For a start the psychedelic experience isn't a re-written version of the Tibetan Book of the dead. Get both books - they have very little in common. Certain bits of Leary's book are influenced by ideas in the Tibetan book of the dead. Nothing more than that.
You seem to be getting yourself caught in subjective linguistic arguments. The subtitle of the book is "A Manual Based on the Tibetan Book of the Dead." The Psychedelic Experience is based on the Tibetan Book of the Dead, so maybe re-written is not the most accurate word, but that has little to do with what I was trying to say.
You seem to be using subjective linguistic interpretation to discredit what I said that has little do with the topic at hand. Whether the Psychedelic Experience has ANYthing to do with the Tibetan Book of the Dead, I was simply giving an example where an early use of the term "ego-death" is used. I was trying to illustrate that the concept of ego-death is relatively widespread, and shamanic death is a theme in more traditional indigenous use of mind altering substances. The concept of ego-death is not restricted and therefore can not be discredited.
No, I've taken some staggering doses of LSD and Psilocybin. At no time did I now know who I was. Sure, I wouldn't like to try driving a car on the motorway while I was peaking on LSD but I've certainly never "forgotten" who I am. If I saw a fire starting then I'd be perfectly aware enough to realise it needed to be put out. Are you saying you're completely helpless when you are tripping?
Just because you have taken staggering doses of LSD and psylocibin doses does not mean that ego-death is not a fundamental aspect of high dose psychedelics for many people. You seem to be arguing for the sake of arguing, as ego-death is a completely subjective experience and just because you have never experienced the phenomena does not mean that it isn't relevant. This is the same argument as trying to convince someone that had a religious experience that it was just in their head. You can't tell people what they subjectively experienced, especially if you've never experienced it. To give a broader reflection of the type of argument you are caught within and to use an example within our physical reality, I'm sure you've never been to the moon, but just because you've never been doesn't mean that the experience of looking at the Earth from the moon doesn't exist.
With high enough doses, you can't really function on a level where you can move around and you are somewhat helpless. That is why many people suggest having a sitter when doing high dose psychedelics. Possibly, if faced with the danger of a fire, adrenaline may snap you out of the experience, just as adrenaline has allowed people to lift cars to save people under such circumstances.
If you take a high enough dose of LSD, during the peak you're entire field of vision can become permeated with flowing, intricate patterning, and distinguishing a fire would be difficult.
Secondly the term "ego" itself is an idea of Freuds that is now utterly discredited. So you're talking about the "death" of something that doesn't actually exist.
The idea of the ego is not discredited, the fact that people experience ego-death and often feel their identity has been stripped bare to consciously reveal the collective unconscious only credits the Jungian and Freudian concepts of the psyche. I'm not a psychologist, and many people could elaborate much further on this, but the ego is the outer shell of you're psyche that filters your instincts and conditions them in a way that you act socially acceptable, while still maintaining your instinctual independence. It is the part of the psyche most concerned with self-perception and selfish qualities. It is where one is concerned with their identity and desires and is the part of the consciousness that people experience while they are awake, as it is the most outer shell of the psyche. When you strip your identity you are left as a "wildflower", simply observing, not identifying yourself with the "I", and the concept of where your sense of identity ends and where the external world begins is completely dissolved.
For me, ego-death can be related to the concept of becoming one with the universe, al though I've experienced this uniting without ego-death. Not that the ego becomes one with the universe, but when you are completely stripped of the self, after reflecting on the experience it appears that your ego actually filters the infinite from your perspective. In this respect, all of reality is "one" and without the ego to filter this, you become integrated into the "oneness" of reality. People often feel like they become "one" with the universe, as they feel the boundaries of where their ego ends and the external world begin to disintegrate. Once the ego has completely dissolved it is difficult to think in terms such as "one". It is impossible to describe perfectly, as if you have never experienced it you have no perspective as to what it means to lose identity with the self. You have never experienced anything other than the "I" so how are you supposed to understand anything other than that without your total volition?
Thirdly, the number of people who claim "ego-death" - do you have any idea what they actually mean? I think most people just use the term to describe an intense trip.
Ego dissolution is the disintegration of the concept of the self. As I said earlier, you can't describe what ego dissolution is to someone that has never experienced anything other than their ego. Like describing colour to a blind man, you can only attempt to understand the concept with an open mind. As you show no sign of listening to our discussion of ego-death with an open mind, I'm afraid you already decided that it doesn't exist and we can never explain something abstract to someone who has already decided that they know it is not true.
You can't discredit people's subjective experiences that you yourself have never experienced or have little motivation to try and understand. You are in a subjective linguistic loop and you're decision to have a narrow-minded approach to the concept of ego-death will only be a self-fulfilling prophesy as you seem to have already decided that ego-death can't exist.
I would appreciate if you would stop questioning this thread and allow people that have either experienced the phenomena or people that are actually interested in the concept of ego-death to continue their discussion. This is extremely counter-productive behaviour to get into subjective arguments about metaphysical phenomena. Their is little doubt about the experience of ego-death. I suggest researching Buddhism as Buddha became the enlightened one after he initiated nirvana by letting go of all of his desires and experiencing the completely dissolution of his ego. Desire and ego are intrinsically connected, and these concepts are explored intensively in the practice of Buddhism. Do yourself a favour and do a little research on something you so passionately argue against. Ego-death is not strictly confined to psychedelic experiences. As Shakti said, he has never experienced ego-death on drugs, it can be intiated through meditation or any trance-like state.
The metaphysical concept of ego-death is one of the reasons people like to discuss the concept, because it is highly subjective, and discussing all of the comparable and contrasting aspects that we have experienced while experiencing ego-death will provide a more holistic understanding of this completely abstract, subjective and metaphysical phenomena. I appreciate your respect for this thread, and look forward to either you're productive contribution or you're voluntary expulsion.
Thank you
