Jump to content

Talk:Nondualism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Amarhindustani (talk | contribs) at 03:12, 22 March 2009 (→Francis Lucille: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Need something on Judaism

Qabalah would seem to be an example of non-dualism in Judaism - at least, if the article is going to stretch to Christian Science, it should be able to stretch to Qabalah.

The other alternative would be to tighten up - there are a few philosophers listed who it's questionable should be called nondualist. Maybe faintly reminiscent, but not nondual. Sufficent is said about SIMILARITIES between some Western philosophies and nondualism without making some Westerners to be outright nondualists.

The "tight" list would be Can (Zen), Mahamudra, Dzogchen, Advaita. Not all Buddhisms are nondual, not even Mahayana forms, not all Daoisms are nondual, and not all Sufisms are nondual.

IOW in traditions other than the 4 above, there are only glimmerings of nondualism, and that only with some individuals (e.g. in Christianity, Eckhart and Boehme and a few others, and the Gnosticism of GThomas and a few other Nag Hammadi texts like Thunder: Perfect Mind) that aren't NECESSARILY representative of any "school" in those systems.

Or another way of saying this: it might be better to frame nondualism as something that's SOMETIMES reflected in various religions (usually through maverick individuals in those traditions) and philosophies, but to make it clear that this doesn't make them nondual religions.

81.153.173.215 (talk) 12:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peter George Stewart

I tend to agree that this page is attracting comparisons that go too far. The distinction between nondual hinduism and dual hinduism might be good to start with, as well as non-dual versus dual buddhism. I suspect the western comparisons are confusing the distinction, and would be more likely comparisons to dualist hindu/buddhist ideas and not go far enough to really approach nondualism as advaita discusses. Another problem here is that we're attracting in my opinion a lot of original research and not citing scholars who have precisely compared advaita/dzogchen to other traditions. So my suggestion in any comparison would be to either cut back or alternatively risk more OR and introduce more clearly how other traditions omit the missing distinction. - Owlmonkey (talk) 15:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Opposition

This article doesn't adequately cover opposition to non-dualism. Many religions and philosophies consider it to be nihilistic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.216.37.31 (talk) 23:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which ones? Wouldn't it be better simply to present how specific religions differ from the philosophy of Nondualism. An opposition section is problematic at best since most major religions probably don't specifically state their objections to nondualism in their canons. I invite you to add reliable sourced material to the article. Happy editing!TheRingess (talk) 00:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add this essay to section external links :

Austerlitz -- 88.75.72.39 (talk) 16:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Course in Miracles Misclassified

The course of Miracles is stated to be Christian Teaching in the Article. However the work would better be classified as New Age; especially given that redefining terminology means changing the very nature of something, and frankly ACIM is a hodge-podge of stuff.

tooMuchData

23:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheResearchPersona (talk • contribs)

Just to clarify, are you recommending that it no longer be an example of a "Christian" non-dual teaching because it's more New Age than Christian? - Owlmonkey (talk) 18:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would recommend that, yes. ACIM isn't a Christian phenomena, either by any traditional definition, or in any academic nomenclature.

tooMuchData

08:29, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
P.S. when I sign comments with the four tildes it always says "tooMuchData" and then the system later signs for me. Anyone know what the heck is going on!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheResearchPersona (talk • contribs) 08:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Click on "my preferences" in the upper right, and then see if the "Signature:" field is filled in and the checkbox just below that checked. You may have something specified there and/or that Raw Signature box checked. Removing those if so.
As for A Course in Miracles, I'm neutral on the designation of christian or non-christian. If we move it to and create a New Age subsection, let's bring over a citation from its article that supports the designation, perhaps the new age encyclopedia cite? whatever you think best supports the different taxonomy. - Owlmonkey (talk) 19:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Course in Miracles is Not Christianity

This can be supported by using the Christian document the bible and A Course in Miracles themselves. The bible starts out in Genesis 1:1 that "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Contrary to this A Course in Miracles states in Workbook lesson 132, paragraph 6 that "there is no world". So in Christianity God created the world. In A Course in Miracles no world exists for God to have created.

This is further supported in the Course by it saying in Workbook lesson 169, paragraph 5 that "Oneness is simply the idea God is. 2 And in His Being, He encompasses all things. 3 No mind holds anything but Him. 4 We say "God is," and then we cease to speak, for in that knowledge words are meaningless. 5 There are no lips to speak them, and no part of mind sufficiently distinct to feel that it is now aware of something not itself. 6 It has united with its Source. 7 And like its Source Itself, it merely is." So according to A Course in Miracles there is no world nor people in a world, for that would constitute something distinct from God. Thus in A Course in Miracles there is no devil distinct from God as there is in Christianity and as the section on Christianity in the Nondualism article states of Christianity, whether that devil is subordinate to God or not.

Obe19900 (talk) 00:10, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But how would neutral third-parties classify it? Christianity generally is not consistent with Nondualism, as perhaps you point out, so then any philosophies here are likely to be inconsistent with Christianity generally. My question then is more is ACIM Christian-like or share Christian language/symbols/ritual. That's more of an anthropological taxonomy. Your argument above would I think mean that we could not have any Christianity section as a taxonomy of philosophic systems with non-duality. That's an orthodox view of Christianity to me. - Owlmonkey (talk) 18:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Lucille

I find that some are deleting the name of Francis Lucille from Contemporary "Nondualism Teachers" without any justification. If any has any objection please give your reasons below. The core of Francis Lucille Teachings are --- Nondual in nature. Please see the references to article in The Francis Lucille is references in 3rd party ,Neutral Publisher --with books available in 24 libraries. Francis Lucille -Dennis Waite (2004) pp. 31,43,169, 220 ISBN 9781903816417 The book of one: the spiritual path Advaita

  • The book is found in 24 libraries world wide.

The publishers –Publishes books in the following fields Philosophy & Reli...;• Language, Linguis...;• Psychology ;• Government Documents ;• Medicine  ;• History & ;uxilia... ;• Business & Economics ;• Library Science, ... ;• Sociology ;• Engineering & Tec...;• Art & Architecture;• Geography & Earth...• Anthropology ;• Performing Arts ;• Physical Sciences;• Computer Science ;• Mathematics;• Medicine By Disci...  ;• Preclinical Sciences ;• Political Science;• Agriculture ; The author has written books in ;• Philosophy & Reli...;• Language, Linguis... ;• Sociology ;

Marvelly, P. (2002). The teachers of one: Living advaita, conversations on the nature of non-duality. London: Watkins Pub The teachers of one : living advaita, conversations on the nature of non-duality Books published by this publisher: • Philosophy & Reli... • Psychology • Medicine • Language, Linguis... • Physical Sciences • Sociology • Anthropology • Art & Architecture • History & Auxilia.. • Library Science, .. • Physical Educatio.. I have tons of other references. but I guess this will suffice. PS:Brief history: Recently the Main Article on the Subject was recently deleted mainly because the contributor to the article was new to wiki and could not support the claim (Mainly due to lack of Time and also because did not pickup up the the techical jargon yet) for separate article.Does that imply that we cannot use the name anywhere? if any one has objections give your reasons below. Amarhindustani (talk) 03:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nondualism&oldid=278869870"