Talk:Ego death/Archive 1

What is this article to be based on?

Hey everyone. What is this article to be based on? Where does this term come from? Is anyone devoted to fleshing this out? The ambiguious and confusing nature of this stub now seems to beg nomination for deletion. 66.41.66.213 04:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The term is frequently used in acidhead communities (of which there is no lack on the internet. If I recall, erowid.org and deoxy.org are full of stuff about it. Pthag 12:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The terminology is also completely obscured by a lack of critical thinking, magical thinking, mythology, etc. The acidhead communities have a hard time even defining what an "ego" is and have an even harder time defining what "ego death" is. They often don't find it hard to brag about their "ego death" experiences which often feature many staples of psychedelic drug trips but always feature the common underlying feature of forgetting their own identity. AlkaloidMechanic (talk) 04:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC) AlkaloidMechanic

I agree that much of the literature regarding ego death on erowid.org etc is rather egoistic, ironically; with people essentially bragging about their exploits as if they've 'one-upped' someone else. But who/what scored the point?

My best explanation for what the ego is - is your idea of yourself (and it is an illusion). Or more accurately (as the ego is more of a constant doing than a fixed entity), many people confuse themselves with their idea of themselves. Trying to grasp this notion conceptually is like trying to bite your own teeth, or see your own eyes. Words solve practical problems e.g. pass me the bread. But experience is necessary for solving conceptual problems that are created via language. Hence this relatively insoluble question - what is ego death/enlightenment/zen? etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.190.169 (talk) 23:17, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

The "ego" is what makes it feel like you are a person. Obviously there are some difficulties in defining what this ego is, except by using spiritual, religious or general acidhead terminology. "Western culture" have almost no history of ego death. Buddhism and hinduism on the other hand have very accurate descriptions of similar mental states embedded in their very cores. Do not expect this concept to be easily defined. -- anon

For a simple definition of 'ego', how about 'physical body'?

If man is sentient, and matter is not,it may be necessary to consider one's identity in terms other than a list of elements or chemicals. Just as a driver may come to believe he is not a vehicle.

One can say "I'm a mind", but this assumes that the brain produces thoughts (rather than acting as a reducing-valve to reduce consciousness to a trickle, in the way the nose does not manufacture odours, but merely perceives them and limits them to those nearby). Thence proceed notions like "I am one particular body", and "I am a consciousness created uniquely by my parents at conception". And debate whether 'we have a spirit'. Offering no explanation as to how speech or movement would be possible if we don't. A more rational enquiry would be "does the spirit/Holy Ghost/real self... have a body?".If the answer is no, then life before birth or after death is highly unlikely.

Though it may be obvious that man is more than a collection of chemicals, identity with mind is less so. Yet we can alter and control the mind, survive its almost total absence during sleep and anaesthesia, and there is doubt as to its very existence other than as a mass of thoughts - which, when absorbed, we term 'ours' in the manner calcium from the sea 'becomes part' of a crustacean.

Individuality, a construct of name and form, insists that even if our reality is limited to pure consciousness, this is situated within a single form and is non-transferable. We artificially become qualified by possession of gender, age, race, species, etc.122.57.152.168 (talk) 01:52, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

How to expand this article

First do a quick and dirty brainstorm draft, setting aside Wikipedia requirements per the official "Rule 1: ignore all rules"; then in a subsequent phase, tighten up the article.

• Stanislav Grof's book Ultimate Journey has "ego death" hits in fulltext: http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0966001990
• Fulltext search of some of Grof's books: http://books.google.com/books?as_q=&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=ego+death&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_libcat=0&as_brr=3&as_auth=Grof
• One of Ken Wilber's books, such as No Boundary, discusses types of "death" at each level of psychospir. devel. Try fulltext search for ego death at http://www.amazon.com/o/asin/1570627436
• Stephen Gaskin's book Amazing Dope Tales has definitive 60s usage of the term (search fulltext for: ego death): http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/1579510108/ref=sib_dp_pt/002-7338888-9744054#reader-link
• Book fulltext search: http://books.google.com/books?tab=sp&sa=N&um=1&hl=en&q=%22ego+death%22
• Scholarly articles search: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?um=1&tab=ws&hl=en&q=%22ego%20death%22

Extract, compile, and merge the definitions of "ego death" from these published works.

• Web pages: http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&safe=off&q=%22ego+death%22

No online fulltext found:

• The book Holy Madness by Georg Feuerstein includes sections: God, Enlightenment, and ego-death -- The loss of God and faith -- The ego illusion -- The mystical ego -- A new life through ego-death. http://www.amazon.com/o/ASIN/1890772542
• Stanislav Grof's book Beyond Death: The Gates of Consciousness http://www.amazon.com/o/asin/0500810192

-- MichaelSHoffman 20:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

It's usually used synonymously with "ego loss", if that helps in the hunt for bona-fide sources. Fearwig 23:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

'Ego dissolution' also appears to be used.

66.11.179.30 (talk) 10:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Various drugs as inducers or potentiators

Just a note: ego-death is possible through the use of marijuana. - anon

Adding on to that, It usually takes a higher than normal dose of most drugs. However, they all act differently, and I have heard ego death is much easier to achieve with DMT than say, alcohol. --HL-SDK 17:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Mediocre dosages of DMT will do the trick, but it is difficult to understand whats happening when on a DMT trip. Mushrooms (psilocybin and psilocin) can do it in large dosages, and it also gives you pretty much time to experience it. LSD in insane dosages will do it, but i have not experienced this with LSD myself so I can not say for sure. And, lastly, alcohol will only do the trick if you drink so much it actually kills you for real, i think. -- anon

Cultural historical usage indicates that cannabis should also be considered as a potentiator of other visionary plants, as a potentiator; it is a "present-ism" error to only consider cannabis used alone versus another plant used alone. Even in the first-world 1960s, it was common for cannabis to be used in conjunction with LSD, so we should be cautious about assuming to pit one plant, used in isolation, against another; compare ayahuasca formation from *combinations* of plants. MichaelSHoffman (talk) 21:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I have first hand knowledge on this subject and can attest to the ease provided with conjuctibility. SChalice 17:05, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Inhaled DMT is the simplest way to reach ego death. Mushrooms (psilocybe) and LSD have also been substances that have worked for me. I am not sure about cannabis in combination with LSD, since I never smoke cannabis. One last word on DMT though: The first time I broke through the barrier, it truly did feel like I was dying. The mortal terror only lasted for about 5 seconds though, because the onset of the drug is so extreme. From normal skin-encapsulated Egoic consciousness to Ego Death in 10 seconds! It permanently changed my life, the idea of what the I/self is. It seems impossible to unexperience what I experienced. What is on the other side? Perfect tranquility. Bhagavad Gita describes the realization accurately. <3 KaosMuppet (talk) 22:41, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Title of article

The article was originally titled "Ego death". It was a mistake to rename the article to the non-standard term "Ego disintegration". This decision has nothing to do with "neutral point of view" and "death being non-neutral"; this naming decision must be based on the standard language. The term 'ego death' appears 38 times more frequently per Google than the non-standard term 'ego disintegration'.

The article should be reverted back to the title "Ego death" MichaelSHoffman (talk) 05:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The article title has been reverted by someone back to the de facto standard terminology, "Ego death". In future, moving/re-titling as article such as this should request community input before such a modification. MichaelSHoffman (talk) 21:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I think ego death is an inappropriate name not because of the word death but because of the word "ego". I think it would be more appropriate to call it super-ego death. Admittedly, this sounds a tad stupid, but I believe this is a more accurate term given our understandings of the concepts of ego and id and super-ego. I think this would be a better way to define the term. Ego death seems more akin to the death of the socially constructed ego. It allows one to see through the charades they've grown up with and see their true self. To use a quote by Christina Grof:

“Ego-death does not mean the disintegration of the healthy ego, the ego we need in order to function in daily life. What dies in this process is the part of us that holds on to the illusion of control, the part of us that thinks we are running the show, that we are in charge. What disintegrates is the false identity that operates as though we are the center of the universe.”

Aaron

66.90.212.182 (talk) 15:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Naming, "death"?

death is associated in such a negative manner in main stream experience consciousness, I believe ego - disintegration, or "ego loss", would be more relevant positive terms as this article's name. --Procrastinating@^talk2me 12:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

→Yes, this point has been raised before (see above).

First of all: when you say...

death is associated in such a negative manner in main stream experience consciousness

...is your concern that there is something misleading or inaccurate or offensive about the name of this article? Because, here's the thing: "ego death" hurts, man -- make no mistake about it. And its name, then, is in part meant, I suppose^{•(see below)}, to convey the sense that it's just not the sort of thing you 'd want to mess around with lightly, or "for fun," or because you were having a slow day at work, or whatever.

Second of all:

• It is not like "disintegration."
• It is not like "loss."
• It is not like "dissolution."
• It is, though, a lot like death.

But by all means: if you can find a valid reference that discusses the subject-matter of this article (and as it is now named) in terms of "disintegration," "disolution," or whatever else -- hell, go ahead put it up there! I doubt it'll be a lot worse than the "egodeath.com" contributions, anyway! And, as in all things, especially at Wikipedia: the more the merrier!

Please let me know if I can in any way further, or more relevantly, etc, address any point you would like to make about this matter.

—Wikiscient— 03:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• I didn't name it myself, of course -- that was actually done by an international committee of highly-trained psychonautical professionals a few years back, by a process of negotiation and secret balloting which went on (I heard) for a long time... so there's no need for the likes of us to get all caught up in that sort of thing now ourselves, I hope — right?

I agree with this. It is not something light-hearted, it is very much like death. The first time it happened to me it first felt like I was accepting to commit suicide (I used DMT). Then, the second after having "passed through", it became one of the most important experiences I have ever had. I was, but without the "I". And it was bliss. But it always felt quite bad to die, the moment just before. -- anon

The phenomenology of ego death does involve disintegration, loss, and dissolution of cognitive patterns and mental-association structures; also suspension of accustomed cognitive patterns and structuring. Thus the literature about ego death phenomenology uses all of this language. MichaelSHoffman (talk) 21:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I've never posted on wikipedia so please forgive me if i do not follow proper procedure yet.

I don't think it is worth changing the article name or the concept of ego-death over it. I certainly think the scary part of the word death is helpful, and if you've had a high dose of Salvinorin-A, you know what I mean. But it is worth debating. Unless you have actually died, you don't "know" for sure if it is alot like death. Even if you have had "near death" experiences, it is still only that, you don't come back from "real" death. I personally believe that total ego death is in fact death, and therefore should not be sought. While we are alive, making friends with death is courting psychosis, which is just suicide from the point of view of those wishing to live, not blissful nirvana. I guess a pop culture analogy would be the matrix, "the body cannot live without the mind" - morpheus

So, ego disintegration or loss to me is as understandable as death, because I'm not sure how you could interpret ego disintegration as sounding fun. When people talk about coping with loss for instance, they are talking about coping with death, usually of a loved one. Disintegration sounds a lot like death to me as well, like you've been hit by a phaser set to disintegrate or whatever like on Star Trek. Oyarsan (talk) 06:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Well: welcome to Wikipedia, Oyarsan! Your contributions, especially seeing as how you sound as if you may yourself be experienced in the relevant way, are welcome both here and in the main article. Also, please by all means feel free to be forgiven if you do not follow proper procedure yet!

I hear what you're saying, above. All-in-all, though, don't you think we should keep the article's name as-is? Or would you like to see it changed?

!

—Wikiscient— 08:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I can tell this is going to be fun, thanks for your confidence. I love how you can use a word and it give it a special meaning, like you did with hearing. I'm totally fine with the name of the article, I'll probably have more thoughts on it after I have given it some more time. Oyarsan (talk) 21:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Opposition

This article doesn't adequately cover opposition to ego-death. Many religions and philosophies consider it to be nihilistic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.216.37.31 (talk) 23:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

This is incorrect and uninformed. A rather strong scholarly work about mystical experiences is Huxley's _The Perennial Philosophy_ a comparative study of claims made by historical mystics. The cognitive scientist Benny Shanon published the most comprehensive phenomenological analysis of Ayahuasca reports to date, titled _The Antipodes of the Mind: Charting the Phenomenology of the Ayahuasca Experience_.

This second source could easily serve as a keystone, authoritative source for this whole rather undeveloped article. By using the word 'antipodes' Shanon refers back to Huxley's _Heaven and Hell_, another valuable source that is not being utilized here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.67.241.32 (talk) 03:58, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

nihilistic? it is to my understanding that any religious entity that has highly devoted individuals, there WILL be experiences of ego death most or some other form of spiritual revelation. Give some examples of the opposition and maybe it will be worth looking into, otherwise most religions agree with what is technically ego-death and other altered mind-sets as valid methods of prayer/introspection/religious insight/blahblahblahetc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.10.55.144 (talk) 08:15, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Methods of ego death induction

I edited the bit that listed ways of inducing ego death (psychedelic drugs, fasting, sleep deprivation, meditation). It stated that several days of sleep deprivation, or several years of meditation were necessary to bring about ego death using those methods.

These claims are unsupportable, especially when one considers that ego death has been documented heavily as occurring spontaneously. Also, there is no citation in support of the claims. Therefore, I have edited the statement to read "...may also induce this state, including prayer, sacred ritual, sleep deprivation, fasting, or meditation practice," with no arbitrary timetables given. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.0.28 (talk) 06:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the "illusory aspect of the ego" part is curious. It would be nice if someone elaborated on that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Damien310 (talk • contribs) 04:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I have again added Ketamine as an Entheogen, I myself and many others have experienced ego-death under the effects of ketamine, including Dr. John Lilly - The famous Scientist.--90.193.97.144 (talk) 03:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

If you want to have a true spiritual life it must be centered in a SOURCE. All true experience must have a center "a seed"a source. Where the Humanities and Diciplines have erred is in their premise. l,BodyMan is Tripartie{Spirit,Sou}And his Spirit is dead, Dead to God the source of all life. In this Age {That which is born of Flesh is Flesh, That which is born of Spirit is Spirit.} Most Christians don't even know Romans,6 is in their Bible................ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.96.89.134 (talk) 00:11, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

near death experiences & long-term negative threats to your goals in life that seem to create no hope which you are suddenly released from can trigger this, especially if recollection/ initial experience/ resolution of said events occurs while under the use of psychedelic drugs. When all purpose is temporarily gone, seemingly forever, then re-granted, can trigger people to have their ego break down & it can then be replaced by a more logical universal mindset not based upon the ego. Triggering detachment from the ego from a psychologically traumatizing event which causes you to lose all hope may be needed to break free of the positive aspects which trap people within their ego. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.244.131.252 (talk) 02:44, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Astronauts and psychonauts

I've heard several astronauts and other space traveling rich folk mention a feeling of "connectedness" that overwhelms them when they look at Earth from orbit. Can anyone find and add a citation that compares this "feeling of unity" with "ego death"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by CaptainMagnificent (talk • contribs) 09:25, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand.

What on earth does it mean to reveal the illusory aspect of the ego? I understand my ego as a phenomena, an observable occurrence. What is illusory about it and what is revealed? 203.158.49.249 (talk) 09:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing truly observable about the ego. What is revealed is its illusory nature. Try reading 'Alan Watts–Here and Now: Contributions to Psychology, Philosophy, and Religion'; see where it takes you - keep searching.

Perhaps the best analogy is an ocean. It can be thought of as a collection of drops- say 10 trillion. All made of identical water, but each having boundaries that make them distinct.

In terms of humanity, these boundaries could be race, skin colour,

age, gender, etc. Counting individuals in terms of bodies.

The outrageous theory that there is in fact NO individuality, posits that these boundaries are mental delusions, and that the ocean really has only ONE drop.A damn big one.The delusion is enforced by a curious notion of being limited to a single form, and unable to enter that of 'another'. As the poet Jami puts it,(in the famous Persian 'Pumpkin Story')- in a sea of people, we choose from birth to tie particular pumpkins round our necks in order to lay claim to one particular body being 'ours'.Koroke (talk) 20:59, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

There's little to nothing of substance to understand. The word "purportedly" sets the right perspective in the lede. It's merely a sensation, perception, not the actual destruction or death of anything real. It's also essentially the same thing as the "oceanic" feeling Freud and others refer to (see Future of an Illusion). Removed stale tags. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 15:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if this will be helpful, but I think about it this way: everyone (at least, all human non-fully-enlightened beings as would edit Wikipedia articles on Ego Death) has developed a conceptual framework that includes a concept of themselves distinct from other beings. The word 'ego' has been overloaded to the point of creating conflict rather than understanding, but the one that makes the most sense in the context of these spiritual experiences is as a belief or investment in this self-concept and/or conceptual framework. So the primary enlightenment experience is that of no longer *believing* one's self-concepts to be 'true'. As other commenters have pointed out, self-concepts are essential for living and functioning in society--you could hardly have a conversation with another person if your brain (having annihilated all self-concepts) could not come up with the name your parents gave you. Just as learning the true nature of Santa Claus is a kind of death/loss of childhood innocence, and does not mean that you cannot have a thought of Santa Claus or of childhood. -- SFP 2010/11/23 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.155.204.151 (talk) 03:04, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Ego death is not synonymous with amnesia ^. You could still hold a completely normal conversation, you would just be aware of the role you're playing on this 'cosmic stage' - in that sense you could be completely involved in life and sincere in relationships, you just wouldn't be taking it all seriously.

Inserting quotes

How do I insert a new quotation?

Michaela. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.253.153.59 (talk) 22:01, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

its kinda rambly.

First off, this article wont make any sense to someone who did not know already what these things were. The POV is clearly non-neutral, though positive. And most of the article just seems like...Narrative? Original Research maybe? Im not sure, but it definetly doesnt read smoothly at all. Though if its actually a trick to get you to kill your ego for the internet, well then I supposed its done its job.

Cleverness or Mistake aside, we should try to find a way to make the information a little more user friendly. Unfortunately, I cant think of much to do that wouldnt require scrappng a lot. It does just sort of ramble on without making any real point or following a readily predictable path. I fear it will likely take a full rewrite at this point. 74.128.56.194 (talk) 15:07, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Philip k Dick

I think PKD's experience of 2-3-74 would technically constitute an instance of ego-death. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.1.133.236 (talk) 04:22, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

The whole idea of "ego death"

I can't find a good definition of "ego death." It is a very loosely used term that has many different meanings to many people but it's very vague. Go over to shroomery.org and you'll get some insisting that ego death is 'experiencing white light.' If I recall correctly, in Tim Leary's _The Psychedelic Experience_, ego death is equated with the brain/mind being devoid of verbal-conceptual activity. Others insist that it is impossible to experience ego death because an ego is a functional requirement of experience (i.e. in order to experience anything, one must have an ego because experiences are experienced by something). I think what a lot of people mean by "ego death" really refers to a profound change in the way one perceive's one's self, so in some sense "ego death" is used to refer to the "death" of one ego and "birth" of another ego. In this sense, "ego transformation" may be a better term to describe the experience. For all of the years that I've read discussions about "ego death" online or in literature, it seems to me that the whole concept of "ego death" is nebulous. It is equated with a mystical experience, yet nobody seems to be able to give a good definition of it. The problem, as I see it, is that many (especially psychedelic drug users) see "ego death" as being some ultimate, mystical goal of psychedelic drug use but few have any clear idea as to what "ego death" even refers - other than somehow being equated with mystical enlightenment. Take a look at various online drug forums and you'll find many asking questions like, "How many grams of shrooms does it take to reach ego death?" IMO, the term is practically meaningless. 184.145.94.222 (talk) 18:01, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

These varied and imperfect definitions are clearly attempts at describing some common experience. Words are always rough approximations of direct experience in the first place; multiple attempts at defining such complex, rare and subtle encounters would seem to add to the validity of the underlying concept, not render it "practically meaningless". -- jovrtn 06:55, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

To affirm 184.145.94.222: 'Ego death' seems, in essence - a catch phrase of the psychedelic movement, with no clear reference. More like a soundbite word blot, inviting all sorts of free-wheeling interpretation, of by and for anyone who wants in on the action. As such, I wonder - can it be clarified adequately for WP purposes and policies, toward improving this entry? Or, if not - should it perhaps just be deleted altogether? I was hoping this entry would at least cite references addressing the most basic questions, little points of factual info - for ex., who coined the phrase? What specialist originated it, in what publication or lit source, of what field or discipline? What's the first thing to know, what's the foundation for such a concept. What was it supposed to refer to as originally described or defined (by whoever coined it)? What did it ever mean in the first place, before all the different 'explanations' 184.145.94.222 notes, bubbled up to try and rationalize it (apparently)? Can a single candle be lit, to shed minimal light on any least factual info about this intriguing figure of speech, with its social and cultural baggage? 'Ego' is a word with different meanings, in different contexts - ranging from conceit or vanity, to psychological concepts of the self. Which one applies to the phrase, whatever notion it purports to mean (by 'death')? This entry contains almost no information, but a load of 'infaux' - the most interesting thing I glean: It seems 'ego death' is perhaps a concept in search of itself, without map or compass. It has no coordinates - a semantic vacuum, into which rush folks - partisans in pop psychedelia - trying to rationalize, by the "I think this, I think that ..." method (Original 'Research' - not citations, unsubstantiated). To jovrtn, I respectfully ask - how on earth might I, or anyone, verify an assertion, that "these varied and imperfect definitions" (i.e., conflicting attempts to 'decode' the phrase, assign it meaning, attribute some definition) are "clearly attempts at ..." etc. Clear to whom? Clear how? Can that be shown, cause I'd like to see. Can such an assertion even be questioned. Or is it settled as if some ruling, like a finding of fact from some court?

Seems like in general WP is or can be prey, by its 'open source' open door access, to misuse and exploitation - infauxmercials by promotional crusades, campaigns and movements, posing as informative. Some such movements are well known, widely recognized - exposed to public view, on society's radar. "Scientific" Creationism, for example, would have trouble trying to 'get away with it' here at WP. But that's not the case with psychedelia -a different type oppositional subculture, or the opposite fringe. Echoing 184.145.94.222: IMO, the term is practically meaningless - in substantive sense of 'meaning,' content-specific. More broadly, it perhaps signals like graffiti, 'writing on the wall' of unclear significance: 'there's something happenin' here, what it is ain't exactly clear' (S. Stills, For What Its Worth) Akersbp (talk) 14:29, 29 July 2013 (UTC) (4 tilds).

Dubious tag on "ego death is an experience"

Why wouldn't we call ego death an experience? Here's one decent argument: Martin Buber, in his book I and Thou, divides the way the I relates into two categories: I-you and I-it. In I-you, the I addresses itself directly to the other as if it were a person (and it usually is). In I-it, the I objectifies the other, and "uses" and "experiences" the It. So, in his language, experience is a function of the I (ego) in its relation to the It. So it may not be accurate to call the kind of existence where ego is suddenly turned off/demolished/disidentified with the word "experience." However, I can't think of a better word for it.

Also, check out the book LSD Psychotherapy (I found the pdf online). One of his central ideas sounds very similar to ego death--the reexperiencing of the birth trauma, described as an endogenous psychological process that can be triggered by drugs, among other things. 25 January 2013‎ User:76.10.24.84

Because that's WP:OR. See also Kenshō#Insight versus experience. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:35, 25 January 2013 (UTC)‎

Ego death in prayer

Ego death can not be experienced by prayer as the very act of praying is an act of belonging (with the supra-natural, as in supra-nature). Ego death is greater in scope than within a local community and should not be confused with sympathy. 83.177.167.188 (talk) 08:04, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

My experience

I believe I just experienced the process of an ego's death. For me I met this complex life form which literally lives inside your mind, on a psychadelic trip. It had eyes everywhere and it was multi dimensional and highly reflective.

For me it was called a happent. I think they disguise themselves as something else other than the term "ego" inside your mind. I actually witnessed myself talking to myself explaining to myself the process of "ego" death and as I went to say "ego" there was no thought, no sound...... I realised that my happent used to say that word inside my mind in order to describe the ego as something other than itself.

Any how I just wanted to pass the message on as I felt I truly experienced it, it is possible, and I am not a Buddha.

Couple of things if you fancy walking the path towards enlightenment:

Be careful as the ego wants you to think your enlightened so it doesn't have to leave you.

Identify ego, test it and yourself frequently.

Ask yourself who you are, and consider this concept frequently.

The process of ego death and enlightenment is a process, and it can be reversed.

Always be mindful.

Feel.

Look within, with innnnnn.

Locate precisely " the ego" and Let it go.

Love. Only love. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.36.84.232 (talk) 18:57, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Drugs

Elimination of the ego is the basis of all religions. Elimination of the mind as being man's identity - mind remains, but as something man has access to, like a computer; not the essence of what he IS.
The various churches, together with teachers such as Meher Baba and Ramana Maharshi, emphatically reject the notion that mind-altering drugs should be used to attain it. As the root of Solipsism,Self-Enquiry, Monism, Advaita etc, it was the essence of so-called Christian mysticism of the middle ages. I doubt that St Francis of Assissi, John of the Cross, or Teresa of Avila would have approved of hallucinogenics!
The idea of eliminating the ego is extraordinarily simple and basic, with nothing 'occult' or mystical about it. It merely questions the acceptance that consciousness/awareness is imprisoned within the pink castle we call a body. Whether or not it can become transferred to 'other' bodies we meet, or a tree, for example. Whether we artificially identify 'ourself' by tying a pumpkin round our neck - age, sex, skin colour, etc - when none of these have any relevance to ourSelves but only to our bodies. 'Man' is subject to destiny, good or evil, but consciousness is not. So if he is thoroughly aware of HAVING and not BEING a body, he performs no actions and incurs no karma. The elimination of the ego is termed 'perfection' in most religions, and 'salvation' in Christianity. In Maoridom, it is rhe killing of the taniwha; in legend "St. George and the Dragon" (there are thousands of ego-myths); in the Bible, Jonah swallowed by the fish, 'walking in spirit', etc.122.57.152.168 (talk) 22:49, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Too many references

The first sentence in this article is almost unreadable because there are too many references! You can have too much of a good thing ;) Chockyegg (talk) 20:10, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Ive re-written the first sentence to give a clear concise definition of "ego death", this could be embellished with references from Stan Grof's book 'LSD psychotherapy' - p.132. 20:22, 20 July 2014‎ 92.236.35.88

According to who?

The article says "ego death is this and ego death is that, but according to who?

This whole article did not sound like it belongs in an encyclopedia. So I checked Encyclopedia Britanica and it wasn't even listed as a topic.

I would rewrite all this to say "Some people believe...." and "So and so believes" or "wrote" or "taught"

It sounds more like a promotional piece than an encyclopedic entry. Or an attempt to persuade, to put it nicely. Or to trick people into believing this is some kind of scientific, well-established and accepted concept.

I find it offensive to my intelligence and sense of truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 179.28.215.239 (talk) 09:58, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Clean-up

The only sourced info is Grof, which seems to have invented the term, and Eckhart Tolle. Most is WP:OR: "info" which is not in the given sources. Try again, and start with Grof. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:53, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

This article only mentions Grof, but Grof didnt invent the term 'ego death', that term was used before Grof by people such as Leary. Furthermore, a great deal of the information about Grof's theories contained in this article are irrelevant to an article about ego death — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.35.88 (talk) 08:00, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

So far, it's the only sourced info. If Leary used the term before, then that's relevant - if it is sourced. There's more to be found:

• The Psychedelic Experience? 1964. See also [1] for a pdf.
• "Peter Conners (2013), "White Hand Society: The Psychedelic Partnership of Timothy Leary & Allen Ginsberg". Mooi detail: John Lennon las "The Psychedelic Experience", en schreef in reactie "Tomorrow Never Knows".
• John Bassett Mccleary, "Hippie Dictionary: A Cultural Encyclopedia of the 1960s and 1970s".
• Jonathan Gould, "Can't Buy Me Love: The Beatles, Britain, and America", pp. 318-320

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:35, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I've reworked the article; I guess it's better now. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:41, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

"Psychedelic ego death" - Bardo Thodol

IP 92.236.35.88 gave the following synthesis from The Psychedelic Experience:

"Leary intended his translation of the Tibetan book of the dead as a guide for undergoing psychedelic ego death, which he characterised as: "an initiation process whose purpose it is to restore to the soul the divinity it lost at birth" (p.9)."

This what the actual quote says:

"Thus far the Bardo Thodol is, as Dr. Evans−Wentz also feels, an initiation process whose purpose it is to restore to the soul the divinity it lost at birth."

So, the quote is not about "psychedelic ego death", but about the Bardo Thodol. The term "psychedelic ego death" doesn't even appear in The Psychedelic Experience. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:07, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

This is a false dichotomy, Leary's whole point behind the entire book was that these ancient funerary texts provide maps for psychedelic ego death. The "initiation process" is synonymous with the process of psychedelic ego death and rebirth. 92.236.35.88 (talk) 08:02, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

This is what the source says; you're giving your personal interpretation. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:53, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Google Books gives three (3) hits for "psychedelic ego death". Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:08, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Definition & sources

So, there's more to ego-death. Let's see how many reliable souces we can find:

• [2] Richard White (2012), The Heart of Wisdom: A Philosophy of Spiritual Life pp.6-8: "Enlightenment equals ego death [...] the renunciation, rejection and, ultimately, the death of the need to hold on to a separate, self-centered existence." (p.7, Carter Phipps, cited by Richard White).
• [3] What is Enlightenment-Magazine (not so reliable): "ego death-the final destruction of our attachment to a separate sense of self."
• [4] John Harrison, Ego Death & Psychedelics, maps.org: "temporary ego death (loss of the separate self ) or, in the affirmative, have experienced a deep and profound merging with the transcendent other."
• [5] Daniel Merkur (1998), The Ecstatic Imagination: Psychedelic Experiences and the Psychoanalysis of Self-Actualization, SUNY:
  • p.60 quoting Alnaes (1964): "loss of ego-feeling".
  • p.58: "PM IV [...] death-rebirth experience [...] also described in the literature as "ego death." It is sometimes termed "ego loss," which leads to confusion because some writers use the term in reference to an entirely different psychedelic phenomenon that I shall discuss in a later chapter." sounds promising!
• [6] J. Harold Ellens (2014), Seeking the Sacred with Psychoactive Substances: Chemical Paths to Spirituality and to God
  • p.373: "The Psychedelic Experience was a model [...] to legitimize the practice within the wider social."
  • p.373: "...this text focusses on the liberation of the ego"
  • p. 374: "... the aim is to detach an individual from their personal ego [ego-loss]"

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:20, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Brad Warner

The criticism of Brad Warner, an authorised Buddhist teacher, in contrast to Evans-Wentz and Timothy Leary, has been removed twice by IP 92.236.35.88 diff diff. First time without an explanation, second time with the following edit-summary: "not relevant to page heading 'ego death'". Brad Warner is adressing the issue of drugs & "enlightenment straight-forward, and is, probably, exemplary for most, if not all, Buddhist teachers: drugs don't lead to "enlightenment". Leary's "ego death" is not the same as Buddhist "enlightenment", despite the claims of Leary and his buddies. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:58, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

The Warner section is completely irrelevant as it does not mention anything about ego death, and gives no relevant information about ego death. Leary doesnt claim that ego death is the same as Buddhist enlightenment, Warner is not respondong to Leary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.35.88 (talk) 19:29, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Ahum... Leary does make that claim. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:52, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a source for where Leary makes the specific claim that 'ego death = buddhist enlightenment'? 92.236.35.88 (talk) 14:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Did you actually read "The Psychedelic Experience"? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:07, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Why are you asking a question like that, in response to me asking for a citation? In 'the psychedelic experience', Leary does not ever equate buddhist enlightenment with ego death. You are falsely claiming that he did. Please provide a specific citation where Leary makes this claim about buddhist enlightenment and ego death. I read 'the psychedelic experience' very carefully, and i have been scanning the PDF version trying to find an citation that supports your claim, but it doesnt seem to exist. Nowhere in that book does Leary say anything that could be construed as "ego death = buddhist enlightenment". Given that this citation is nonexistent, the entire section of Brad Warner's pop-spiritualist anti-drugs polemic is entirely irrelevant to the subject matter of the article 'ego death'.92.236.35.88 (talk) 16:39, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

p.4/5: "The Tibetan model, on which this manual is based, is designed to teach the person to direct and control awareness in such a way as to reach that level of understanding variously called liberation, illumination, or enlightenment. If the manual is read several times before a session is attempted, and if a trusted person is there to remind and refresh the memory of the voyager during the experience, the consciousness will be freed from the games which comprise "personality" and from positive−negative hallucinations which often accompany states of expanded awareness."

p.12: "Now, for the first time, we possess the means of providing the enlightenment to any prepared volunteer. (The enlightenment always comes, we remember, in the form of a new energy process, a physical, neurological event.) For these reasons we have prepared this psychedelic version of The Tibetan Book of the Dead."

p.14: "Thereby the participant will be put in mind of what he had previously heard of the experience and will at once come to recognize the fundamental Light and undoubtedly obtain liberation. Liberation is the nervous system devoid of mental−conceptual activity. [Realization of the Voidness, the Unbecome, the Unborn, the Unmade, the Unformed, implies Buddhahood, Perfect Enlightenment − the state of the divine mind of the Buddha."

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:09, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Nowhere in what you have quoted above is there any indication that Leary thinks that ego death is the same as buddhist enlightenment, in fact 'ego death' is not mentioned anywhere in the quote. You have not provided a quote to support your claim that Leary thinks that ego death and buddhist enlightenment are the same thing. So what was your purpose for posting such a long quote, with no supporting explanation from you about why the quote supports your claim? The section on Warner is entirely irrelevant to an article about ego death, and you have not explained why it is included in the article despite the fact that it gives no information whatsoever about the subject of ego death. Why exactly is the section on Warner being forcefully included in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.35.88 (talk) 18:53, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Read p.14 again: "recognize the fundamental Light and undoubtedly obtain liberation. Liberation is [...] Realization of the Voidness, the Unbecome, the Unborn, the Unmade, the Unformed, implies Buddhahood, Perfect Enlightenment − the state of the divine mind of the Buddha."

Read also p.32: "By the use of this manual, enlightenment can be obtained without meditation"

Apart from that, a tripping-manual based on the Book of the Dead, and then insisting that it's got nothing to do with enlightenment? It's like shooting a gun and saying that the pistol in your hand has nothing to do with the shooting.

The section on Warner is relevant, because he criticizes the approach of Leary c.s., and makes clear that it has nothing to do with the pursuit of "enlightenment". Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:18, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Nowhere in the above quote is there any indication that Leary thinks that ego death is the same thing as buddhist enlightenment (he doesnt even mention ego death), this is just dishonest, inaccurate and misleading editing. Furthermmore Warner is not saying anything about ego death in the long quote from him, so that section is irrelevant to an article about ego death, its inclusion is just more dishonest and misleading editing, it provides no information about ego death and therefore it has no place in an encyclopedia article about ego death, and there is no attempt to provide a justification for why that particular quote is relevant to an article about ego death.92.236.35.88 (talk) 09:38, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

"Apart from that, a tripping-manual based on the Book of the Dead, and then insisting that it's got nothing to do with enlightenment?" Now you are misquoting me, i am not saying that the book has "nothing to do with enlightenment", i am saying that Leary does not think that ego death is the same thing as enlightenment, as you are falsely and unjustifiably claiming. The book does talk about enlightenment (not surprising as it is based on a buddhist text), but it does not equate enlightenment with ego death, which is the false claim that you are repeatedly appealing to in order to justify the inclusion of the irrelevant quote from Warner. This article is about ego death, it is not about enlightenment (that has its own separate article already), therefore the Warner quote is not relevant to the article92.236.35.88 (talk) 09:44, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

This issue remains unresolved, the inclusion of the Warner section violates [[7]] editing guideline, 'content must be about the subject of the article'. There is no mention of the article subject anywhere in the Warner section, it is entirely irrelevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.35.88 (talk) 09:10, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

That's an essy, not a policy. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:11, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Lead

A series of edits by IP 92.236.35.88 changed the lead considerably:

• Accurate info ("first phase in an LSD-trip", links, notes, references) was replaced by inaccurate info ("experience of mentally dying in an LSD-trip")
• Interpretation of a primary source was added, without proper references

The lead is supposed to summarize the article, not to develop an argument, nor to give interpretations of primary sources. I've re-inserted the previous lead, which is absed on the source, and moved the interpretation into the article; this interpretation will be judged next. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:58, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry im a newb to wiki editing, but an expert in psychedelia. The problem with the ego death article as it appears now is that it is meaningless jibberish, it uses strained and artificial constructs in a very specific way with no explanation of how they are being used or what they are being used to mean. For example what is a casual reader supposed to understand from the opening sentence:

"first phase in an LSD-trip, in which a "complete transcendence" of the self and game appears"?

What do the terms 'first phase', 'complete transcendence of the self' and 'game' mean in this context, specifically and concretely? I think these terms would mean very little to almost anyone who would read that sentence, unless you were closely familiar with Leary's overall psychological model. So the opening sentence is redundant, it makes no sense, and the rest of the article in similarly redundant in that it does not offer a real, concrete explanation of what 'ego death' actually is. However this lack of a definition is obscured by the use of nebulous concepts like "the first phase of an LSD trip" and ""stripping away" of ego-defenses" which are left undefined, up to the reader to decide whatever they might mean. If a person wanted to understand the meaning of the term 'ego death', they would be none the wiser after reading this current article.

Ego death is very poorly defined in the published literature, it is impossible to find a clear concise and meaningful definition of what it means, despite the fact that it is a well-known experience among psychedelic trippers.

Different writers use the term 'ego death' in very different ways, for example look at Georg Feuerstein's book 'Holy Madness' for the pop-spiritualist understanding of ego death which is very different to the psychedelicist understanding per Leary and Grof. Perhaps for this reason this whole article ought to be deleted, because in the world of published literature the term 'ego death' has no real meaning. To get a feel for what 'ego death' really means, you need to read people's personal reports of their psychedelic experiences, trippers quite commonly report profound experiences of mystical death and rebirth in the psychedelic state of consciousness.

To successfully explain what ego death is all about, the article ought to give an answer to the question: "what is it like to experience ego death, specifically and concretely?". The specific and concrete answer is something like: "experiencing ego death is like dying, but a mental death as opposed to a physical death". The current article offers no real indication of what it is like to subjectively experience psychedelic ego death, the kind that Leary and Grof (and several other psychedelic writers who have talked about the experience of altered-state 'dying') were talking about.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.35.88 (talk) 19:09, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

The opening sentence is a misquote, Leary does not equate ego death with "the first phase of an LSD trip". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.35.88 (talk) 07:23, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

"Simply put, it is the loss of the sense of self as an individual (the ego)" This is also a misquote, Leary does not define ego death as "loss of the sense of self", and he does not equate ego death with "ego loss". 92.236.35.88 (talk) 08:25, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on WP:RS, not on personal opinions, like "experiencing ego death is like dying, but a mental death as opposed to a physical death". The quotes in the lead are from "The Psychedelic Experience". If those are vague, you've got to blame Leary c.s. If the term is also being used by others, then write about it, but provide sources. But star reading WP:RS. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:51, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

The Leary quote from the lead was a misquote, Leary does not say that ego death is "the first phase of an LSd trip" 92.236.35.88 (talk) 14:51, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

The misquote from Leary was re-added to the article. - Leary does not equate ego death with "the first phase of an LSD trip'. 92.236.35.88 (talk) 15:56, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not a quote, but a paraphrase; which you misquote:

"The term was introduced by Timothy Leary to describe the first phase in an LSD-trip, in which a "complete transcendence" of the self and game appears."

You've already crossed WP:3RR; you're only making it worse now. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:04, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

It started as just a paraphrase, now it has been added as a quote in the next section. You are repeatedly misquoting/mis-paraphrasing Leary, Leary was *not* defining what 'ego death' means in the passage you keep paraphrasing/quoting. You are taking Leary's words out of context and falsely claiming that they provide a definition of what "ego death" means, but in the actual quote from Leary he does not mention ego death, the full quote from p.5 begins as follows: "Following the Tibetan model then, we distinguish three phases of the psychedelic experience. The first period (Chikhai Bardo) is that of complete transcendence"....... He does not mention ego death anywhere in this part of the book, yet you are falsely claiming that the above quote is a defintion of ego death by putting it under the section 'ego death: definitions'. Why do you claim that this particular quote is a definition of ego death when there is no mention of ego death either in the quote or the surrounding pages?92.236.35.88 (talk) 16:32, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

p.14: "First Bardo: The Period of Ego−Loss or Non−Game Ecstasy". Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:05, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

So there is no mention of "ego death", and no indication that 'ego loss' is exactly the same concept as 'ego death'. The quote/paraphrase from Leary about "complete transcendence" of the self and game" is referred to in the article as a definition of "ego death"; but it is no such thing, there are other quotes in 'the psychedelic experience' book that point to the ego death phenomenon much more directly and accurately, such as Leary's expression "death-rebirth experience" and "pre-mortem death experience". The quote that is singled out in the leader is highly inappropriate to put in a prominent position in the article as "Leary's definition of ego death", that is not what Leary intended with the quote about "transcendence of self and game". The quote is taken entirely out of context and the article then loses a valuable opportunity to give a direct and concise definition of ego death in Leary's own terms, and instead the article creates a misleading and vague impression about what Leary had in mind specifically by the term 'ego death'. The choice of quote about "transcendence of self and game" is arbitrary, unjustified and misleading, it should be removed and replaced with a more accurate and direct quote from the same book to sum up what 'ego death' is.92.236.35.88 (talk) 18:39, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

The article is about "ego death", isn't it? Not about "ego-death and rebirth". The description of ego death from The Psychedelic Experience is, well, "a direct and concise definition of ego death in Leary's own terms". It looks like you don't understand the terminologu, and are confusing different facets. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:57, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

The article is about ego death, but the purported "definition" by Leary that the article paraphrases in the leader is not about ego death, the quote/paraphrase about "transcendence of self and game" is not intended by Leary to give a definition of ego death, this is indicated by the fact that Leary does not say that he is defining ego death, he doesnt mention ego death in association with that particular quote. So the leader contains a false paraphrase which twists Leary's words out of context and gives a false (and actually meaningless) definition of what ego death is about. This is dishonest editing, taking a writer's words out of context.92.236.35.88 (talk) 09:34, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Now I see your point: you wnat a subjective report of what ego death is:

"To get a feel for what 'ego death' really means, you need to read people's personal reports of their psychedelic experiences, trippers quite commonly report profound experiences of mystical death and rebirth in the psychedelic state of consciousness."

You may be right here, but who's determined here "quite commonly"? A WP:RS? Or did you do so? That's WP:OR. If there's no uniform definition of ego death to be found in the literature, as you wrote, then how are we going to determine which subjective experiences are "ego death"?

I think you should try tp provide three kinds of reliable sources here:

• definitions of ego death;
• subjective descriotions of the experience of ego death;
• reliable sources which conclude that those experiences are, indeed, "ego death".

Consider also another possibility: "ego death" is a construct, which is used by some people to frame a broad range of experiences. See lso Merkur (2014).

Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:37, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

you have not responded to my point. The leader contains a paraphrase (which is subsequently reproduced as a full quote) of Leary about "transcendence of self and game", which is offered as a definition of ego death. However that is twisting Learys words out of context,because in the original wording from Leary he makes no mention of ego death, and no suggestion that the idea of "transcendence of self and game" is a defintiion of ego death (or even connected to ego death).

Therefore the Leary paraphrase in the leader is entirely arbitrary and unjustified, it bears no relation to the subject matter of the article, and this robs the article of a valuable opportunity to properly define ego death in Leary's terms. The Leary paraphrase and subsequent full quote should be replaced with one where Leary is actually talking about ego death, as opposed to the current paraphrase which has nothing to do with ego death and gives a completely false impression about what ego death is. If the quote is reproduced in full (instead of dishonestly chopping off the beginning part where Leary sets the context of what follows, as the quote is currently reproduced) it becomes abundantly clear that Leary is not saying anything about ego death. Furthermore the part about "the first phase of an LSD trip" is entirely false, a blatant misquote as Leary says nothing about "the first phase of an LSD trip", that is a misunderstanding of what he is talking about.92.236.35.88 (talk) 08:21, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

This issue remains unresolved, the Leary quote/paraphrase about 'transcendence of self and game' which is offered in this article as a succinct definition of ego death, is in fact no such thing, Leary's words have been taken entirely out of context to give a misleading and inaccurate impression about his concept of 'ego death'. If you check the context of the "transcendence of self and game" quote from Leary's book, you can see that it is not intended as a reference to ego death.--92.236.35.88 (talk) 08:35, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Leary c.s. use the term "ego-loss", which is equated by others with "ego death". Maybe you could try to give a constructive contribution, by:

• Explaining what this quote is about?
• Quote what you think is a definition from Leary of ego-death?

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:29, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Johnson, Richards & Griffiths (2008):

"The individual may temporarily experience a complete loss of subjective self-identity, a phenomenon sometimes referred to as ‘ego loss’ or ‘ego death’ (e.g. Leary, et al., 1964; Grof and Halifax, 1977; Grof, 1980)."

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:08, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Leary does not ever use the term 'ego loss' synonymously with the term 'ego death', in fact he uses both terms in very different ways throughout the book, with no indication that he means they are the same thing. But this has already been pointed out earlier in this discussion and yet the false information remains protected in the article's leader. "Quote what you think is a definition from Leary of ego-death?" - I have already done this, several times, but it is repeatedly ignored and deleted from the article. False and misleading information is being carefully protected in this article, hopefully some of the people reading the article will check the quoted sources and see that they are being deliberately knowingly used out of context to give an entirely false and misleading impression about what Leary meant by the term 'ego death'.92.236.35.88 (talk) 08:58, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

You mean this one:

"... it is one of the oldest and most universal practices for the initiate to go through the experience of death before he can be spiritually reborn. Symbolically he must die to his past, and to his old ego, before he can take his place in the new spiritual life into which he has been initiated." (p.12)

The quote is in the article. But it's not about ego death alone, it's about the sequence of (symbolic) death-and-rebirth. Nevertheless, I've added it to the definitions. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:51, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

"Bagatelized", I say! "Bagatelized"!

Dan Merkur notes that the use of LSD in combination with Leary's manual often did not lead to liberating insights, but to horryfying bad trips. It also lead to fatal accidents, which were bagatelized by Alpert.

Almost nobody knows what this word means. This is the ONLY Wikipedia article to use it. There is no online-dictionary definition for it. A Google search produces a very few other pages using the word, but again, no definition. (All false modesty aside, if I don't know an English word, it isn't in common use.) We shouldn't be using language that isn't in Wiktionary, and we definitely shouldn't be using words most people have never encountered in their lives!

Furthermore, the sentence is poorly structured. Even with a more-familiar term in its place, there would still be a simpler and stronger way to say it. The passive voice is often a pretension, and rarely clear. "... which Alpert bagatelized" would be the way to go, if "bagatelized" was a word worth using (which it isn't). "The gun was carried by Frank" is never as good as "Frank carried the gun."

Do feel free to let me know, if you know, what "bagatelized" means. I am certain there's an equally accurate way to say what needs to be said, without resorting to esoteric terms or neologisms.

--Ben Culture (talk) 06:09, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Hey Ben. It's an mistranslation by me, I'm afraid, of the Dutch "bagatelliseren". Which means "to trivialize", "to belittle". Thanks! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:08, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate it, but really, thank YOU! I now know English is a secondary language for you. I wouldn't have known that if your User Page hadn't said so. I didn't know who put "bagatelized" in the article originally, anyway. I hope you didn't feel insulted by my above comment. I was just frustrated, because I like to think I have a good English vocabulary (if no other languages.) Thank you for clearing this up, and I think you picked a perfectly good substitute, "trivialized", which any English-speaker, native or otherwise, will surely know.

You have really contributed a lot to this article! It's an interesting topic, but I don't think I've ever done so many edits to a single article, in such a short span of time. It is better to do a lot of small edits, as you have done, instead of a few big ones. I'm impressed and appreciate your work! Have a great day!

→Ben Culture (talk) 21:18, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! See also Bagatelle (music). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:53, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Theosophical revieww

[8] 1899?!? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:58, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Ah, no; different topic... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:58, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 November 2014

There is a small typo under the section "Comparative Mythology". Instead of "teh Hero's Death", it should read "the Hero's Death". 2602:306:3085:E950:34DE:4233:75FF:A20D (talk) 17:21, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

 Done - Thanks for pointing that out - Arjayay (talk) 17:46, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 November 2014

this really needs to be spell checked

104.156.240.140 (talk) 02:01, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

You're right: lots of spelling mistakes. Any that I missed? Stickee (talk) 05:18, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Brad Warner

I don't think that his opinion is encyclopaedic enough to be included. It is not clear on which point is his critic based: is it personal? In that case he should clearly state it. Is it the result of Scientific research? I really do not think so.. Does him being a clergy of some obscure xeno-religion make him authoritative?

Also his conclusion are delirious: does he really want to compare his own production with giants like Jimi Hendrix and Kurt Kobain? Is he complaining maybe that the drug is not acting the same on his creativity as those giants? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.52.24.15 (talk) 13:11, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Reynolds (and others) criticism

Started in on my #4 from above list today and began moving critical voices down to the appropriate section since these are given undue weight in sections that are otherwise meant to be explanatory of the history of the concept.

Noticed the Reynolds criticism seems a bit out of place (I've moved it down to the criticism section now). If you look at the book, Reynolds is critical of Jung and Leary as stated, but is NOT critical of the idea of ego-death itself. Rather, he affirms the basic position of the non-substantial nature of the ego. See pg. 44: "The understanding that no eternal or abiding self exists in persons is the ultimate realization attained in the Hinayana Sutra system." In this light, Reynolds should be positioned not a criticism of "ego-death" but rather moved up to the mysticism section and read something like:

John Myrdhin Reynolds, has disputed Leary and Jung's use of the Evans-Wentz's translation of the Tibetan Book of the Dead, arguing that it introduces a number of misunderstandings about Dzogchen.. Reynolds argues that Evans-Wentz's was not familiar with Tibetan Buddhism, and that his view of Tibetan Buddhism was "fundamentally neither Tibetan nor Buddhist, but Theosophical and Vedantist".. Nonetheless, Reynolds confirms that the nonsubstantiality of the ego is the ultimate goal of the Hinayana system .

References

Will wait a day to make the change but wanted the justification posted here in case anyone objects. This risks getting to WP:NOR but rather than deleting the content, I think its better to rework it to be accurate. Etherfire (talk) 16:24, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Streamlining this article

There is a ton of really good info on this article and it is clear that a lot of work has been put into it. But does anyone else think that the current format is not really appropriate for wikipedia? This reads like a series of quotes rather than a coherent explanation making use of authoritative sources. Even just on a visual level, this doesn't look like a normal wikipedia article. It also seems to have too many subheadings with each too small to warrant their own section. We don't need a separate subsection on every thinker/figure who wrote about the idea. Perhaps they should be grouped according to the four major threads the article is working with -- mysticism, jungian psychology, comparative mythology, and psychedelics. I'm also confused about the larger organization -- for instance, "integration" isn't a particularly clear title and it's unclear why "theoretical background" should go after "Development of the concept" -- or that these are the best ways to split this up.

I wanted to post this here for a bit before I made any significant revisions, however, since it is clear that quite a few editors were involved in this article previously and that it once had an edit war necessitating a semi-lock of the article. Etherfire (talk) 22:37, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

@Etherfire: I see your point; give it a try. I was the one who put the effort in recreating this article (see the history of this page), but as it is now, it is indeed like a long list of notes + references. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:18, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: Just a heads-up--I'm coming back to this in the coming week or so partially because I'm teaching a course on editing Wikipedia that is geared to helping students edit articles just like this one (so I want to get some practice myself). I want to make some significant changes to the organization and comb through the content for appropriateness but I'll try to do so in stages. Four specific things before I hop in (I'm also using as a kind of to-do list):

1) Some of the content here is either not relevant or not tied into the article, e.g. section on "Perennial Philosophy" -- this doesn't even mention ego death and I think it could be just a portion of the lead-in to the discussion of Huxley. So--just cut this content?

2) Definitions, Conceptual Development, and Theoretical Background all seem the same to me. Here's what I think we should do: limit what we put in "Definitions" (some of these don't read like Definitions) and then make the Conceptual Development a more streamlined discussion of the term as developed in Mysticism (group with Buddhism and Roberts), Psychology, Mythology, and Psychedelics. The content there should be streamlined into those four categories more clearly. We then excise the extra stuff, e.g. Grof and Recent research to a section of "Scientific Research" (this will also leave space for contributors to add anything else on recent psychology and neuroscience).

3) the section entitled "Integration" needs to be retitled to something more like "Effects of Ego-death" -- although some might object to this

4) I think that the criticism of ego death section could be more smoothly written in encyclopedic style by combining this into one section. I'm not sure that we even need the "Fatal accidents" since this is a criticism not of ego-death but of LSD use. The Thompson and Warner quotes are more directly about ego-death but should be more smoothly introduced.Etherfire (talk) 16:24, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Update: working on this more today and wanted to write a note about why I'm deleting some content: this info is background or connects to ego-death but which starts back too far and doesn't tie clearly to it. This includes a lot of notes about bohemianism and the background of drug use which is tangential, belongs somewhere else, and risks violating both WP:NOR and, in a few instances WP:NPOV (since it is situated as overtly dismissive) Etherfire (talk) 19:38, 2 February 2018 (UTC)