Talk:Egolessness

LSD

I'd really like some scientific information. Despite the last Crowley quote, I don't want more names or identity statements so much as statements about what one might observe if one does such and such, preferably citing controlled studies for the psychological parts and multiple references for the historical parts. --Dan

Re Larry: well, I'd like people to care what Crowley said about egolessness because I don't know of any other attempt to approach the subject scientifically. I considered putting it on the Crowley page, but historically very few of the people who chose to talk about Crowley have addressed his scientific claims. Most have seemed more interested in worshipping or attacking Crowley. I wanted to encourage people to discuss the scientific merits of his work. I realize of course that it lacks in controlled studies; I kind of hoped that some reader might have the resources to perform such studies, or know of previous investigations. I would not have placed such long quotes in the entry had someone else started an entry on the subject.

I noticed that someone made a request for this entry on the LSD page. This seems like a fine topic for investigation; does anyone know of any controlled studies connecting LSD with egolessness? If so, how closely does the egolessness in question resemble 'dhyana' 'atmadarshana' or 'shivadarshana'? Clearly if we can seem to duplicate any of these states pharmacologically, it would suggest that Crowley did not make everything up. I'll look around myself, but somehow I doubt everyone will feel satisfied with my choice of information. --Dan 20:07, 16 September 2002

There is the famous Good Friday study. Dr. Richard Alpert and Timothy Leary and Ralph Metzner did tons of experiments in the 60s at Harvard with LSD and egolessness. Tons of them.

Merger proposal

Should this article be merged into Anatta, the actual term for the Buddhist concept of "egolessness"? Jpatokal 08:29, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Accuracy tag

I've removed the accuracy dispute tag from this article because reading through the history it seems the dispute has been resolved. IceKarma 02:44, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)

Inaccurate, vague and misleading

This article is inaccurate, vague and misleading.
1.) I have not encountered Egolessness in psycology apart from references to egolessness in religion.
2.) It is not an emotional state, this is incorrect. It is a spiritual state that exists in consciousness, or a state of consciousness. Emotions can also exist in consciousness. The cart is being placed before the horse.
3.) One cannot feel it. The moment there is a "One to feel" and the "feeling to be felt", you are describing the duality of the mundane world (state of ego). As for the rest of the article "Cowley on egolessness" this too has several errors.
4.) The term Dhyana means meditation not "egolessness".
5.) Dhyana does not resemble Samadhi, although Dhyana can lead to a state of Samadhi.
Most of this last section are excerpts from Cowley's book, and I'm not sure how much they help in understanding or explaining egolessness. The Buddhist Anatta / Anatman come close to conveying this idea better. It may be worth redirecting to Anatta or Anatman. stray 01:09:38, 2005-09-04 (UTC)

Indeed, the word "Dhyana" originally means meditation. But I think Crowley had precedent for his usage. In any case he experienced (so to speak -- as you say, the subject seems difficult to describe) a clear difference between what he called "Dhyana", what he called meditation and what he called "Samadhi", so he used different terms for all of these. You say the quotes contain several errors -- do you mean that section misrepresents or misquotes the author? Or do you mean it contradicts the current scientific view on the subject, or some other view? In the latter case, 'pedia rules say to note the fact and describe what the other view says. The Anatta article seems to address an entirely different matter -- remember, this page exists because someone made a link from LSD. Dan 09:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. Someone inexplicably changed that section to refer to these Sanskrit words as Buddhist terms. How strange. I've corrected this.

Quality tag

This page needs to be brought to a higher standard of quality. The quotation is too long, it should be re-writen in a shorter, more clear form. All the numbers and indents and quotes at present are difficult ro read. Also, it should either join with the Buddhist Anatta page or at least mention why it is seperate with similarities and difference. Right now it is basicly a theosophy page. Psychology stub is inappropriate i think, as this is more spiritual than psychological at present.

Crowley quotes

The wholesale removal of quotes has obscured an important distinction between types of "Samadhi". As a result, the remaining information now seems misleading. Furthermore, while the current article says "He wrote the following about the relative difficulties of attaining" mystic states of two kinds, the quote that follows these words actually addresses a different topic. (Namely, our knowledge regarding the means of attaining various states.) Y'all removed the quotes about relative difficulty as "irrelevant". Dan 23:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not interpret too much

I've totally lost ego on a few occasions. There was nothing left of me. All my concerns, my anxieties, beliefs, my motives - GONE. Instead there was an indescribable oceanic feeling of empathy. Even the walls in buildings and the sky itself felt empathetic. Ego-death is totally, incomparably amazing. 74.195.28.79 (talk) 20:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Khandro Rinpoche

Socalled egolessness and its interpretations are an important (buddhist?) topic. Some of the problems might find a place here. Khandro Rinpoche,[1].

Austerlitz -- 88.75.199.39 (talk) 12:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This page ought to just be deleted

It is highly conflicted, seems to be the result of the uncoordinated efforts of psychology students, lay meditators, and drug users; it includes no references, and contradicts itself multiple times through a failure to define terms.

I think a number of confusions might be cleared up by a single, thoughtful, concise article or section defining ego (spiritual concept) and ego (psychoanalytic concept) as two separate terms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.179.143 (talk) 05:38, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Selfishness

"One would describe a set of acts as "selfless" (altruistic) when they are not selfish—when they benefit others more than oneself".

True or complete egolessness can only occur when, as a result of Self-Enquiry, the individualised ego has been examined and found not to exist. Hence selfishness and unselfishness are untenable states incompatible with that consciousness.There ARE no 'others'. The position is similar to that of one sleeping, dreaming of 'himself' and others; 'he' has food but the rest are starving - should he share with them - or machine-gun them? If the former, ego will flourish on a sense of decency or righteousness; if the latter, ego may require him to dream of a dream prison, in which he is punished.Upon waking, it is evident that none of these people were real, not even his dream 'self', and that all his actions were unreal. But so long as he is asleep, it is wise to imagine that decency and righteousness exist, and behave accordingly. Koroke (talk) 20:21, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merged

I've merged this page, after removing all the unsourced info and WP:OR, to Ego death. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:23, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]