now MANDATORY.

You seem to be disregarding an important thing IMO. This is ALL subjective. As far as I know an Ego Death is not a scientifically proven thing. So for you to sit here and just simply wave your hand and disregard some of the posters definitions of an ego death because it doesnt fulfill your need for accuracy, is redundant and bordering on the edge of disrespect and rudeness.

Unless you are 100% positive that you have had an ego death, you should not be making any claims that anyone else's definition of one is incorrect in any way shape or form.

 

[corpus callosum]

I think the term ego-death is less apposite than the term ego-dissolution, and this has varying grades of authenticity which need not be a clear dose-dependant phenomena with regards to vaporised DMT. The 'dissolving' can be complete resulting in a seamless melding/transition to pure unified experience, or less so where a part of the individual can be retained, and is able to behold an interzone where his/her boundaries can become obscured, and glide in and out of the pure experiential state; this is a fine experience which is being 'appreciated' by a non-'egoic' facet of the venture, IME. The full dissolution is a rarer gem and unmistakeable when it occurs, IMO.

 

[indydude19]

I am pretty sure Orion was hinting that ego death and dying are possibly similar. Not that death and psychedelics are similar. Notice how he listed each thing that could cause ego death. The comparison was between Ego Death and Death, beings that when you die your ego dies, your soul/energy/spirit what have you, goes on to the next stage and your ego is not needed.

Plus it doesnt make a whole lot of sense to ask for opinions, then state they are incorrect since it is subjective. Isn't opinion (a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.)

I am more focused creating a unified definition through discussion on here rather than just getting blind opinions. As you even said, his definition hints at possible similarities. This sounds more like a proposition if it hints than a definition which sets clear boundaries, to me.

I asked for thoughts and opinions, yes. I asked for them PURELY for the purpose of criticism and deep thorough discussion. The point of this thread is to create a strong and stable definition that will not vary, much, from person to person. Something well worded that does not fail to leave other things undefined. I am carrying out the purpose of this thread by bringing up these criticisms, and as i stated, would love rubuttals, as this is again, the point of the thread. anything i state as incorrect, i state that i feel it is incorrect, i am not speaking in certainties when questioning, or at least not intending to . You will notice i use IMO and I feel a lot to show this.

I dont see how his definition disregards individual sensitivity. He simply said "high doses", he did not specify a measurement. So taking that into consideration a high dose is different per person based on their own sensitivity. Who defines high dose? This questions seems fairly ridiculous. There is a general acceptance what a high dose is with different chemicals. That amount changes according to sensitivity, so then basically the term "high dose" is based on the level of intensity (or other aspects) of the experience.

So then it is a definition that varies from person to person and leaves much room fro interpretation? At one point, yes there is different sensitivities, then there are differetn experiences. People expose themselves to different strength doses and different drugs, not just because of sensitivity, they also do so because of fear, readiness, or just previous experience. There are too many things affecting the definition of "high dose" to effectively use it in this definition IMO.

Someone making this statement obviously has no idea what an ego death is IMO. I do agree that some people take ego death lightly. This is proven by the many people new to psychedelics that take way too much and then post about it here, how they "went too far" or "melted their face off" ect.

Like i said at the start, there are different opinions on what ego death is, If you feel that my statements show lack of experience in ego death that is perfectly fine, but allow me to state that i view many on here the same way who would claim it to me. To me to say that ego death can be achieved before literal physical death, as is now my understanding through this discussion, is irresponsible and far fetched.

I would think ego death would take away the idea of you, your gender, your age, your entire existence. not just the dissolution of regular mindly boundaries, which if you have memory of this you obviously experienced it and to experience is to be operating in an egoic fashion. If you experience you have ego, just because you feel its a grand mystical unifying experience doesn't mean ego death, it just means a grand mystical unifying experience.

I feel Ego death is synonomous with real death and the state you are and Orion should be labelled something different.

What I wanted to touch base on the most though, was how you state that you think many have seen the path but not walked it. Well it is possible "in a way" for this statement to be true. WHEN you do there is no mistaking it and you have no choice to walk it or not. It is now MANDATORY.

My understanding has changed a lot through the course of this discussion and i see the only way of walking ego death is to die, and it would be unmistakable, and mandatory, in that aspect you are totally correct. I see no difference between the body and the mind/soul. Its all physical and all the brain IMO

You seem to be disregarding an important thing IMO. This is ALL subjective. As far as I know an Ego Death is not a scientifically proven thing. So for you to sit here and just simply wave your hand and disregard some of the posters definitions of an ego death because it doesnt fulfill your need for accuracy, is redundant and bordering on the edge of disrespect and rudeness.

This is a discussion, I am not claiming the idea or interpretation is incorrect, please don't think i am that arrogant to be thinking i am telling people what to think. I am a direct person and we are all adult enough to bypass unnecessary pleasantries in discussion aren't we. I don't feel the need to embellish my response with a bunch of extra kind and sensitive words. I am being direct, not trying to be rude, mean arrogant or disrespectful. If you feel i am, then sorry, that is your prerogative however. Also to my understanding, ego death is an inevitability for every living thing, not an experience some may have, but others are excluded from. If we define the Ego as I, then ego death is the Death of I, my Death, which is IMO bodily death since i see no separation of body and mind, i do not believe in a thing called the soul, beyond the body.

I feel that the definition was not well worded or presented IMO that is all. I am 100% sure that I HAVE NOT experienced ego death and feel that unless you have died, you haven't either IMO.

Unless you are 100% positive that you have had an ego death, you should not be making any claims that anyone else's definition of one is incorrect in any way shape or form.

I feel that is not entirely correct. I think it is still okay to question the logic and wording of a definition. that is the point of discussion after all. Or at least this discussion. I am not trying to be mean rude or disrespectful. I am just being direct and skipping the "well that's a lovely and interesting definition friend, but i have little bit different interpretation if you don't mind". If you think i intend disrespect or rudeness then you are sorely mistaken, i have nothing but the up most respect for people on here and am just looking for a direct and serious discussion.

 

[anrchy]

If you hadn't had a break through on DMT, and you came on here creating a thread on how to define a break through, and then every time someone gave you their definition of a break through you shot down almost everything thing they said... that would reflect to me why it is incorrect as to the method you are going about all this. There has been a long standing definition of ego death and your posts are reading like you don't accept that.

I also do not see why you are assuming that ego death is directly related to complete permanent death of the ego. It seems like you are coupling death and ego death together as the only possible route of administration. If that is the case then we already have a definition for that... Its called dying.

Ego death is what we call a certain type of experience that can be achieved through multiple different methods. If I am reading your posts correctly it doesn't sound like you are wanting a more precise definition of it, more like you are wanting to rewrite what it is completely.

Which if we did do that, then we would now need a new term for this experience that is now termless. If you Google ego death and other ways of cross referencing the term you will get a pretty close definition as to what art explained. This thread just doesn't make sense to me.

 

[Bill Cipher]

Ditto. You can set out to redefine the color blue as red, but that doesn't actually make it so.