Talk:Nondualism

Template:Vital article

Copied text

Suggestion: find an alternative to the word "fuzzy" in the first sentence.

... it has a dismissive tone to it. 2600:8801:BE01:2500:F45B:FCC9:DC39:5DCF (talk) 15:25, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Fuzzy concept captures it quite well. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:03, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

It's only fuzzy if you try to composite the definitions from the multiple traditions of nondualism. Each tradition defines it distinctly, and typically provides arguments why its own definition is superior to those of the other traditions. Anyway, the move and the lead rewrite should improve the accessibility of the concept to the average reader. The previous lead was way too technical and tried to include too many technical terms best left for the etymology or individual sections. Skyerise (talk) 23:45, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Definitions in the lead

@Wolfdog:: thanks for picking-up the nuance in the scope, and therefor the weight in the lead; nevertheless, I disagree that bullit-lists are "much easier on the eyes"; as far I know, plain text is to be preferred. Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:10, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

From MOS:LINEBREAKS,

Bullet points should not be used in the lead of an article, and should be used in the body only to break up a mass of text, particularly if the topic requires significant effort to comprehend. However, bulleted lists are typical in the reference, further reading, and external links sections towards the end of the article. Bullet points are usually not separated by blank lines, as that causes an accessibility issue (see MOS:LISTGAP for ways to create multiple paragraphs within list items that do not cause this issue). Rjjiii (talk) 07:33, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

We dont use bullets in the lede. The lede summarizes the article body in prose. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:02, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Gross excess in LEDE

Hi, I removed a lot of excess from the WP:LEDE. Remember the lede summarizes, it doesnt delve into details or introduce new concepts. Keep the detail for the body of the article. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:13, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
I trimmed quite a bit out of the lede. This article has 8 main sections. How about we have 8 sentences that go in the lede that summarize these sections? If someone has a reason why one topic gets a sentence more (or less), please advise. LEDE summarizes. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:02, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I think it's fine now. The definitions are relatively more important, given the fuzziness of the topic. The rest is summarized in the adiitional lines. Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:36, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

If the definitions are too complicated and cant be explained easily (probably the case here), then we do that in the article. We can just say it is complicated in the lede ;-) Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:19, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

"Fuzzy," not "complicated." Definitions are required in the lead. It's main definition - but that's what I think! - is non-dual awareness, but, as multiple sources state, the term has multiple, interconnected meanings. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:05, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Normally we also wouldnt use jargon such as fuzzy in the lede. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:59, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Hmmm.... I think it's vey apt; but which word would you suggest? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:33, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I've adapted the lead again diff, shifting the focus to nondual awareness, and the origin of the English term "nodualism" as used in the context of Indian religions; I hope this is better accessible. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:54, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Please summarize more and reduce the use of " " as well as ' '. Also do we need four items in bold? Are these really notable WP:ALTNAMEs? If they are not super notable, then they wouldnt go in the lede. Also this piped in text " conventional reality and this Ultimate Reality" is too much jargon. Just use the article destination link and summarize more. If it is complicated, then it doesnt go in the lede. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:06, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

There are limits to 'simplifying' topics; there's a guideline about that somewhere.Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:15, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

not the topic (body) im talking about, just MOS:LEAD. "It should be written in a clear, accessible style..." Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:45, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I removed all the WP:ALTNAMEs and other quotes from the first sentence as they are undue for lede and no evidence the altnames are in widespread use in WP:RS. Please explain here before re-adding to lede. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:40, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Your edit diff removed the essential definition from the lead; it borders on disruptive editing. We can start here a discussion about "widespread use in WP:RS," but I think that would be rather useless; the terms are synonyms, and awareness or consciousness is what it centers around, as in rigpa and self-luminosity, but also scholarly literature. Self-luminosity is a central concept in Advaita Vedanta and Mahayana Buddhism, which have been vastly debated in those traditiond; witness-consciousness is an essential concept in the Hindu-traditions. Sources and links are provided (and as you may realize, removing sourced info is usually a no-go). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:25, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

For the first one, nondualism = adviata, this fails verification, see Grimes 1996, p. 15. which says both of these are something called Advaita. Is that the same as Advaita Vedanta. The second seager cite is not online. Do you have any evidence that this is an altname via seager? I think I will start with this one, rather than going through each of them, are each of the altnames similarly sourced? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:33, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't know how you read a source, but to me that source is clear. As explained in the lead and the article, the term "nondualism" is derived from advaita and advaya; a bare knowledge of the topic would be helpfull. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:28, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

No a bare knowledge of the subject is not at all required to read the lede. This is the problem with the lede. If you are saying that non-dualism comes from advaita and these ALTNAMES are associated with advaita and not with nondualism, then this is WP:SYNTH. The sources must support the claim, and in the case of an altname, we need many sources, not one source that I cant access. Can you even access the one source (which is not available in google books)? The other source I noted above didnt even mention the altname. Alleging that I am being disruptive and that I dont understand the subject well is not assuming good faith. Please be cooperative to address the issues with the lede. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:13, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

What exactly then do you think "Nondualism" is? Nondualism is a western name for Advaita. See David Loy, Nonduality. But see also my comment below, about "Nondualism" being a better title for this article. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:17, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Article cleanup

@Joshua Jonathan: I will tag the article cleanup as it seems to have numerous problems, I stated to cleanup and discussed above in Talk:Nondualism#Gross_excess_in_LEDE. However, seems you object to some of the cleanups, thus I will start a more broad section here. Things that I see:

• WP:ALTNAMES, seems unliekly there are this many altnames. When I looked at the first one, I was unable to verify it.
• Issues with quotes in the WP:LEDE
• Apparent reliance on WP:JARGON to explain things. We need to use plain language at wikipedia.

Thanks Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:53, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:ALTNAMES: " an article can have only one title. When this title is a name, significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article." Grimes p.15: "Advaita - nondualism; nonduality; "not-two." See Milton Scarborough, Comparative Theories of Nonduality: The Search for a Middle Way, for the synonymous use of nondualism and nonduality. Thinking about it, "Nonduality" may be the better title for this article; see it's usage by Jerry Katz, One: Essential Writings on Nonduality; and James Swartz, How to Attain Enlightenment: The Vision of Non-Duality. Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:14, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Can you please send page numbers and a google books link into these threads so other editors can WP:VERIFY your claims these are all connected. It seems odd to me that we are listing altnames but dont list the Advaita altname, as you are referring back to that as the source for these other names. I would think if that is easily sourced, then Advaita is the altname and the other names go in the article body. Right now it muddies the lede. Your idea about renaming the article Nonduality further muddies the waters. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:25, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I'll have to look-up Seager again; you can find Katz, Swartz and Loy easily yourself. "Nondualism" is a western translation for Advaita (Vedanta), for which there already is an article, but the term is also used, together with nonduality, for 'non-dual awareness', which is at the heart of Advaita and other traditions, according to the 'nonduality-movement'. This is where 'the' confusion comes from: it refers to Advaita Vedanta and the Buddhist two truths doctrine, but also to this 'nondual awareness' and to 'nonduality', a religious/spiritual view which seez this nondual awareness as the essence of spirituality. The scope of this article is nonduality c.q. nondual awareness. Nonduality was merged into "Nondualism" in 2005; the other way round would have been better. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:41, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

If we are going to use altnames we need RS that state 'Nondualism is also referred to as xyz.' We are not going to synth this all together in the lede. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:17, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I asked you before: what do you think that "nondualism is?

• Josipovic (2020), Nondual Awareness and Minimal Phenomenal Experience: "How phenomenal content appears within NDA [Non-Dual Awareness] can be termed nonduality."
• Hamley et al. (2018), The Nondual Awareness Dimensional Assessment (NADA): New Tools to Assess Nondual Traits and States of Consciousness Occurring Within and Beyond the Context of Meditation:

Ordinary human experience is structured by the duality of subject-object distinctions. However, multiple philosophical and mystical traditions (e.g., Advaita Vedanta, Mahamudra, Dzogchen, Kabbalah, Sufism, Gnosticism, etc.) point to the possibility that this dichotomy may be transcended in special states of nondual awareness. Indeed, nondual awareness might be the sine qua non of perennial philosophy (Huxley, 2009), a trans-cultural, experiential foundation underlying the transcendent unity of religions (Bernadette, 2005; James, 1985; Schuon, 1984). Nondual awareness (NDA) can be defined as a state of consciousness that rests in the background of all conscious experiencing – a background field of awareness that is unified, immutable, and empty of mental content, yet retains a quality of cognizant bliss (Josipovic, 2014). This field of awareness is thought to be ever present, yet typically unrecognized, obscured by discursive thought, emotion, and perception (Namgyal & Lhalungpa, 2006). [...] experiencing nonduality may be terrifying (c.f., “the dark night of the soul”), multiple philosophical traditions, including Buddhism, suggest that NDA

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:59, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

In relation to this article, what I think (my WP:OR) of nondualism is not related to this, that is not how wikipedia works. Both of these sources seem to define nondual awareness, which I agree seems to be very close or the same as non-dualism. Here is another explanation of it, but normally these blogs are not RS, certainly not of the type we would use for an ALTNAME. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:18, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

You get the feel of it; while that blog doesn't even mention 'nonduality', it also centers around this 'centerless awareness'. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:29, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Bold move

Arbitrary subheader

I have boldly moved the page to "Nonduality (spirituality," to make it visual why this name is more apt. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:03, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

The blog mentions nondualism. I dont have any idea what is the distinction between the two. At this point I dont have a position on the move, but somewhat confused why you didnt do a move discussion? Maybe that would get more editors to join this discussion at least. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:57, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf I agree here. It's a big bold move... Also I saw pages getting deletion/addition of Category for Nondualism / Nonduality. Not sure why we would impact so many pages without some discussion. Asteramellus (talk) 12:10, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I will ping a few editors of this articles from the activity list Michael D. Turnbull, Wolfdog, BD2412, Epinoia, MarkH21. Could you please give some feedback on the issues I have been discussing above (excessive content in lede, excessive quotes in lede, excessive number of altnames, and now a recent WP:BRD move that I found a bit odd. I myself have no idea if there is a difference between non-duality and non-dualism. Normally we would choose the name that gets the most search traffic. Seems pretty obvious the ism is the winner there and I would guess the RS would more or less follow that. I am also a bit concerned with the edits of Joshua Jonathan in that the editor seems to be using sources that are not WP:VERIFY and some that I have checked dont even support the content and are essentially WP:SYNTH. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:04, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

"Nondualism," very strictly defined, may refer solely to Advaita Vedanta; the scope of this article is broader than 'nondualism = Advaita Vedanta' (or, for that matter, other forms of nondualism; political nondualism?). I did a bold move to make it visual why "Nonduality" is a more apt term for this article (compare Loy, the main source for the definitions, though the term "nondualism" is also being used in this broader sense: Michael Taft, Nondualism: A Brief History of a Timeless Concept).

The Google-tool is nice, but what exactly is it comparing? Do we know what the users where looking for?

Regarding your other issues:

• the "excessive content" has already nee reduced; you're referring to an older version link;
• the "excessive quotes" are a mystery to me; you didn't provide any example;
• the altnames are clear and sourced.

Regarding I myself have no idea if there is a difference between non-duality and non-dualism, I have already given several authors as starters (Loy, Swartz, Katz). Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:57, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

PS: the blog mentions "nonduality" once; I see no mention of "nondualism." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:01, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Do we have sources for your statement ""Nondualism," very strictly defined, may refer solely to Advaita Vedanta'"? Thanks Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:19, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster, but that's a dictionary, so not the best; Encyclopedia Britannica; see also Loy. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:51, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

On other articles I edit we havent used these dictionaries to do altnames. Have you seen this process used for altnames? I see here Advaita, (Sanskrit: “Nondualism”), but I dont see the reverse. It seems that the english word may be translated into hindu to me this, but nondualism is not limited to hindu traditions is it? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:46, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Dictionaries are not the best sources for such 'definitions'; their editors are too limited in their knowledge. The English word is a translation of two Sanskrit terms, most notably advaita. Nondualism/nonduality is not limited to the Hindu-traditions, no. I'll check some Hinduism-encyclopedias. NB: Loy gives five 'definitions', or topics covered by the term nonduality. The first of them is Advaita Vedanta. To give some detail: according to some interpreters, Advaita postulates a single reality, Atman-Brahman; the appearance of discrete objects is illusory, a cognitive misrepresentation of this single reality. But, Advaita is also interpreted as pointing to a 'non-dual awareness', a specific kind of consciousness. It's not mathematics; it's religion, religious philosophy, phenomenology. Ambiguity and non-expressibility all over the place... Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:56, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

James G. Lochtefeld (2002), The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Hinduism, p.745:

The Advaita school upholds a philosophical position known as monism, which is the belief in a single impersonal Ultimate Reality that they call Brahman. For Advaita proponents, reality is thus “nondual” (advaita)—that is, all things are nothing but the formless, unqualified Brahman, despite the appearance of difference and diversity.

Constance A. Jones and James D. Ryan (2007), Encyclopedia of Hinduism, p.9:

Advaita (non-dual, from the root dvi, or two) is a term used to describe the unitary philosophies and religious movements in India. Rather than a definition of these schools of thought as unitary or monist, the negative description is generally used. Advaita is usually translated as “non-dual.” Duality would imply that there is more than one reality; non-duality implies that there is nowhere a second to the one reality

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:24, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

I think a good way to find a consensus on issues regarding how we should title a page/category is to look at indexes in academic books, specifically texts that comment on the the current state of academic discussion on philosophy - because indexes usually contain the most widely used concepts, to help people who may be searching for them - WP:COMMONNAME Asteramellus (talk) 17:47, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Just saw this talk thread after wondering about Category deleted/added for Nondualism / Nonduality changes on few pages. Pinging other active users also from other related pages Vedanta / Advaita / Vishishtadvaita etc - @HeyElliott @AgniKalpa @VENUvg007 @Chronikhiles @Withmoralcare @‎ Dāsānudāsa @Kridha Asteramellus (talk) 12:01, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Could you please use the appropriate notice-boards, instead of canvassing a number of unexperienced editors? Thanks. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:53, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan I included them based on recent edits on related pages. I'm just trying to include more voices, given as you said this is a bold move. This is not canvassing. WP:Canvassing says "In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus." Asteramellus (talk) 14:40, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for asking. I do believe the title should reflect the sources, so if the concept is overall called "non-duality" more in Indian and western religions, I do support this change. However, I don't see the need for the "(spirituality)" part of the title, considering there is presently neither an article on this website called "non-dualism" nor "non-duality". Let's see what the others have to say. Chronikhiles ^(talk) 14:31, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for mentioning me. I am rather new here, so I do not know what value I can bring to this conversation. I would say that "non-dualism" appears to make more sense if we are approaching the idea with an emphasis on beliefs rather than states. "Non-duality" appears to be more about a state rather than a philosophical perspective that revolves around non-duality. Since non-dualism can encapsulate non-duality and it is also more frequently used (I and most people I know almost always use no-dualism), I don't believe that a change is absolutely mandatory. Still, I am sure that there are plenty of much more learned views to consider. Withmoralcare (talk) 18:15, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

My tiny contribution to the article followed a question at the Help Desk. I can't comment on content as I have no knowledge of the topic but it is wrong to say Normally we would choose the name that gets the most search traffic. The policy at WP:TITLE says article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources. Other terms readers may plausibly search can be redirects. The guidance for the lead section (preferred to "lede": see the link) is at WP:LEAD. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:21, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

I have little internet access at this time but will do a bit of digging and contribute soon. I have to say though that isn't Google trends showing the term nonduality is in fact more common than nondualism? And the sources on this page show a slight bias in favor of that as well, no? Wolfdog (talk) 23:04, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, they do; see Loy. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:06, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Seems Loy is free and online, can you give us a page number please? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:54, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Frontpage; and chapter 1 (if I remember correctly) for the definitions. Just go through the first pages. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:11, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

I can see that our first attempt to define it is immediately unverifiable: It refers to a state of awareness which is described as the basis of consciousness, 'centerless' and without dichotomies. The blog-looking source that it cited at the end of that sentence doesn't use the word centerless or even center in any form, or dichotomies, and only uses conscious a single time. Is the whole page going to be like this? Wolfdog (talk) 13:45, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

@Wolfdog: The article seems absurd, full of failed verifications, even a source is used that isnt online (we just need to trust whoever put it there). To be clear I find the topic interesting, mean the article. I tried to do a bit of work on it by cutting some the POV/jargon stuff out of the WP:LEAD, it was as if the LEAD was being used as a means to promote theories. I was hoping some editors that are knowledgeable of the subject would help to cleanup, or at least come with an opinion. Then when we were discussing core concepts, an editor just moved the page from "ism" to "ity." While I dont oppose the move (nor do i support it), I was shocked by the unilateral action and wondered what was the purpose as it was done when I was questioning sources verification failures. Its not as if the move can improve the sourcing. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:44, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

• "seems absurd" - clarify, please;
• "full of failed verifications" - concretize, please, with multiple examples;
• bold move: already explained: to visualise why "nonduality" is more apt than "nondualism." Nondualism refers to various Indian traditions, which state that Reality is a single wholeness, which can be experienced as such. But "nondualism" also refers to this experience itself, or this state of awareness; this ambiguity is less prominent when the term "nonduality" is being used, as it implies both. The fact that the term "nondualism" is ambiguous (fuzzy) in this respect seems also problematic for you; you removed all the references to this nondual awareness from the lead. Third, "nondualism" also refers to a (western) view on spirituality which discerns this nondual awareness in various traditions, both Indian and western. "Nonduality" is more often used in this discourse, and refers to the first two meanings, but also to this movement and it's views. Again, the term is fuzzy.

Please skim through Jerry Katz, One: Essential Writings on Nonduality (p.5, "great fear": one of the few sources which mentions this; excellent! So does Loy, in the intro of Lack an Transcendence; and Gaudapada, in the Mandukyakarika); and James Swartz, How to Attain Enlightenment: The Vision of Non-Duality; they may give you a feel of the topic. Or "On having no head" from Douglas Harding; it's a classic. Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:16, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan Thanks for great details. I think I have understood your point in these sentences (Nondualism refers to various... term "nonduality" is being used, as it implies both"), but the sentences seems to contradict themselves? Asteramellus (talk) 17:56, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

PS: you can call me Joshua Jonathan, instead of "an editor"; I find it belittleling to refer to me in such an impersonal way, as if I'm no more than just a nuisance, instead of one of the main contributors to articles on Hinduism and Buddhism, with a very good standing in that regard. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:24, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Arbitrary subheader #2 - continued discussion

Let's continue here. @Chronikles: I added the (spirituality) part to be able to move the page; we'll need an dmin to move it to "Nonduality." Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:55, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan @Chronikhiles Still trying to understand the "Bold move" thread discussions to see why we did the bold move to move this current page from "Nondualism" to "Nonduality (spirituality). And also trying to understand why all the existing pages' category for Category:Nondualism was removed and new Category:Nonduality got added. @Joshua Jonathan it would help if you can shed further insights into the Category change also.

Also, want to further understand more your thinking of changing the page to "Nonduality" in this thread. Asteramellus (talk) 17:11, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

@Asteramellus: apologies for my tone; I'm somewhat agitated by the discussions here, but your responses are fairly nuanced; so, apologies.

I think I've already explained the move several times, but I'll try again. According to Jtbobwaysf, the lead was too long, and he didn't understand the, what he called, alternative names (it's not so much alternative names, but synonyms and related terms, hence "fuzzy"). "Nondualism" may refer to, depending on the context:

• 1. in Vedanta, to Advaita Vedanta;
• 2. in Indian religions, to the view that Reality is an undivided whole, and that our 'normal reality', with discrete "things" and the 'I-sense', is actually a distorted perception. This view is shared by, among others, Advaita Vedanta, Kashmir Shaivism, and Buddhism. They also all have terms for this 'experience of nondual reality', such as witness-consciousness, sahaja samadhi, rigpa, etc. In this context, "nondualism" refers to both the views, which are expressed in elaborate philosophies, and to the (experience of) nondual awareness;
• 3. in modern spirituality, "nondualism" refers primarily to this nondual awareness, while refefencing to these nondual traditions. This nondual awareness is discerned in both Indian religions and in western traditions (neo-Platonism, mysticism, etc.). This stance is related to Perennialism, Neo-Advaita, and other strands of modern spirituality;
• 3A. the term is also used by a few academic researchers (Josipovic), who try to define and 'measure' this nondual awareness;
• 4. lastly, the term can also be used to refer to any kind of nondualistic thinking, for example, body- mind dualism versus holistic thinking.

Hence, in a very limited way, nondualism refers only to Advaita Vedanta, or to a number of Indian religions. Taken in that limited way, a short description and a numbed of links would suffice. Yet, over the years this page has tended to oscilate between this narrow sense and the broaded 'spiritual sense', with some excursions to the broadest category. As is clear from the oscillations, and the popularity of this 'nondual spirituality', usually called "nonduality," the topic is not restricted to the first categories, nor does it usually involve the broadest category; the main interest is in nondual spirituality. Of course, nondualism and nonduality are mostly treated as synonyms in this respect, but as this seemed to be confusing, it dawned on me that "nonduality" actually better covered the scope of this article. A bold move, instead of endless discussions about the 'exact' meaning of an inherently fuzzy concept, I thought that a bd move to this title would better illustrate why "nonduality" iz more apt as title for this page.

Of course, we could also have a page on "nondualism," but that would most likely be a disambiguation page. I hope thiz explanations makes it clearer what I think the scope of this article is, and why, and what tbe problem is with demanding 'exact' definitions. Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:06, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

PS: search for nondualism and nonduality at Google Scholar, and then try to find an overarching definition; you won't. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:17, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Precision is tricky to discover in the realm of maya. I can't hope to question your competence, but I did wish to express my own views on this. As I wrote elsewhere, I think that non-duality (at least to me) seems to be more about a state rather than a belief. If I were to say that my belief is non-dualism, I think that most people would understand that it has something to do with non-duality. Therefore, "non-dualism" can incorporate non-duality (the state) whilst also maintaining the idea of it being a unique way of looking at the world. In a way, this is similar to how "realism" is naturally inseparable from "reality". I am sorry if I misunderstood anything. Thank you so much to you and everyone else here for the brilliant work! Withmoralcare (talk) 20:04, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

First, why did you create another talk page discussion to continue? Second, you provide very long explanations here on the talk page and state your are agitated. Please take a deep breath and work slowly to get consensus on this talk page. The reason I removed things from the WP:LEAD is it was so excesssive. This article, like all others, must follow WP:MOS and at very least the LEAD must be easy to read and follow. Earlier on this talk page you asked me about my personal knowledge of the subject (I admit it is limited, I have only read a couple of blogs and about half of David Carse's book). The reason I state this is that my knowledge might even be more advanced than the average reader, and if I have no idea what the LEAD is saying, then it is way too jargoned for wikipedia. Please feel free to summarize what you want in the LEAD, just use plain english in doing so. About the move, I am still on the fence with this, and dont understand why there wasnt a move discussion first. This would have been a good way to gain consensus. Your unilateral move was I think the first move I have ever seen in my years that was being discussed at the time of the move and was implemented without a discussion on the talk page. Not saying the ends dont justify the means, just saying the process was badly lacking. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:20, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

@Withmoralcare: to me, the terms "nonduality" and "nondualism" also seem almost synonyms, and I agree with your distinction between state and philosophical system. Yet, because this seems to be confusing to Jtbobwaysf, greater precision seemed to be necessary, and "nonduality" better fits the contents of this page.

@Jtbobwaysf (funny, there's a 'nondual teacher called Sailor Bob): what do you mean with 'another discussion'? I divided this thread, for convenience sake, because it is becoming so long; not unusual at extended discussions. And I provide long explanations because you are demanding explanations for what seems to be obvious but isn't; I try my best to make things clear. But if you have a problem with everything I do, then I really don't know what I can do to answer your concerns.

I made a WP:BOLD move to make it clear, in a short way, why "nonduality" is more apt than "nondualism," instead of going through endless discussions in which we would have been obliged to discuss each and every aspect of a topic which is inherently fuzzy - or ambigious, if you like; you're already complaining about long answers... I'm glad you see the merits of the term "nonduality"; that may mean the bold move worked.

You could try to do some Google book-searches, and go through some of the hits to see how they define nondualism/nonduality, just to get some broader idea of the topic and it's broadness. As a starter: nondualism, which gives (at least in my search), ironically, Loy, Nonduality: in Buddhism and beyond first. It's a reprint, with his five definitions which are also used in the article. NB: David Carse also fits in "nonduality." Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 02:25, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the informative reply. I think that if you use the word "concept" with non-duality" (as you have done), it becomes clear enough that one is not only talking about a state, but also something that includes belief. I do wonder if it is possible to mention "non-dualism" somewhere in the article. This way, there wouldn't be any ambiguity that "non-duality" is not only a description of a state, but it is also the final conclusion of a specific belief system that has existed for a long time. Thank you for your hardwork. Withmoralcare (talk) 02:34, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan Had a quick question - Yesterday, i saw on the Category:Nondualism talk page an old discussion from you "Nondualism relates to a broader range of topics than Advaita". It's quite old, but do you recall what sources you might be using at that time? Asteramellus (talk) 21:08, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan No worries. This discussions gave me an opportunity to read something new (Loy's book) and I am really enjoying reading that. Loy, as a current practicing teacher of Zen Buddhist, has great insights into many philosophical areas and a good source for me now while I continue with my deeper readings in different schools/sub-schools in Hindu Philosophy. Asteramellus (talk) 21:00, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Obviously, tensions are a bit high, but I think, ironically, the edits recently made by both Jtbobwaysf and Joshua Jonathan have jointly resulted, in fact, in a better page thus far. This is good news! Jtbobwaysf, Joshua has explained his reasons for a bold move adequately. Joshua, Jtbobwaysf is upset (my understanding) by the boldness you demonstrated in the middle of a discussion where it was clear a potential move was being questioned and yet you proceeded with one anyway. Let's please move on from these tensions. Here's what the next steps seem to be, from my POV:

1. Gain consensus about the article title, focused on reasons for which of the two names (nondualism or nonduality) we land on. Compiling what smarter editors than myself have already stated above, we should focus on what the subject is called in reliable sources as one editor says, or, i.e. the title should reflect the sources as another says, for example looking at indexes in academic books. More directly, we can use the sources already on this page to decide the overarching title. For instance, just looking at the page's Sources, Further Reading, and External Links, Nonduality shows up in 11 cited titles and Nondualism in 5 cited titles. Personally, I agree with an editor above that the "spirituality" part of the title can be dropped.
2. Bolster the actual definition, currently the second sentence as of Jonathan's recent writing, which reads: It refers to a "primordial, natural awareness without subject or object." A) I don't love that this sentence is separate from the lead sentence whose assertion there is no single definition seems redundant in light of the fact that we're admitting it's a fuzzy concept, plenty of which exist on Wikipedia, by no means unusual of many encyclopedic topics. B) I also don't love that this second sentences quotes from a journal whose author, though a PhD, isn't found on Google Scholar and who claims the site is a "peer-reviewed journal" yet (mysteriously) one that seems to be cited by no other reliable sources that I can quickly find. Let's use the many other reliable sources already on the page to nail down a definition! (I strongly believe in definitions, even for difficult or "fuzzy" topics.)

Perhaps we can use labels like 1 and 2 above, to continue the discussion as geared towards either of those next steps. Wolfdog (talk) 02:32, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

In that case, that would be definition (or scope) 3 and 3A. The firsts entemce could go into a note, and supplemented with a hatnote on top of the page a disambiguation-page "Nondualism" might be usefull. Personally, I don't object to the Undivided Journal-definition, as this is typical a topic from a non-academic discourse, but it could be replaced by a definiton from Josipovic or from Hamley et all (see above). Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:57, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Wolfdog, I agree with your analysis. I too would like to move to a reliance on sources. I also found "non-dualism" can incorporate non-duality (the state) whilst also maintaining the idea of it being a unique way of looking at the world. said by Withmoralcare seemed to be reasonable. But I also liked the analysis that seemed to indicate that ity had more sources than ism.

Joshua Jonathan, I am confused by "Sailor Bob", are we using this blog as an RS? Doesn't look like one to me, or are we using his books? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:43, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: in this edit you re-insert jargon into the WP:LEAD. You make a huge number of edits on this article and it seems to be one of the primary focuses of editing. Instead of trying to push your vision into the article, take a deep breath and discuss with your fellow editors here on this page to get consensus. LEAD states: "It should be written in a clear, accessible style" and excessive wikilinks to esoteric topics is not what we do in the LEAD. Explain to the reader (who on average visits for one minute) what this topic is, and if they are interested, hopefully they will scroll down and read more. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:45, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Sailor Bob was just an association, because of the "bob" in your username. I've already self-reverted that edit. Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:53, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I I missed that. Please discuss the content and not other editors. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:17, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

I've adapted the lead diff, to see if we can more clearly shift the focus to nondual awareness as a concept. For the definition, I've paraphrased Hamley an Josipovic, which are academic sources. I've also added a hatnote, which defines the scope of this article, and links to Nondualism, where I have added links to several related topics. I hope that this works. Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:19, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Article recreated

I really dont know what is going on now, with Nondualism now being an article created by Joshua Jonathan (talk · contribs) just today after moving the former article to Nonduality (this talk page). I am baffled at this point in time. I am at a loss with the freight train of unilateral actions going on here. Normally we take things a bit slower and discuss. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:17, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

See above; kind of a disambiguation-page, to see how that works. Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:20, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

I think that this is perfect. The general page will give people an overview of the diverse perspectives that exist (and could come into existence) on non-duality. Then, the specific page on spiritual non-duality could give people information on that particular position on non-duality. Withmoralcare (talk) 09:27, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:35, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

It is presently a completely unsourced article, and doesn't appear to be a disambiguation article. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:39, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Oh please. Do you expect me to use a magic stick and have it all complete at once? I've added the disambiguation-tag; and see Dualism, the mirror disamb-page; no references. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:58, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Joshua, you are verging into dangerous territory with the edits and new articles you are creating while we are in the very middle of a discussion on how to go about this project, as a community. Your actions could be understood as an unwillingness to participate in consensus-building. I will kindly and directly ask you to refrain from editing the "Nonduality (spirituality)" and "Nondualism" pages altogether for the next few days, as we continue to reach consensus decisions as a group. Jtbobwaysf has been polite enough not to participate in an edit war with you, but your unilateral actions are beginning to have that exact feel. The page itself is not a sandbox; however, this talk page is, so please use it as such so the community as a whole can discuss potential edits. Wolfdog (talk) 15:12, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

My latest edits diff "bolstered" the "actual definition," by moving that sentence forwards, in response to your suggestion. It also replaced the Nondual Journal-quote with a paraphrased definition from two scholarly sources, also in response to your request; and added the term "concept" in response to User:Withmoralcare. That's participating in consensus-building. But alas, I understand your feeling, so if you or Jtbobwaysf can do some source-digging now, such as "looking at indexes in academic books," which is a usefull suggestion, instead of me doing all the work and explanation, that would be most welcome. Maybe we can find relevant sources by using search strings like nonduality oxford university press (looking at Google Books, Loy's Nonduality seems to be often referenced; on Google Scholar, it has 597 citations). Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:59, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate the work but, "in response to" people's suggestions, you ought to propose exact wordings/phrasings HERE on the talk page before actualizing them on the article page. This is our sandbox. Otherwise, it will be harder to discuss ever-changing diffs (for example, someone complaining about what seems to be the current lead when they're really referring to the lead as it looked two days ago -- that's very confusing for all of us). Furthermore, we should wait a few days to see if others agree or disagree with what one-off editors are suggesting here and there, before barreling ahead with changes. That's consensus. Jtbobwaysf, for example, has shown shock over the pace of changes time and again, so let's slow down please. Again, based on my own brief investigation (Google Trends, Google Ngrams, and the copious sources already used on this page) I'm actually on your side that Nonduality probably ought to prevail over Nondualism, unless some other editor can provide a new overriding reason. If you raise good points gradually and give us time to think and research, we may well end up all agreeing on the final product! Wolfdog (talk) 17:50, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Okay. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:53, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan Thanks again for taking lot of time editing and re-creating the page for Nondualism. I think, if we do go that route of having 2 separate pages, we probably should develop the Nondualism page (at some later stage) further with anything that sources consider strictly Nondualism. Currently though I lean towards having a single page with title Nondualism and include specific sourced content for Nonduality as separate section? I am not sure...as I am still very much trying to understand this all.

Also, just want to add here what I found -

In the index of the Oxford Handbook, nonduality does not seem to appear. Nondualism appears several times to refer to a wide range of traditions: "nondualism and Mahayana Buddhist ethics", "nondualism, 130, 342, 380 (see also Advaita Vedanta; human/nature nondualism in Japanese thought; Visista Advaita Vedanta)", "Visista Advaita Vedanta (Qualified Nondualism)".

Another thing (not sure if relevant to our discussion here) specifically about using non-duality I came across in the chapter by Bret Davis (who also, seems like Loy, is a practicing Zen Buddhism scholar) in this Oxford Handbook page 342:

"Nondualism is sometimes taken to be synonymous with distinctionless monism. However, while this may apply to the Advaita Vedanta school of Indian philosophy, in East Asian thought, and in Zen Buddhism in particular, nonduality (funi) tends to be thought rather in terms of "not one and not two" (fuichi-funi)." In this quote, non-duality does not seem to be an umbrella term, but a translation of the Zen Buddhist concept funi.

Asteramellus (talk) 21:48, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Joshua, what is "Hamley 2018"? This doesn't appear to be an already-cited source. Wolfdog (talk) 00:33, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

@Asteramellus: I also came across funi. This seems to be related to Loy's second definition, advaya, the Two truths doctrine. It's bewildering, isn't it, all those different usages of the term "nondualism"? And I don't think that a single Nondualism-content page, with a subsection on nonduality, is a good idea; it's scope would be enormous.

@Wolfdog: Hamley et al. (2018), The Nondual Awareness Dimensional Assessment (NADA): New Tools to Assess Nondual Traits and States of Consciousness Occurring Within and Beyond the Context of Meditation; quoted from above. I've added it to the article. NB: they cite Josipovic; after Loy, Josipovic (various publications) seems to be the second most-cited author. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:27, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Joshua Jonathan, your edits (unilaterally moving an article, then recreating the article with no sources, etc) on this subject as well as these comment by you "Do you expect me to use a magic stick and have it all complete at once?" as well as "instead of me doing all the work and explanation" is close to WP:OWN (or maybe already there). I almost sent this to ANI last night after this edit where I could not understand why you were removing a see also link for an article that you just a few days ago had moved. I have expressed my dismay multiple times on this talk page over the past week or so and that was the reason I pinged other editors with the hope that others would show up and offer some guidance here. This topic, while I find it interesting, is of limited experience on my part, thus I have been unable to help a lot with content (other than checking things for various policy compliance, sourcing, etc). Today I applaud you for engaging with Wolfdog and myself and remind you we are both asking you to slow down and find consensus. It is great that Asteramellus is working with you on content and sources. Please keep it up and understand that wikipedia is not built in a day and an article should never be perfect in your eyes, as that would mean it is a reflection of your intent and not a shared consensus. Thank you! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:38, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I thought that the link was a left-over from my edits; since it is also contained in the list of links, it seemed to be pretty obsolete. And using hatnotes at a disambiguation-page is pretty unusual. But I understand your intention, so I left it there when you added it again.

I've added some more from Loy diff, who makes clear how nonduality refers to various aspects, which are related, and which can be found in various traditions. Importantly, Loy argues that, based on these shared aspects, these traditions are not as different as they may seem, and that "nondual experience" forms a 'common core' in these traditions. I think that Loy clarifies our confusion over the various definitions (they are related and interdependent), and points to the central thesis of 'nonduality as an "-ism"', namely that nondual experience/awareness reveals the Oneness of Being, and that this notion of Oneness and the experience/awareness of this Oneness can be found in multiple traditions. Granted, that's a two-step thesis with multiple underlying elements, and yet, in it's core it's intuitively coherent and appealing. Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:37, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

PS: to the first paragraph in the lead, last sentence "In a more general sense," we should add "and to thinking without dualistic concepts," following Loy. Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:44, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

"Thinking without dualistic concepts" is a very useful addition! Wolfdog (talk) 15:19, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Proposal regarding the two pages

@Jtbobwaysf @Joshua Jonathan @Wolfdog Because of the issue I highlighted yesterday (all other pages linking now to Nonduality (Spirituality) and given that we are probably leaning towards having two pages (Nondualism and Nonduality (Spirituality), I suggest we do this (whichever makes sense and easier - however I prefer Option 1 given the fact that this current page has a history of being developed as Nondualism page, and seems a little odd to rename it and then create a new page for it):
Option1:

1. Remove the new Nondualism Dis-ambiguous page
2. Change current page title back to Nondualism
3. Create new page for Nonduality (Spirituality)
4. Add/move/change content to both pages as seen relevant from current page and their title
5. Add/Remove Category:Nondualism/Category:Nonduality on relevant pages that were changed by Joshua.
   

OR
Option 2:

1. Change Nondualism page to be not a Category: Disambiguation pages
2. Revert the changes done by Onel5969's DisamAssist tool - that impacted many pages - that will link the term Nondualism to correct term Nondualism page.
3. Add/Remove Category:Nondualism/Category:Nonduality on relevant pages that were changed by Joshua.
4. At some later point, Add/move content to Nondualism page

Or any other option others can suggest. Asteramellus (talk) 10:54, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Given the fact that the current page retains the edit-history, but centers on nonduality/non-dual awareness, I'd prefer to keep this page for nonduality. Regarding nondualism, we'll run into the same problems of definition, if we make t a content-page, or it's scope will be immensely large (Mettinger's theory of nondualism, whatever that is, has numerous hits at Google-scholar). And it would probably repeat a lot of this page. So, to my opinion, nondualism is better off as a disambiguation page. Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:30, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm ok with Joshua's immediate response above. @Asteramellus: what does your option 2 have to say about the title Non-duality? Lastly, I certainly think that if we keep a page called Non-duality we should remove the spirituality bit. Wolfdog (talk) 15:27, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan @Wolfdog @Jtbobwaysf I think that by changing the title of this page to "nonduality (spirituality)", which over time seems to have developed a bent toward nondual awareness-centric content, and including within that page the traditions that are commonly classified under the label of nondualism, we are neglecting to highlight a prominent category (i.e. nondualism) which is commonly referenced as a category in academic books, as the index from the Oxford Handbook of World Philosophy shows.

I think that the best thing to do would be to keep both pages separate and traditions/content that are usually classified using nondualism as a category in academic works should come (don't have to do it right away) in the nondualism page.

Currently, my thinking (from my research so far) is that although I prefer the Option 1 (that I have suggested earlier), if we want to keep this page's title as "Nonduality (Spirituality)", I prefer Option 2 (that I had suggested earlier and listing here again) to avoid any impact to other linking pages:

1. We remove the Category:Disambiguious from the new page created for nondualism. For now, it can have the content which Joshua has added there.
2. Revert the changes done by Onel5969's DisamAssist tool that impacted many pages - that will link the mentions of nondualism on other pages to the correct "nondualism" page, not the "nonduality (spirituality)" one.
3. Add/Remove Category:Nondualism / Category:Nonduality on relevant pages that were changed by Joshua.
4. At some later point, add/move content to Nondualism page.

@Wolfdog I prefer the page title as Nonduality (Spirituality) instead of just Nonduality - if we decide to keep this new title instead of original Nondualism title. Asteramellus (talk) 21:21, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

I am generally confused why we went from Nondualism, to a (unilateral) move to Non-duality, and then subsequently created a a Nondualism article (that until I added the seealso template), put Non-duality wikilink at the very bottom which appeared to me to reduce the weight of the ity article's connection to the ism. Can we first talk about what is the difference between the two so we can understand what we are proposing here? I dont personally understand the difference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtbobwaysf (talk • contribs) 29 july 2023 (UTC)

I second Jtbobwaysf's call for clarity. Did we decide the two terms are distinct? I continue to disfavor the "spirituality" aspect of the title, which feels redundant, but perhaps we're not there yet. Wolfdog (talk) 13:22, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

@Asteramellus: which meanings for nondualism did you find so far in those indexes? Could you give a list, for comparison (with the links at the nondualism-page, and the list given by Loy)? And Jt, could you also give the meanings you've seen so far, no matter what source (blogs you've read, the book you're reading)?

It's still possible, of course, that Loy has actually covered most definitions. In that case, one page might suffice. But, he has also given an overarching definition, by connecting nondual thought, interconnectedness, and nondual awareness; and he also added the theses that nondual awareness is the common core of various Indian and western traditions. For this 'common core thesis' he uses the term nonduality. And that's qualitatively different from a bare list of 'nondualism refers to x, y, z'. Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:57, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan Thanks. I included the quote from oxford handbook earlier, but adding here : "Nondualism is sometimes taken to be synonymous with distinctionless monism. However, while this may apply to the Advaita Vedanta school of Indian philosophy, in East Asian thought, and in Zen Buddhism in particular, nonduality (funi) tends to be thought rather in terms of "not one and not two" (fuichi-funi)." - Davis, who is a scholar of Zen Buddhism, differentiates Nondualism, which he associates with Advaita Vedanta and perhaps other such traditions, from nonduality which is a translation of the Zen Buddhist concept funi. I will also look for other references. But from this quote it is clear that nonduality is not used as a concept that has an overarching definition, and because this is from an oxford handbook, which is supposed to summarize the current state of academic discourse, nondualism and nonduality do not seem to refer to the same idea in wider academic discussion. So, although Loy may offer a definition of nonduality which is more inclusive, this may not reflect a broader tendency in the academic texts.

And I was just looking on google books and found a forthcoming academic publication (in September 2023) called "Nondualism: An Interreligious Exploration." Just looking at its table of contents, it includes the category of nondualism in the titles of the chapters for the following traditions, e.g. Process thought (Chapter 2), Buddhism (chapter 4), Christianity (chapter 5), Judaism (Chapter 8), Confucianism (Chapter 13), and both the Introduction (by Jon Paul Sydnor) and Afterword (by Francis X. Clooney) refer to Nondualism in their titles.

And as I have mentioned previously, I am concerned about other pages linking the mentions of "nondualism" in them to this page, with the title "nonduality" - and having only the Category:Nonduality. Asteramellus (talk) 13:20, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

I have no objection to dropping "spirituality" ftom the lead. Regarding the distinction between nondualism and nonduality, as defined by Loy: nondualism may be used as a synonym for nonduality, but nondualism is not necessarily synonymous with nonduality. "Nondualism" is also used to refer to various specific forms of Indian thought/religion, such as Advaita Vedanta and (some forms of) Mahayana Buddhism. This is done in a specific way; for example, in the context of Vedanta, nondualism refers to Advaita Vedanta, not to Mahayana Buddhism. Nonduality specifically refers to the idea/thesis that these various traditions share a nondualistic view and experience, although formulated differently, and that nondual awareness (the experience part) is the linking pin.

Regarding nonduality as used in this Oxford book: they seem to treat nondualism and nonduality synonymously, and not as separate notions. What tbey point out is that nondualism/nonduality has another meaning in East-Asian thought than in Advaita Vedanta. The East Asian meaning seems to be the same as Loy's second definition, the nonduality of absolute and relative truth. Loy's overarching definition seems to be in line with the popular usage of the term nonduality, namely a nondual awareness which forms the common core of numerous traditions. In essence, the discussion is about the WP:SCOPE of this article: what definition do we use for this specific article, and what do we do with the other definitions? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 14:46, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan Thanks so much. Regarding "Nonduality specifically refers to the idea/thesis that these various traditions share a nondualistic view and experience, although formulated differently, and that nondual awareness (the experience part) is the linking pin." Do we have academic sources for that other than Loy? Asteramellus (talk) 12:46, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Other sources: no and yes. Nonduality seems to be the common name among a subset of contemporay spirituality; see all the blogs. I doubt it if there's much research on the 'non-duality movement' yet, but it may also be a renaming of the Neo-Advaita movement, which has been studied. See also Bas H.J Jacobs (2020), Getting off the Wheel: A Conceptual History of the New Age Concept of Enlightenment, published by BRILL.
But, there's been extensive academic discussion on the "common core thesis" (see Scholarly approaches to mysticism; in that respect, Loy's thesis is not new. Compare Aldous Huxley, D.T. Suzuki, and the Theosophists. Huston Smith is also an influential name in this regard. I don't know which label they use, but they definitely argue for nondual (mystical, etc.) awareness as a common core.
"Nondualism" may still also be better suited, but... then there's still the fact that "nondualism/nonduality" refers to various kinds of thoughts, as clearly explained by Loy; in that case, there simply is not simply one definition, as some would like to have it. And there is also the fact that nonduality also refers to this common core/Perennialist view; that enlarges the list of "definitions" to a square with multiple subsquares, which are all related to these terms. In the upper row multiple Asian traditions to which term nondualism/nonduality can be applied; in the middle row Perennislists versus constructionists; and in the lower row, branching out from the Perennialist view, a number of non-Asian traditions which may also be regarded as nondualist. So, demanding a strict definition won't work; it may be perceived as how Wikipedia works, but the approach is not suited fod this topic. There are good reasons why the term "fuzzy" is in the lead...
If we stick to 'Nonduality/nondualism' refers to a number of Asian religious traditions and philosophies', then a disambiguation-page could still function as a bare minimum. If we make it a content-page, then this Perennialist common core-thesis and the New Religious Movement also have to be mentioned, plus the non-Asian traditions which are regarded as non-dualist by this NRM. And that, together, is more or less what the current page is about. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 14:12, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan Thanks again - I understand your points, and makes me think more. I agree that Nonduality/Nondualism is not used just for only number of Asian religious traditions and philosophies. And, as I found earlier from the forthcoming book, the table of contents has nondualism used with different traditions, not just asian religious traditions.

My main concern is with having title changed to Nonduality and having no reference to Nondualism in the lead. As I am reading more, I see that the term nonduality is also used when scholars uses the term nondualism. And nondualism seems to be used more in academic discussions. I do agree when you say "there simply is not simply one definition".

So, if we want to keep Nonduality as the title, do you think it makes sense to have "...also called Nondualism" somewhere in the first sentence? Again, my concern is that all the links (for "nondualism") from other pages will come to this page and they won't even see "nondualism" in the lead. Using simply the definition as awareness or consciousness in the first sentence seems to be giving weight to just one view instead of fact that no single definition. Asteramellus (talk) 00:39, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi Asteramellus. Of course I agree with adding "nondualism" to the lead. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:33, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Link for Nondualism from other pages

Just adding this as another subsection to highlight this issue that I noticed. Seems when Joshua recreated the Nondualism page as Category:Disambiguation pages, it got picked up by user Onel5969's DisamAssist tool and now ALL those pages are linking the term "Nondualism" to the "Nonduality (Spirituality)" page...Asteramellus (talk) 00:45, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah... Not sure if 'nondual awareness' is the right target for all those links. But hey, it fits the topic: broad and ambiguous, that is, fuzzy: it's meaning depends on the context. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:32, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Leave the LEAD alone

@Joshua Jonathan: please leave the WP:LEAD alone (dont touch it) for two weeks. What started my edits on this article was the abusrd quanity of jargon and bloat in the LEAD a couple weeks back. The majority of your edits continue to be in the LEAD. The LEAD summarizes. Focus on the article body and then after that is somewhat set, we can then summarize in the LEAD. I now am starting to see signs of WP:OVERCITE in the lead which is a sign of the problems that this article has. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:05, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Could you try another tone, instead of commanding me? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:37, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Lead sentence proposal

I agree with the basic message that we, as a community, need to discuss the lead here: on the talk page. Don't keep making edits the article page and then we are forced to discuss them on the talk page. For the umpteenth time, please stop editing the page at this time, Joshua, and instead provide possible next steps for the lead in our discussions, like this:

Nonduality, also called nondual awareness, pure awareness and pure consciousness, refers to the concept of a basic awareness without discursive thought or dichtomies, which can be found in numerous spiritual and religious traditions.

References

Here are some immediate issues that I notice, just for example: "dichotomies" is spelled wrong, "discursive" is confusing, and we can probably add your "thinking without dualistic concepts" suggestion. Wolfdog (talk) 16:11, 28 July 2023 (UTC) This seems to me better, and is certainly more tightly linked to the sources you've thus far cited:

In religion, philosophy, and spirituality, nonduality, also called nondual awareness, pure awareness and pure consciousness, is awareness without concepts and without the ordinary duality of distinctions, like distinctions between subject and object, or a level of awareness that transcends such distinctions.

References

Wolfdog (talk) 16:52, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Not bad. Why the distinction between "awareness" and "level of awareness"? "Awareness" could be read as a form of normal awareness, whereas those traditions are quite outspoken that it is a different form of awareness, as implied in "level of awareness"? And "religion, philosophy, and spirituality" implies all sorts of religion, philosophy and spirituality, or is that my reading? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:03, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess I was thinking that there are different types of awareness and (at least, per Hamley) one of them "transcends" the other, which implies levels. But I could be persuaded to just keep it as "awareness" and that might be helpful for concision anyway. As for "religion, philosophy, and spirituality", that implies that this term is used in various discussions within those fields (not by every and all religions, for example, but in a religious context in general). I see that you're concerned that it is indeed used in so many of those fields (Vedanta, Buddhism, Taoism, etc.) but rarely in others (mainstream Christianity, Islam, etc.); still, I think the audience will understand that. For example, I think an audience gets that, for a definition for "Emergence" that begins "In philosophy, emergence is..." without interpreting that to mean "every philosophical approach, school, and methodology has something to say about emergence". Wolfdog (talk) 19:29, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Personally unless we can see coverage in the main article body for all the altnames, i dont think the altnames should be bold in the LEAD. We do have WP:ALTNAME policy we need to contend with. I would prefer that the article stabilize and then we summarize the LEAD. Right now it is a bit chaotic with moves, second articles (ism vs ity) in discussion. And now we heap the altname on top. Lets just work on the article for a while and then come back to the LEAD. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 00:57, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I understand the "In religion, philosophy and spirituality." I think that "which [allegedly] can be found in numerous spiritual and religious traditions" is essential, as it is part of Loy's nonduality common core thesis (which is shared by many primary sources, e.g. the blogs). "Is found" could also be "forms a common core." "Allegedly" needs another word, but indicates that this is a thesis, not a proven fact (constructionists oppose it). For the same reason, because "nonduality" includes more than 'just' this awareness, I'd prefer "refers to awareness" instead of "is awareness," when "is found in" is retained. Thoughts?
Regarding the altnames, "nondual awareness" is essential. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:20, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't really see a problem with the altnames so long as they are backed by sources, the current ones which I admittedly have not verified. Presumably, we do need a LEAD at some point, so just to continue to hone that, at least for "Nonduality", here are my thoughts. On Wikipedia, we always try to avoid a "refers to" definition in favor of an "is" one (MOS:REFERS). I'm ok with "which can be found in numerous spiritual, religious, and philosophical traditions" though I warn you that this long phrase may very well make the grammar of the LEAD wonkier, so I'm going to try another compromise approach below (and I think we can do without "allegedly"; it indeed is found in numerous traditions, even if there are some traditions where its presence is more debatable). Wolfdog (talk) 13:30, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Just to be totally explicit, here's my most current proposal then:

In numerous spiritual, religious, and philosophical traditions, nonduality, also called nondual awareness, pure awareness and pure consciousness, is awareness without concepts and without the ordinary duality of distinctions, like distinctions between subject and object, or it is awareness that transcends such distinctions.

Wolfdog (talk) 13:36, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

"Wonkier" - what a nice word. I'd never heard of it, but the feel of it is clear. If you think the sentence is acceptable without "according to" or something like, then we'll drop that nuance.

References

Proposal #2

Given Asteramelluss further reading of sources, this is what I'd propose now:

Nonduality, also called nondualism and nondual awareness, is a fuzzy concept originating in Indian philosophy and religion. The Asian terms from which it is derived have specific, somewhat different meanings, depending on the context, but all implying that the world forms a whole which can be experienced as such. Common elements are "the interconnectedness of everything," forming a "singular wholeness of existence that suggests that the personal self is an illusion;" an awareness of this unity, without the usual strict distinction between an observer and the things observed; and thinking without dualistic concepts to support this nondual view and experience. According to the common core thesis, these various views are essentially not different from each other, and have nondual awareness at it's core.

References

Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:52, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I like the material very much (much less technical than in earlier edits) but what happened to my attempt above, which you started to like? I think with Loy, especially, we need page numbers when we cite it, since it's a whole book. I'd also rather get a definition through first and acknowledge caveats a sentence or two later. Here, with my slight rewordings:

Nonduality, also called nondualism and nondual awareness, is a fuzzy concept, originating in Indian philosophy and religion, implying that the universe forms a whole that can be experienced as such. The Asian terms from which it is derived have specific, somewhat different meanings depending on context, but common elements are "the interconnectedness of everything"; a "singular wholeness of existence that suggests that the personal self is an illusion"; an awareness of this unity, without the usual strict distinction between an observer and the things observed; and thinking that lacks dualistic concepts in order to support this view and experience. According to the common core thesis,{we may have to discuss this further} these various views are essentially the same.

References

Wolfdog (talk) 19:36, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I'll try to give a substantial reply later; I have a bad off-day, but my proposal was in response to Asteramellus'reading of various sources. I'll try to find Loy's exact pageumbers, but my brain'ss really a fog at this moment. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 14:58, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

PS{{reflist-talk}} is insensitive for indentation; who's got a clever solution? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 15:00, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Okay, after a good night's sleep:

• Interconnectedness, nondual awareness, and nondual thought, all three interrelated, is what Loy emphasizes. Due to my personal, 'mystical' experiences, I've always taken strong notice of the awareness-aspect, but all three of them are relevant;
• Indian philosophy, and nuances in usage and meaning are clear, I suppose;
• Common core thesis: that's the second 'step' of non-dual spirituality: the idea that this non-dual awareness can also be found in other religious traditions. It's a linking pin between Perennialism, Theosophy, New Age, Neo-Advvaita, 'spiritual bookstores' around the world, and a good deal of scholarly research (Ralph W. Hood, Josipovic) and discussion (Katz) on mysticism. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:10, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

All of this looks good to me, and I think we're ready to move forward with actually applying the new wording now to the lead section. No one else has dissented in the last few days, so I'm going to add it now! Wolfdog (talk) 01:35, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Apologies for my late response, but your rewording is not exactly correct. You changed

According to the common core thesis, these various views are essentially not different from each other, and have nondual awareness at it's core.

into

According to the common core thesis,{we may have to discuss this further} these various views are essentially the same.

This is what Loy writes, as quoted in the article:

According to Loy, "all three claims are found in Mahaya Buddhism, Advaita Vedanta, and Taoism,[26] arguing that "the nondual experience 'behind' these contradictory systems is the same, and that the differences between them may be seen as due primarily to the nature of language."[27]

}}

At closer reading, my "these various views are essentially not different from each other" refers to Loy's "the differences between them may be seen as due primarily to the nature of language," who argues that ""the nondual experience 'behind' these contradictory systems is the same." The idea that this experience is universal is the common core thesis, and a core assumption of nonduality-as-contemporary-spirituality proponents. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:56, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

First and second sentence

I saw the first sentence was cleaned up. Looks better. What about this

The Asian terms from which it is derived have specific, somewhat different meanings depending on context, but common elements are: "the interconnectedness of everything,"[6] forming a "singular wholeness of existence that suggests that the personal self is an illusion";[7] an awareness of this unity, without the usual strict distinction between an observer and the things observed;[2] and thinking that lacks dualistic concepts in order to support this view and experience.[2

Can we get rid of this or summarize it? Its not wikipedia-like right now, with this long run-on sentence in the LEAD. I have no objection to stating the Asian interpretation, and think it is interesting, but right now, its largely not readable. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:12, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I think that Wolfdog concluded there was a consensus to implement those lines; I don't object to this conclusion. This is already a condensed summary of 2,500 years of Asian philosophy and spirituality, so what exactly would you like to summarize even further, and what would you propose? NB: there was a typo; Wolfdog wrote

"the interconnectedness of everything";[6] a "singular wholeness of existence that suggests that the personal self is an illusion";[7]

This should have been

"the interconnectedness of everything,"[6] forming a "singular wholeness of existence that suggests that the personal self is an illusion";[7]

It forms one (part of a) sentence; I've already corrected it in the article and in the quote above. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 02:40, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

We are not condensing years in the LEAD, we are condensing the actual article content that exists below it. Normally we also dont use quotes in the LEAD, please summarize those. You can use the actual quotes in the article body if you like. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:07, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

These quotes are in the body-article; when texts can be misunderstood when paraphrased, we use quotes, to avoid misconceptions. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:01, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

The lead is not currently accessible, read MOS:INTRO. The quotes are not helpful and are essentially jargon. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:34, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Jtbobwaysf, I'm more with Joshua on this one, being ok with using quotes to buttress fairly difficult material. Also, a long multifaceted sentence with semi-colons is perfectly grammatical and organized, if something we should use sparingly. Can you please specify what you think is jargon and/or offer actual tweaks to the language itself, as he and I did above? That's what would be useful for us. Thanks. Wolfdog (talk) 13:42, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I went to the Nonduality_(spirituality)#Appearance_in_various_religious_traditions looking for something to summarize to put in the LEAD, and found only a crude list (also an MOS issue). I didnt quickly see any of the quotes in the LEAD, thus I think they are UNDUE at this point. I think I would try to crudely summarize it, and then let the reader read about definitions in the article, again this is an issue where we need to focus on the article, and not on the LEAD. Maybe: "Different theories and concepts which can be linked to nonduality and nondual awareness are taught in a wide variety of religious traditions. For example Hindusim teaches that a single pure consciousness is the only reality, and that the world is unreal." I was able to copy paste that from the article. I disagree with the overall approach where we are adding quotes and details to the LEAD rather than expanding the article body. If things are in quotes, it means essentially that it is jargon, we just dont normally do that and we should follow MOS guidelines for this article, despite our challenges with it. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:36, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm still a bit confused by the "why" behind your criticism, since there are only two quotes in the lead, which can be fairly easily paraphrased. Also, I think your specific Hinduism example is off-base, since not ALL of Hinduism is nondualist, just certain particular schools, but maybe I'm getting into the weeds on that, at this particular juncture. Let me try a new approach. I will present again the lead section, this time trying to incorporate some of your wording/concerns and paraphrasing rather than quoting:

Nonduality, also called nondualism and nondual awareness, is a fuzzy concept, originating in Indian philosophy and religion, positing that the universe forms a whole that can be experienced as such [by the human mind?]. The Asian terms from which it is derived have specific, somewhat different meanings depending on context, but common elements are: the idea that everything is interconnected, forming a singular unity that implies the self is an illusion; an awareness of this unity without the usual strict distinction between an observer and the things observed; and thinking that lacks dualistic concepts in order to support this view and experience. Different theories and concepts linked to nonduality are taught in a wide variety of spiritual, religious, and philosophical traditions, including Advaita Vedanta, Kashmir Shaivism, Mahayana Buddhism, Taoism, and others. According to the common core thesis, the nondual experience emphasized within these various traditions is essentially the same.

How's that? Wolfdog (talk) 21:55, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

As paraphrasing of the quotes it's okay, but you definitely can't drop the term "personal" from "personal self"; according to the Advaita-tradition only the Self (capital) really exists. It's precisely the non-existence of the personal self which is at stake. Instead of "linked" I'd use "expressing"; 'nonduality' is not a 'thing' that exists apart from the theories etc. "Emphasized" really should be "behind"; that's how Loy formulates it. It's the present-day non-duality spiritual movement (Jeff Foster etc.) that emphasizes this experience or awareness.

@Jt: there's a search-function at your browser; those quotes are in the article. We don't adapt sentences because someone isn't able to search terms. We also don't rewrite the lead based on a superficial reading "looking for something to summarize to put in the LEAD." To summarize the article, you have to know the article. "For example" is not the kind of language we use in the lead, especially not when we have a good source (Loy) which gives an accurate and concise overview of what 'non-duality' refers to. The three elements are recurring themes throughout the article, and as such these terms are an appropriate summary of the article; they are not only in the definitions-section. And, they form part of a definition because they are common elements in a broad range of traditions. Hack, the Wiki-article is a closely woven and connected whole in this respect; you cannot remove the essence just because you don't understand it. As exemplified by your example. You took it from a long list of nondual traditions, but misunderstood it. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:38, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I like the paraphrasing and it is much easier to read now. I am just trying to get this article to be accessible. If readers can understand in the LEAD, they might go on to read the body. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:25, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, and sorry. That's much better than just telling me what to do. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:55, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks to you both. I think we're getting somewhere, people! Joshua, I concur with all your recommendations, so:

Nonduality, also called nondualism and nondual awareness, is a fuzzy concept, originating in Indian philosophy and religion, positing that the universe forms a whole that can be experienced as such by the human mind. The Asian terms from which it is derived have specific, somewhat different meanings depending on context, but common elements are: the idea that everything is interconnected, forming a singular unity that implies the personal self is an illusion; an awareness of this unity, without the usual strict distinction between an observer and the things observed; and thinking that lacks dualistic concepts in order to support this view and experience. Different theories and concepts expressing nonduality are taught in a wide variety of spiritual, religious, and philosophical traditions, including Advaita Vedanta, Kashmir Shaivism, Mahayana Buddhism, and Taoist philosophy. According to the common core thesis, the nondual experience behind these various views is essentially the same.

Wolfdog (talk) 12:26, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Awesome job wolf (and Joshua), thank you! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:38, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Allright. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:01, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps there's one more word we can add to the first sentence, preferably an adverb before "positing". I can't think of the right one but, because this is a fuzzy concept (and such a fuzzy concept), I feel like it should read more as "essentially positing", "basically positing", or even something like "roughly positing" but none of these quite feels perfect. (Maybe nothing will due to the nature of the concept itself!) Thoughts? Wolfdog (talk) 19:46, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Please focus on the article text and then summarize in the LEAD. What you are proposing is WP:WEASEL. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:50, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

What?? That's not true, haha! Wolfdog (talk) 13:38, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

References

"Origin"

@Stormbird: regarding this edit, edit-summary move to appropriate section, source talks about origin:

• Definitions first; and
• Your source says:

The idea that the highest truth lies beyond all dualistic constructions of reality has ancient roots in Indian thought. One of the oldest articulations of this idea can be found in the famous Nasadīya (“Non-Being”) hymn of the Ṛgveda: “There was neither being nor non-being then …”

Roots is plural, and not the same as [the] origin, as also implied by "One of the oldest articulations of this idea."

Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 15:08, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

The term roots can be used interchangeably with root with little difference. Also, It is well known that the Rigveda is the oldest text in Indian thought. "One of the oldest articulations of this idea" simply means there are similar nondual verses in other parts of the Vedas, particularly the early Upanishads. Your argument regarding the literal meanings of the words does not disprove that the source is clearly talking about ancient roots. We can surely add this passage under either origin or origins. Stormbird (talk) 16:20, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 10 August 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved to Nondualism per discussion below. —usernamekiran (talk) 21:47, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

---

Nonduality (spirituality) → Nonduality – The "spirituality" label is extraneous (probably created because "Nonduality" already existed as a redirect page). "Nonduality" is straightforward enough, with "Nondualism" already now existing as a more broadly-encompassing disambiguation page. Wolfdog (talk) 19:26, 10 August 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 05:49, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

@Wolfdog was wondering given the discussion after this move request, is this move request still on the plate? Asteramellus (talk) 11:23, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm happy with whatever the consensus is. Has one been reached? Wolfdog (talk) 15:35, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

@Wolfdog: you might ask @BilledMammal:, who just relisted it for further discussion. I'm sure its still on, but I guess a clearer consensus is desired? Skyerise (talk) 15:51, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Background

This is a bit unorthodox, but because this talk page has been so recently inundated with different sections/threads, I'd like to reiterate points made by past editors that are relevant. Just trying for us not to reinvent the wheel:

• Asteramellus thinks a good way to find academic consensus on terminology is to look at indexes in academic books, specifically texts that comment on the the current state of academic discussion on philosophy and links WP:COMMONNAME. Later, they lean towards a single page but feels usure. In the Oxford Handbook, only Nondualism appears. Also, in a Davis chapter of the Oxford Handbook, Nondualism is distinguished as "distinctionless monism" or Advaita Vedanta or Zen Buddhism, while Nonduality is distinguished as "not one and not two", suggesting Nonduality is not the broader term. They also give a two-option proposal.
• Chronikhiles says I do believe the title should reflect the sources, so if the concept is overall called "non-duality" more in Indian and western religions, I do support this change. However, I don't see the need for the "(spirituality)" part of the title, considering there is presently neither an article on this website called "non-dualism" nor "non-duality". Let's see what the others have to say.
• Withmoralcare says I would say that "non-dualism" appears to make more sense if we are approaching the idea with an emphasis on beliefs rather than states. "Non-duality" appears to be more about a state rather than a philosophical perspective that revolves around non-duality. Since non-dualism can encapsulate non-duality and it is also more frequently used but cautions that they are not an expert. Later, they argue that nonduality is more about a state (of awareness) and nondualism is more about a belief, and they feel a continued split of the two pages is warranted.
• Michael D. Turnbull warns that choosing the term with the most search traffic is the wrong approach and instead, quoting WP:TITLE, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources.
• I, Wolfdog, noticed that Google trends showing the term Nonduality is in fact more common than Nondualism, And the sources already on this page show a slight bias in favor of that as well. (Joshua Jonathan concurs.) For example, just looking at the page's Sources, Further Reading, and External Links, Nonduality shows up in 11 cited titles and Nondualism in 5 cited titles. So if the page mostly references that label, we may as well keep that label.
• Joshua Jonathan has written most extensively on this talk page (so excuse me if I slightly misrepresent or don't fully encapsulate all your aforespoken views) and is the initiator of the Nondualism/Nonduality split, which he admittedly created for reader-friendly convenience rather than any obvious dramatic split that exists in the academic literature. He argues that Nondualism is normally a broader term, referring to 1) various specific Eastern traditions, 2) an experience or state of awareness, 3) a Western view that discerns this awareness in various traditions. Nonduality is normally narrower, only usually referring to 1 and 2. He presents sources like Loy, Katz, Harding, and Carse, for example, that favor the term Nonduality.
• Jtbobwaysf agrees Nondualism can be the broader term, but does not like the boldness with which the split was initiated and also liked the analysis that seemed to indicate that ity had more sources than ism.

Hopefully I included all major points already raised. Thanks. Perhaps below we can keep our points below as concise as possible. I know my brain is melted from multiple weeks' worth of discussion and probably others' brains are too. Wolfdog (talk) 14:20, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

@Wolfdog Thanks so much for summarizing. I am just adding the brief summary of recent history of this page also here that can help editors joining this discussion (like @Skyerise) get quick summary:

Background Information for page title change from original Nondualism to "Nonduality (Spirituality)":

1. Page title till July 22nd was Nondualism
2. user Jtbobwaysf highlighted few issues in the lead section e.g. excess details, delves into details or introduces new concepts etc.
3. During user Joshua Jonathan's discussion with user Jtbobwaysf, user Joshua Jonathan thought page title of "Nonduality (Spirituality)" makes sense based on content of the page and changed the page title to "Nonduality (Spirituality)". They also added a new Category:Nonduality and updated all pages to remove Category:Nondualism and add Category:Nonduality to correctly reflect the page title change of Nondualism to "Nonduality (Spirituality)".
4. A new page called "Nondualism" got created on July 22nd during those talk page discussions.
5. Discussions started on Talk page regarding what should be the correct title for the page - Nondualism or Nonduality (Spirituality)/Nonduality.

Asteramellus (talk) 11:03, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

• Support Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 03:50, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
• OK with me BTW- I am a bit confused by the need for the Nondualism disambiguation page btw, but that is not really the topic of this move request. I would Move to nondualism Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:40, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
• Move to nondualism - Nondualism isn't really a dab page. It appears to be more of an outline for this article, which should be moved there, then nonduality should be a redirect to this article at Nondualism. Skyerise (talk) 13:26, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

I would also approve of this page being redirected to Nondualism (OR Nonduality), and the current Nondualism disambiguation page being redirected to Nondualism (disambiguation). Wolfdog (talk) 14:22, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

I've proposed that Nondualism be deleted, as it is an outline masquerading as a disambiguation page. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nondualism. Skyerise (talk) 14:37, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

"Nondualism" would be fine with me also, but I remember that Jt was confused about the use of "nonduality" as a synonym for "nondualism," so maybe one of you can try to explain that it is the same. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 14:57, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

It's very simple: Nondualism refers to a range of spiritual philosophies that postulate a condition of nonduality in their analysis of reality. That is, nondualism is a theoretical view of the world that only has meaning in context of Nondualism. Skyerise (talk) 15:35, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree with @Skyerise. Considering the history of recent changes, I think we need to do this (if we decide to move the title back to Nondualism) to make it as simple as possible without any impacts to the readers:

1. Delete the new page that was added for "Nondualism" (which is a dis-ambiguous page and nothing links to this page)
2. Change the current page's title back to "Nondualism" (All other pages already links the mentions of word "nondualism" to this page)
3. If needed, create a Nonduality page with a redirect to Nondualism page
4. Rename Category:Nonduality to Category:Nondualism
5. After doing 1 through 4, continue next discussions, if needed, for anything else - such as what goes in lead, neo-advaita etc.

Asteramellus (talk) 11:11, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

PS: I was told that there is a tool to change a category at all the pages where it is used. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 14:59, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

PS#2: if we move the contents of this page to Nondualism, then "Nondualism (spirituality)" could be a redirect to Neo-Advaita. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:46, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

No, that's only one form of nondualism. This article should be at Nondualism: nonduality is what all traditions of nondualism address. Nonduality should redirect to Nondualism, and Nondualism (spirituality) is completely unnecessary and should be deleted, but since it is probably used in articles, it should also simply redirect to Nondualism. Skyerise (talk) 15:26, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

One could summarize this by saying that Nondualism and Nonduality are themselves nondual. They refer to one and the same thing, like 'Hindu' and 'Hinduism'. or 'Buddhist' and 'Buddhism'. Skyerise (talk) 15:42, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Joshua, no as well to rename to Neo-Advaita. This is an odd proposal. Please keep the article neutral. Maybe the articles could be merged, but that is not the subject of this discussion. There is too much high level stuff going on at this article (you moved it, added a lot of jargon to the LEAD, and are now discussing another move in this move discussion. Your edits have made the article unstable, renaming this article from ism to ity, then creating an ism page (that is now subject of AfD) and now proposing this article move to Neo-Advaita. I am not an expert on this subject, but approach is too fast and makes it very difficult for us to follow. Things dont need to stay the same all the time, but these fast changing articles that nobody can follow is a problem. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:24, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

You misunderstood; I suggested to use this page ("Nonduality (spirituality)") as a redirect to "Neo-Advaita." You still got this commanding tone; not very helpfull when you want to gain consensus. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 03:50, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

And I'm saying that would be an incorrect place to redirect it and why. Skyerise (talk) 13:15, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

I heard you. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 18:24, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

• comment i agree with Skyerise and subsequent Asteramellus 5 point proposal above. I would like to go back to what we had before in terms of article names just focus on improving the article. Skyrise put it very well saying: "Nondualism refers to a range of spiritual philosophies that postulate a condition of nonduality in their analysis of reality." Wikipedia is wonderful when someone puts something so succinctly. Furthermore, I think it is easier for us editors (now) to be encyclopedic in our coverage of the ism than the ity. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:20, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
• Move (back) to Nondualism, which was the original title. The undiscussed move was misjudged and the extensive discussion above proves that it is not unlikely that anyone would reasonably disagree with the move (to quote WP:RMUM). The title was fine as it was, and readers would expect the article to be located at that title both because it's been that way since 2005 and because other philosophy/sprituality/religion related articles refer to "dualism" in their titles rather than "duality"; titles should be consistent where possible.

The 5 point proposal by Asteramellus seems like a sensible way to move forward, except that step 3 should be to retarget Nonduality since it already exists. I don't think that Nonduality (spirituality) should be made into a redirect to Neo-Advaita since Neo-Advaita is not the only "spiritual" interpretation of nonduality. If it were to exist as a redirect the logical destination would be this article (after it is moved back to Nondualism) as it covers all the "spiritual" interpretations, but it would be simpler to just delete it entirely as it's not likely to be helpful. It would only be helpful if there was some other page occupying Nonduality, but there isn't, there's just a redirect. As for Nonduality, it should be retargeted to the primary topic (this article) after the move. – Scyrme (talk) 16:16, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Relist to give time for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nondualism to close BilledMammal (talk) 05:49, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support Nondualism per Skyerise, and other supporters of this specific name.—Alalch E. 19:21, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Inclusion of Neo-Platonism

Neo-Platonism does indeed emphasize a single source, "The One," but this concept is not really the same as modern understandings of nonduality. Neo-Platonism has its own distinct philosophical framework. It should probably be removed: nondualism isn't the same as saying "everything comes from The One". It is about nondual perception and practices for attaining such perception. That is to say, just because a philosophy is a form of Monism doesn't automatically make it a form of Nondualism. Skyerise (talk) 16:00, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Rewriting in accordance with the new title

@Skyerise: I encourage you to discuss thoughts on new changes to the lead here, in light of the RfC. I don't mean to be aggressive, but this is clearly an incredibly contentious page that requires slow and cautious steps as we make changes. I hope that makes sense. Thanks. Wolfdog (talk) 00:11, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

RfC: Proposed new lead

The old lead is full of problems, the primary one being its non-accessibility to the average reader, overuse of technical jargon, and trying to define a concept differently defined by different traditions, calling it "fuzzy". I propose to replace it with:

Nondualism includes a number of philosophical and spiritual traditions that emphasize the absence of fundamental duality or separation in existence. This viewpoint questions the boundaries conventionally imposed between self and other, mind and body, observer and observed, and other dichotomies that shape our perception of reality. As a field of study, nondualism delves into the concept of nonduality and the state of nondual awareness, encompassing a diverse array of interpretations across traditions, not limited to a particular cultural or religious context; instead, nondualism emerges as a central teaching across various traditions, inviting individuals to examine reality beyond the confines of dualistic thinking.

What sets nondualism apart is its inclination towards direct experience as a path to understanding. While intellectual comprehension has its place, nondual traditions emphasize the transformative power of firsthand encounters with the underlying unity of existence. Through practices like meditation and self-inquiry, practitioners aim to bypass the limitations of conceptual understanding and directly apprehend the interconnectedness that transcends superficial distinctions. This experiential aspect of nondualism challenges the limitations of language and rational thought, aiming for a more immediate, intuitive form of knowledge.

Nondualism is distinct from monism, another philosophical concept that deals with the nature of reality. While both philosophies challenge the conventional understanding of dualism, they approach it differently. Nondualism emphasizes unity amid diversity. In contrast, monism posits that reality is ultimately grounded in a singular substance or principle, reducing the multiplicity of existence to a singular foundation. The distinction lies in their approach to the relationship between the many and the one.

Each nondual tradition presents unique interpretations of nonduality. Advaita Vedanta, a school of thought within Hinduism, focuses on the realization of the unity between the individual self (Ātman) and the ultimate reality (Brahman). In Zen Buddhism, the emphasis is on the direct experience of interconnectedness that goes beyond conventional thought constructs. Dzogchen, found in Tibetan Buddhism, highlights the recognition of an innate nature free from dualistic limitations. This diversity of perspectives reflects the richness of nondualism, which transcends binary perceptions and offers unique insights into the fundamental nature of reality.

This is a much more accessible lead, easier to understand for the average reader, distinguishes and nondualism from monism, which the current article fails to do. Skyerise (talk) 00:16, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

References

Responses (!votes)

• Yes - Use the draft paragraphs as the new lede. (Summoned by bot) Robert McClenon (talk) 04:23, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
• Yes - Use the draft paragraphs as the new lead - Third paragraph might need citations Asteramellus (talk) 00:57, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

  Added. Thanks for pointing that out. Skyerise (talk) 02:03, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

• Yes - I could go with the LEAD being even more abreviated than this, but for now this is an improvement. I do agree that the etymology needs to be excised from the LEAD, as it seems it is controversial. Let's leave the controversy to the article and summarize in the lead. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:35, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

  See WP:LEAD, for a full length article like this, the lead should be 4 robust paragraphs. Skyerise (talk) 10:29, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

MOS:LEADLENGTH says three to four paragraphs and doesn't say robust (at least i didn't see that). Issue we have on this article over the past month (since when i got involved at least) is an attempt to support different POVs in the LEAD (presently the 'nondualism is an asian thing') is given way excessive weight. Your proposed change alleviates that. I think if we err on the side of a trimmed own lead, say three to four short paragraphs (for now), it will force us to be concise and summarize rather than debating different concepts in the lead. Then over time as the article stabilizes, we can always increase the summarization in the lead. To be clear, I still support your proposal (as it deals with the Asian weight concepts which are important), I am just giving some color here to my comments. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:57, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

The first paragraph may be a little wordy, but the rest seems essential, and the last paragraph perhaps not inclusive enough of all the systems, but that can be fixed once we figure out how to handle qualified nondualism/nondual monism... Skyerise (talk) 21:42, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

• Yes - There are opportunities for improvement, which I think is a good thing. Overall, it's superb. Skyerise, your comment on the last paragraph is a good one. You might even want to consider whether it is needed at all. I don't think there is a way to make it fully inclusive, and the body does a great job of that. That's a quibble, though, on a really excellent rewrite. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 13:22, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

RfC: Discussion

Is there any way you can try to merge in as much as you can from what the three editors (myself included) already agreed to for the lead at Talk:Nondualism#First and second sentence above? Thanks. Wolfdog (talk) 00:26, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

See, the problem is that the English term is not derived from the Eastern ones. Nor do all traditions of nondualism suggest "that the personal self is an illusion" - that's specific to Hindu branches of nondualism. Those lead sentences are trying too hard to make Advaita out to be primary or source form of nondualism. It isn't. The former lead is biased, regardless of how much time was spent to hash it out. Skyerise (talk) 00:49, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Talking about "nonaccessibility," that's a good description of your proposal. If you think the English term is not derived from Asian terms, then you'll hace to explain where it does come from, according to which sources. And Buddhism also regards the personal self as ultimately non-existent. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 03:20, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

No, Dzogchen does not view the "personal self" that way. Nor does Buddhism in general. Buddhism views all phenomena, including the personal self, as "interdependently arisen", which is in no way the same as "non-existent". While lower Svatantrika does use the illusion metaphor, that is considered a "lower" form of Madyamika. Prasangika does not use such a metaphor; its basis is that all appearances are emptiness, true; but emptiness isn't the same as non-existence. In the doctrine of the two truths, all phenomena exist as interdependent appearances. That is, Madyamika addresses the nonduality of appearance and emptiness. Appearance and emptiness are inseparable, and this is applied to both external and internal appearances. The "personal self" or "ego" is just another interdependent arising of the union of appearance and emptiness that arises within the sense of "mind", no different than what arises from any of the other sense-factors. Correcting the false idea that emptiness = non-existence or that appearance = illusion is one of the first lessons when studying Madyamika in shedra. Madyamika is about having a clear view of the process of the arising of appearance. It does not deny the arising appearance as unreal. Skyerise (talk) 11:12, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

• I have a strong preference for the LEAD that skyrise created. I also dont like the assertion that this article is essentially an english translation of asian theories, but I lack the RS to support that. I have a question, does the suggested lead summarize the current article? We have this issue that is ongoing now for a month or two where editors have sought to move the article (rename it) and most of the discussion relates to reformulations of the lead. It seems as if we are confused about the very subject of this article. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:51, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

  The first Western work that is considered nondual is The Cloud of Unknowing, which dates to around 1350. Antidualism has also been identified in Chaucer's "The Clerk's Tale", written a bit later in the same century. [1] The word dualism came into vogue with Descartes' mind-body dualism starting around 1650. His opponents denied that dualism; though they did not use the term 'nondual', the concepts of dualism and its denial clearly existed at that time. Spinoza, for example, is sometimes called an 'antidualist'. While it may be true that the precise word 'nondual' was first used as an English translation of 'advaita', that does not mean that the concept was new to the West. The way the lead got rewritten appears to have been intended to strongly imply that the concept was unknown to the West at the time. There is no real reason to get into etymologies in the lead at all; it prevents putting the concept into clear understandable language that covers the whole range of nondual tradition. It also leads to the confusion that nondualism and monism are the same, just because monism was the first used translation of 'advaita', which was later corrected to the more precise 'nondual'. Skyerise (talk) 12:15, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

• Here is a earlier version of this article. At this earlier date the lead was quite brief and sought to summarize in a more neutral manner. I picked an arbitrary date prior to the huge number of edits by Joshua Jonathan (talk · contribs) who seems to have made the vast majority of recent edits to this article. It seems to me that Joshua has created most of the Asian ideology in the LEAD that this article is now having problems with. I welcome the input from skyerise and wolfdog who have recently shown up with attempts to create a more neutral article. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:17, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

That's an interesting diff, Jtbob. I don't want to keep reinventing the wheel though, Skye, and am wondering if you can incorporate any of the above agreed-upon language into your new rewrite. Jtbob, do you entirely prefer Skye's over my earlier rewrite option? Remember, that we may get opposed at any time on either version, so we want to be a pretty unified front, if possible. Wolfdog (talk) 19:48, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Wolfdog, yes I prefer Skyerise's re-write. I think the lead should be much more accessible and I agree with Skyrise's statement "There is no real reason to get into etymologies in the lead at all". I think this would greatly simplify the lead and let us focus on the article. It seems for now that there is a persistent argument about the lead, and if we use a more simplified approach, that can allow editors to focus on the main body of the article. Ultimately we would normally be summarizing in the lead and just discussing what is due in the lead. Right now we seem to be discussing the overall scope of the article. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:04, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

You should consider putting a 'yes' !vote in the vote section, as your reasoning seems solid. So far there is no formal opposition, though I suspect it's just a matter of time... it will be interest to see the eventual outcome. If the new lead is accepted, we can then discuss whether it needs any modification if someone chooses to take it in that direction... Skyerise (talk) 22:53, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

I do plan to vote, sometimes just like to comment a bit first as my position sometimes changes. I'll vote now. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:34, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

👍Wolfdog (talk) 21:38, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Mysticism infiltration

Hi, I had a read of Christian contemplation and mysticism sub-section, and it needs a substantial revamp because it is talking about mystical union with God through love and neti neti. Non-dualism does not espouse to unite somebody with something because it does not consider anything separate at all in the first place. The goal is to realize this supposed fact.

I am lost and confused myself, perhaps, merge this whole non-dualism page with mysticism. Whatupis (talk) 07:50, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Sykrise, will you be able to explain how mysticism is different from nondualism in the lead. Sorry, my brain is a mess right now with all these seemingly similar philosophies. Whatupis (talk) 07:52, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

No it is not ok to merge this with mysticism. I agree with your statement "Non-dualism does not espouse to unite somebody with something because it does not consider anything separate at all in the first place." I suggest to just delete it from the article. This article does need a lot of cleanup. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:08, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Well, yes, there is some confusion of traditions that have some element of nondualism but are not overall nondualistic. For example, the nondual element of The Cloud of Unknowing is the practice of unknowing in meditation, not the goal of union with God, which indeed is mysticism. Basically, some Christian mysticism. such as that of Meister Eckhart and The Cloud of Unknowing - use nondual views or methods; it is not the seeking union with God that makes them nondual. This simply needs to be explained more clearly. Skyerise (talk) 10:40, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, that clears a lot. Whatupis (talk) 11:48, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Remove Kashmir Shaivism or divide article by types of nondualism?

I propose we remove Kashmir Shaivism from the article. Per the second paragraph of the section, no modern academic classifies it as nondual. They class it as either a form of monism or of idealism. While I have great respect for Abhinavagupta as a philosopher, he was clearly biased when it came to Kashmir Shaivism, part of the competition between spiritual paths during his time and his evaluation does not agree with modern classifications of religion. Skyerise (talk) 11:19, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Alternatively, we could divide the article into three main sections by type of nondualism:

• Absolute nondualism, also known as strict or uncompromising nondualism, includes only Advaita Vedanta, Dzogchen, Zen Buddhism, and Sufi mysticism.
• Qualified nondualism, also known as non-dualistic monism, includes Vishishtadvaita Vedanta, Achintya Bheda Abheda, Kashmir Shaivism, and Neo-Advaita. +(perhaps they are best covered at Monism?)+
• Mystical nondualism, also known as contemplative nondualism, adds Taoism and the forms of Christian mysticism that use techniques considered nondual to the mix. +(perhaps they are best covered at Mysticism?)+

Or, this article could focus on Absolute nondualism and the traditions of qualified nondualism, also known as non-dualistic monism could be integrated into the Monism page, which looks like it also needs work as it mistakenly includes Advaita Vedanta as a form of monism, which it is not ("Renard points out that this [considering it monism] may be a western interpretation, bypassing the intuitive understanding of a nondual reality"). Certainly all the forms of Qualified nondualism and Mystical nondualism (except perhaps Taoism, which is not really monism) should be included on that page, even if we also include qualified nondualism here. Then the question becomes which article should go into depth and which should be more of a summary pointing to the other coverage. Skyerise (talk) 12:54, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Another possibility here is that while Kashmir Shaivism as a whole is more monist, one specific branch has been called out as being nondual. In his book Kiss of the Yogini: 'Tantric Sex' in its South Asian Contexts, David Gordon White explores various tantric traditions, including Kaula, and discusses how they relate to non-dual concepts. He argues that the Kaula tradition, among others, can be seen as engaging with non-dual perspectives through their emphasis on embodying spiritual experiences and embracing the unity of all aspects of existence. So perhaps we focus on Kaula here (and perhaps other subsects of KS?) with the overview at Monism? Skyerise (talk) 18:20, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

There are quite a few sections with nearly no sources or are poorly sourced. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:35, 31 August 2023 (UTC)