The dissolution of ego stands as one of the most contested and consequential concepts in the depth-psychological corpus, traversing the boundary between pathology and liberation with unnerving frequency. The major voices divide, broadly, along two axes: those who regard ego-dissolution as a necessary passage toward genuine spiritual realization, and those who insist that what appears as dissolution is more precisely a transformation or decentering of the ego rather than its annihilation. Aurobindo treats the dissolution as ontologically inevitable — the ego is too small a vessel to survive contact with the vastness of the spirit, and must perish into impersonality. Jung occupies a more cautious register: he acknowledges dissolution as a clinical reality encountered at the borderland of schizophrenic fragmentation and mystical transformation, but insists that a stable ego-complex is the prerequisite for any productive assimilation of unconscious contents. Spiegelman, synthesizing Jungian and Buddhist frameworks, draws the sharpest distinction, arguing that what Buddhism actually demands is not ego-dissolution but ego-enrichment — a Self-centric rather than egocentric function. Epstein, writing from a Buddhist-psychoanalytic vantage, reclaims dissolution from its dismissal as regression, insisting the psyche’s capacity for boundary-relaxation is a genuine developmental achievement. Contemporary empirical work, represented here by Sun and Kim, has operationalized the construct through instruments such as the Ego-Dissolution Inventory, grounding it within measurable altered states. The tension between dissolution-as-danger and dissolution-as-liberation remains unresolved, and productively so.