I think IJC is gettig at something more. I agree though that the term "unconscious" might be misleading.
In my opinion complete ego-loss would actually result in pure 'consciousness', which would be the exact opposite of being unconscious, in my understanding. But I can also see how one could call this state 'unconscious'.
I've written a little bit about the ego before, which, I think, fits quite well to the topic, so I'll post it here ^^. It also differentiates between two different forms of ego diminishing, as I think this was one of the core elements which caused a lot of friction in a discussion on a very similar subject in a different thread on this forum. Let me make it clear though that I'm only theorizing in this text, not proclaiming to have reached any kind of truth (this especially shows in that I seem to slightly change the text almost everytime I re-read it ^^, showing that I myself am not completely satisfied with it
):
The Ego
MAYBE: There are two phenomena concerning the diminishing of the ego that are very similar to one another but are not the same.
One is, what, amongst others, Buddhism teaches, learning to control your ego, and not being controlled. For, as long as one is controlled by the ego one experiences potential fear. Here meaning you are a person who needs to be approved, who needs to judge in order to be ‘different’ him-/herself and who needs to create ‘order’ in his surrounding, but most importantly one that needs to attach meaning to this constant judging; all things that arise from duality. Being controlled by the ego in this sense is the cause of this need to constantly attach worth to judgments; states of either good or bad. Thus, the ego is the inherent need to judge (to create duality; in a sense to create
our reality), but the constantly attaching of worth to those judgments results from being controlled by the ego. Thus once the ego is controlled (not dissolved), one can experience bliss/peace/love, as one no longer attaches worth to judgments, and thus nothing is either good nor bad, things just ‘are’; the concept of “Suchness” comes to thought.
-- But what/who is it that is controlling the ego?
The second phenomenon is actual ego death, or the dissolving of the ego. A much more intense experience, that doesn’t arise from controlling the ego but from actually dissolving it/’turning it off’ (these are e.g. deep mystical experiences, near-death experiences (?), or very strong psychedelic drug experiences). These experiences can be of great benefit in learning to control the ego. Yet it is important to understand that they are not the same. Also it seems unlikely that one is able to survive having a dissolved ego for a long period of time. If all duality ceases to exist, there is no possibility to create any distinctions whatsoever, including differing between your body, and everything else. Thus it seems highly unlikely one would be capable of taking care of this non-identifiable body with non-identifiable foods and drinks.
-- But again… who/what is it that would (not) survive? Actually one could go as far as to argue that even life and death do not exist as such in a state of non-duality. This would imply something I cannot fully grasp in my current (sober ;b) state of mind, yet it would imply one is neither alive or dead when in a state of consciousness of non-duality, questioning whether there is actually any need to ‘survive’ in this state, as the whole concept of ‘surviving’ would be rendered meaningless. What would it mean to survive in this state?
------------
I think one of the main problems in discussing the second form of ego-diminishing, ego-death, is that one gets involved with concepts of non-duality which are simply not graspable/understandable by a mind in a state of dual consciousness, and which are certainly not expressible in words. At the very best, if words can manage to get close to the concept of ego-death, they will
always fall short of the actual experience or state of ego-death, as words themselves have characteristics of duality. Yet when under the influence of psychedelic drugs, the mind takes on more non-dual properties, making the whole philosophy of ego-death easier to grasp. At the same time it also explains why one, most of the time, cannot
really realize ("remember"), in a sober state of mind, what one realized during the psychedelic experience (regarding the state of ego-death). To me it kind of feels like people have different 'codecs', but usually only one can be active at a time; one 'codec' for dual reality, and one for non-dual reality.. Although this also seems to be putting it a bit too simplistic in my opinion.
