Talk:Nondualism

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)

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)

  The lead is supposed to summarize the whole article. Leaving out the list of traditions covered in the article would be a big omission. I have proposed to reorganize the article to distinguish different types of Nondualism and if that occurs, the lead may need to be rewritten to follow that new organization when it happens. Perhaps at that time it will only be necessary to describe the various types, and defer the intros to the individual traditions to the intros to those sections. Skyerise (talk) 14:38, 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)

Skyerise: You now have sufficient backing that you can make your lead changes. I won't revert, though I may edit here and there. Thanks. Wolfdog (talk) 11:24, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Wolfdog: Well, I think I am supposed to wait until the RfC ends. That will be Sept 30 unless someone who didn't !vote ends it by removing the RfC tag. Skyerise (talk) 12:40, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm a bit behind the times on RFC policy. How does that date get determined? Thanks. Wolfdog (talk) 18:09, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

A bot automatically removes the tag after 30 days; if an editor thinks it needs more discussion, they put the tag back, otherwise it is considered ended. Of course, it can be closed at any time by someone not involved. Since I opened it I can't arbitrarily close it. I think editor who has not !voted can though, or a neutral closer can be requested at Wikipedia:Closure requests. I've got a crew of fans just waiting to report me to WP:ANI for not following process, so I'm happy to wait another three weeks if necessary. Skyerise (talk) 18:21, 9 September 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)

You know best. Whatupis (talk) 16:41, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Well, after looking at the article structure, it appears than it would not be easy to separate it out by type of nondualism, so that leads back to the original question about whether Kashmir Shaivism should simply be move to the monism article with a short summary here... Skyerise (talk) 16:59, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Well if you have a read of Bhairava Stotra of Abhinavagupta as translated by Mark, the first sentence of the second verse is monist, while the second sentence of the same verse is non-dualistic. Whatupis (talk) 17:19, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose split. We need to focus on article development and not these ultra high level matters (splits, moves, LEAD, etc). Please just update the article and note the sections that are poorly sourced or dont fit. Can even tag the sections, or note on this talk page and we delete those sections that are not related. These very drastic changes cause the article to be unstable and make it hard to develop an article. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:00, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Numerous authors regard Kashmir Shaivism to be nondualistic; sharma's The Advaita Tradition in Indian Philosophy is a good example. There is a problem of definitions here; while scholars may use strict boundaries, nonduality-as-a-spiritual-movement regards many traditions as tokens of nondualism. We can try to stick to a strict WP:RS-policy, but fact is that nonduality has a broad appeal in popular spirituality, and this interpretation should be reflected too in the Wiki-article. And we should be aware that ost of us likely are also influenced by this strand of thought, sticking to strict Wiki-plicies on the one hand, while actually using this broader understanding on the other hand. Which, by the way, also means that I don't think that splitting-up the article is a good idea. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:18, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm very concerned about the qualities of the sources; There are a lot of recent books out with every tradition wanting to claim the "nondual" label. I'd say we have to look closely at the sources and make sure the books are truly academic and not popular books. And I never proposed a "split" - I proposed the article be reorganized to have separate sections within this article to distinguish strict nondualism from qualified non-dualism. I still think that needs to be done, but it doesn't look easy.

A related issue is including traditions because 1 writer has said that it is nondual, without mentioning that the other 99 think it's monism. If a majority of source say Kashmir Shaivism is monist, and only 1 or 2 think it's nondual, then the material should be in the monism article. Skyerise (talk) 12:13, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

• I have an incredible amount of respect for the editors of this article. It's a complex and multilayered concept that needs a high level of subject-matter expertise to convey. Reading this talk page and archives, though, it looks like the discussions have suffered from a focus on the edge cases to the detriment of the article as a whole. An enormous amount of editor expertise has been poured into these discussions whilst the participants themselves agree that the overall article needs real help. Echoing Jtbobwaysf, might the best approach be to tag the Kashmir Shaivism info for later and deal with the problems with the article as a whole first? When one is snakebit, identifying the species of venomous reptile is important, but perhaps calling for a medic and tying the tourniquet are better immediate actions? Cheers, Last1in (talk) 12:53, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Taoism in the lead

Hi @Skyerise: I think my main concern was that we overview some of the major nondualistic schools but neglect Taoist philosophy. Can we also fit that in in the fourth paragraph? Taoism is certainly mentioned by Loy and other sources. Wolfdog (talk) 23:23, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

@Wolfdog: I find the support for Taoism being nondual is very weak. The section has only two sources, and appears to establish that "wu wei" and the yin-yang circle are non-dual, but I would like to see more sources establishing a general consensus that Taoism is nondual. Some authors of this article tried to cram anything that even a single writer had called nondual into the article, without establishing broader support or established that it is a consensus view. Reading the section, I am left with the question, does this really belong here? Do you know of any additional sources that directly call Taoism nondual rather than try to establish it from a single facet of Taoism? Skyerise (talk) 01:21, 14 April 2024 (UTC)