How do we define "Ego Death"?

[indydude19]

At this point yes, i have stated that i feel it is irresponsible to call the state You refer to as ego death, ego death. As Corpus said, Ego-dissolution seems a more apt term. At this point yes, i feel that many should stop referring to ego death in the way the do now. WE have a set definition of death that many clearly violate with their definiton of Ego death. Death is the main subject and ego just specifies what dies, we should not create a new definition of death as a transient state just to accommodate the ego.

I have had very numerous breakthroughs and plenty of combos like LSDMT, MDMA+DMT etc. so do not think i have no clue where you are coming from in your thinking, just that i feel its not appropriate labeling at all.

Your definition may be long standing, but that does not affect the accuracy of it in my opinion. We thought the world was flat for how long? and now define it as a sphere.

How long something has been accepted does not change, IMO, the need to alter it to be more accurate. Just because the definition you use now is long standing and well accepted does not mean it should stay as is just because it will be difficult getting others to accept.

To sum up, I feel that we should RE-TERM what you define ego death, as ego-dissolution or something similar. Ego-death is just not appropriate to the definition IMO. My goal is to put an appropriate term on the definition, redefining ego death is just an integral part of that, IMO.

 

[anrchy]

Ya I just realized what is going on.

The word death usually brings about a feeling of permanence. So ya you "could" say that in a way it is an incorrect word to use in the phrase. But who cares the definition is what matters.

Indydude,

It doesn't seem like you are trying to come to the conclusion of what the accepted definition of ego death is. It seems like you are disagreeing with calling a certain experience by that term.

Good luck on trying to re term something that us so widely used. I attempted this wit ha thread on HPPD. It just isn't going to happen.

 

[indydude19]

Anrchy, yes i am sorry if this thread is a bit confusing in its purpose, it does seem kind of hard to follow my true intent, partly because i did not know entirely what that intent was at the beginning of the thread. Defining ego death has lead me to conclude the previous definition used needs relabeling once removing ego death as its term.

But it seems you understand my point now :d

 

[anrchy]

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

How doesn't it?

Because it has already been given a designation.

 

[indydude19]

Anything we attempt to define has a designation, even before defining it, it is designated as undesignated, it is only truly unknown when there is no concept IMO. we designate it as soon as we conceive or perceive it, That is one of the things that sets humans apart from other animals IME, that we organize and label so well naturally.

Blue was first seen, then catagorized as a color and further defined as blue, but what if red was a better term or what if red was the term used by a different population?

 

[anrchy]

Not sure what your point is, but I will say this.

Your thread started as a tool to create a detailed description of what we call ego death. Now you have abandoned that idea and want to relabel the experience that is referred to when you hear the term ego death.

Refining a definition for your own sake is fine and understandable. Trying to change the name if something that is understood by millions if people using this site as a conduit for that is futile.

 

[indydude19]

Not sure what your point is, but I will say this.

Your thread started as a tool to create a detailed description of what we call ego death. Now you have abandoned that idea and want to relabel the experience that is referred to when you hear the term ego death.

Refining a definition for your own sake is fine and understandable. Trying to change the name if something that is understood by millions if people using this site as a conduit for that is futile.

I wanted to know what the clear definition HERE was, and i found out its that transient state, that's what the general opinion is so that is what the definition is for now. After learning the definition that is commonly used, i thought it not as accurate as it could be, and in the process came to have a new personal definition of ego death. I then wished to compare it to yours and discuss the differences and merits of each, which have been done. After discussion of both it seems only correct for me to pick what i see as the most appropriate definition, which i have and resultingly labeled your definition of ego death ego-dissolution, thanks Corpus for a good term suggestion :thumb_up:

So when i read on here and speak on here i know to abide by popular definition, but that does not change my opinion that is it poor labeling, so of course i will try to change that if i feel it is inaccurate

Tools can change function as our understanding changes, and that is what occurred here. I really don't care if you think it is futile, the difficulty of a task should not determine one's desire to do it.

In reference to your HPPD thread, i found it interesting and will message you, what i think are, some links to neat articles involving the brain and vision if you want

 

[Bill Cipher]

Why stop here? Why not launch a campaign to eliminate the phrase "death of innocence"? Sure, your innocence can be long since dead and buried figuratively speaking, but what if you are then charged with a murder you didn't commit??? Hardly seems appropriate in this context.

And what about "death by chocolate"? I find it hard to believe that any human being has actually ever consumed enough chocolate to result in their physical death. Same with "death by snu-snu", although I'd be willing to test that one out.

 

[indydude19]

Why stop here? Why not launch a campaign to eliminate the phrase "death of innocence"? Sure, your innocence can be long since dead and buried figuratively speaking, but what if you are then charged with a murder you didn't commit??? Hardly seems appropriate in this context.

And what about "death by chocolate"? I find it hard to believe that any human being has actually ever consumed enough chocolate to result in their physical death. Same with "death by snu-snu", although I'd be willing to test that one out.

????? Hardly seems relevant I don't see how these relate to the ego?

The snu snu thing made me laugh a little haha poor crushed pelvis'

 

[anrchy]

Using you own terms for things is fine. Its just that you sound like you want others to use it too. Words are meant to be used loosely. Death may mean permanence when used in some ways, but doesn't necessarily mean so in others.

Jesus "died" in the cross. But then was resurrected. So by your understanding thus is impossible and the church should refer to it as "Jesus dissolutioned on the cross". Since death is permanent.

 

[indydude19]

great example!!! This perfectly demonstrates one reason why it may have been such a misunderstanding for me. Your example shows how different premises about death and the soul can directly relate to ego death for some.

According to my understanding and beliefs, the church, at least christian, does not give due credit the nature and man, and has many things in theology and philosophy that i would argue against. I believe it would be impossible for jesus to come to life in the way described and believed by the church

To me, jesus is more likely an alien with super advanced tech than a godly messiah, kind of like assasins creed lol not that i believe in assasins creed, i am a Pantheist

I am now curious as to how much of the nexus believes in god and or the soul. I will look for a thread on it and i f there isn't one, i may be tempted to start a poll :thumb_up:

 

[anrchy]

There is def a thread, possibly a ton.

My main point is that words change meaning when used in different context. Kill doesn't always mean to harm or cause the death of a living being. You may want to kill that headache, or kill the noise, you may even want to kill the neighbors dog but not actually mean it that way.

Words can have many definitions, and those definitely change when coupled with other words. One persons attachment to what they believe a word represents also has no bearing when the word has a general acceptance. Words are used to define thoughts to another person. If you want to change them for yourself try talking to yourself using vision and feeling rather than words.

 

[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.

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

Obviously as I stated, that was indeed MY definition. Which obviously is subjective. You seem to want objective consensus, yet in your own words:

To me a true measure of ego death is....

And then you go on to give your own subjective outlook in this and other posts. Even though you seem to want a fixed definition, you can have a subjective take and offer it here, but others can't ?

 

[universecannon]

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.

I think that's a pretty good way to put it

 

[soulfood]

I think the term ego-death is lost on me.

Ego-sleep seems far more accurate.

A temporary silence of the noise that is not what you are, but what you think.

A fleeting awakening to pure presence.

 

[Eschaton]

Might as well throw my hat in the ring:

"The experience of (ego-death) involves a full blown epiphany of the Oneness of the Universe: time ends, Eternity is experientially realized, and subsequently, death is experienced as a transition of being; not the end of our existence, effectively eliminating any fear of dying. The person thus raptured experiences the death of his ego; his merely limited sense of self is totally dissolved, enabling him to comprehend for the first time the Ground of All Being; the Eternal Universe, of which he understands that he is. Essentially, the individual’s microcosmic (Earthly) frame of reference slowly erodes leaving behind only a macrocosmic (Universal) frame of reference which is almost entirely ineffable..."

http://wedietoremember.com/files/We_Die_to_Remember_What_We_Live_to_Forget.pdf

 

[indydude19]

Yes yes I apologize for responding rudely to orions definition. I hope he can forgive me I was out of line with that. Sorry for being so subjective on a thread I made for me to be objective (wish there was an emoti for slapping myself in the head)

I hadn't thought of ego sleep at all lol but I still like corpus' definition the moat. Though I will abide by the popular definition on here, but when discussing with people not on the nexus I will use ego dissolution most likely.

 

[۩]

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.

I think that's a pretty good way to put it

Yes! I personally never resonated with the term ego death but this is spot on. Well said, corpus callosum!

 

[hardboiled]

I will go by my experience so i think Ego is illusion that Oneness creates to make this experience as real as possible and to give it individual spin. Ego death could also be described as ˝waking up˝. You are asleep to ˝other realms, knowledge etc.˝ while ego is active as soon as you ˝wake up˝ you become aware of the ˝other˝.
Ego is a foe and a friend in one single role. It serves your body and human part of existence and at the same time makes you spirit part working harder to mold it. You could say ego is a weight/resistance to your muscle/spirit.

 

[cubeananda]

For sure every time IME the ego dies it doesn't lead to some permanent state where it is dead indefinitely.

Dissolution is a good word, but use of the word "death" has a conscious origin.

Also as others have stated, it dies in varying degrees and qualities.

But mostly I am reminded of the "thank god for forgetfulness" thread.

Its probably quite similar to a breakthrough. Ego-death defined would be like defining a breakthrough in relation to a sub-breakthrough dose of DMT. Obviously it goes away, but the ego definitely did die for a period of time. It is only revived because there is so much (our whole beings and world are completely saturated) out there to support and help the ego revive and recuperate.

Actually, thank god that it does recuperate because it gives us an opportunity to integrate into our lives the things we learn in those states. Also thank god that there is such a concept as ego-death out there for us. Perhaps feeling "I am going to die" is generated by the ego, but if the feeling itself reaches above a certain threshold there will be a "breakthrough" or a definite "ego-death." Experiencing those states (from either DMT or from intense experiences otherwise such as illness), without having such a concept as "ego-death" around would make it more difficult to integrate such experiences.




Edit:

In regards to the ego feeling "I am going to die":

When it does die the heart just doesn't exist. There are varying degrees in the actual nature of "ego" death just as we may have seen with breakthroughs.

Like when you experience a breakthrough on top of a breakthrough, that to me is like
when you're ego is so dead that you realize that you aren't going to die ever, that you don't exist, love certainly exists IME,
But you simply aren't going to die. Your ego isnt even going to die. It is such a futile experience and at the same time that is paradise. It becomes obvious that everything has already happened, but at the same time this isn't a rehearsal.
We only call it death because it is is literally the closest thing to death you will ever experience. Perhaps the illusion that you and the whole planet as everything that exists will suddenly be stripped from you, but even that is less deadly than ego-death.



If I were to make a hierarchy of states with #1 being true Ego-death it would be like this:


1. True ego death, it doesn't matter if you are ready to die, physically or emotionally or even intellectually.
2. It also doesn't matter if you are ready to die or if you are going to die, everything is OK and you don't even have to be shown that everything is ok. The part of you that even learned that everything is Ok doesn't exist here.
3. Everything is OK. You have been shown this in the most intimate way possible and are aware that you accept this. This is where The reality of Love is felt.
4. Feeling perfectly ready to Die, only after an immense struggle with yourself, this quickly moves up to number 3.
5. You better be ready to die, BEcause you ARE GOiNG TO DIE.
"I am Going to die." I would call this halfway-ego-death. It can fall back down to number 6 very easily and only moves up to number 4 with luck/outside help or previous experience.
6. This marks the threshold of the breakthrough and - sub breakthrough "ego-death." A sub-death can definitely just lead to ego-driven paranoia rather than a process of ego-death. Also it can be a state of very high love (for others or for entities or whatever)
And it can provide a state in which the ego is highly subdued an there is conscious awareness that the ego is a limitation for love.
7. This is the level wherein the ego drives imagination fears and associative thinking. If things are going well for you in life or at the moment, the ego will be passive and not cause problems. In order to move up we have to experience both a problematic ego and a submissive one. Here "death" of the ego without experiencing its "life" would be detrimental to seeing its illusory nature.
8. Here the ego is exclusively a good thing, if we return to this
Place after experiencing ego-death, that is quite normal. It can either be the place where people live their whole life and then die an rot or the place for integration by the weary soul-traveller.
9. Here there is no ego, but there is raw animal instincts.
10. A bug is squashed, and it dies.


So the difference between 1 and 10 is 9 steps in between, but in a sense they mean the same exact thing.