Talk:Nondualism/Archive 2

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

Recursive definition

The definitions in the lead and other parts are recursive. For example, in "Definition one", non-duality is defined using the term itself: "According to this definition or usage, nonduality refers to the nonduality of between absolute and relative.". Reading it with strict logic, these definitions do not define anything. Interpreting them would go into an infinite loop. Even if one could interpret them in a loose way and make sense of them, I think it's not good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Volker Siegel (talk • contribs) 23:36, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

You've got a point. I'm not a logician, but the problem seems to be that the term is being used for various concepts/ideas, which all involve a sense of "nonduality." Have you got a proposal for other terms in the second part of the equeations? - "Nonduality is xxx of yyy and zzz." Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:03, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Long

Isn't this article getting a bit too long? — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 11:54, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes. I'll take up the hint. Thanks. (It is a complicated and multi-facetted topic, though). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:24, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Islam

This part is wrong: "There are a number of different Sufi orders that follow the teachings of particular spiritual masters, but the bond that unites all Sufis is the concept of ego annihilation.." since there are orders not supporting annihilation of ego, like these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shattari

Who is White?

I put [who?] next to White, 2000 in one ref. There is a White (2011) listed in the sources but we don't know if it's the same one and which work is being referenced. I'm trying to find out whether "practicioner" is a typo (or spelling error) by White or by the editor who put it in this article Jodosma (talk) 10:48, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Jodosma You could use Wikiblame to find out. It's a useful tool to find when something first appeared/disappeared on a page. Takes a little fiddling to figure out how it works but it's pretty good. Ogress smash! 11:05, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, job's done now. Jodosma (talk) 11:29, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Writing Style

I was just reading a (year's earlier) version of this article and found the writing style far more accessible. Could someone please consider rewriting sections of this article. Particularly the first few sections. There's entire sentences I believe are incomprehensible. My apologies to the author but perhaps you are a little too close to the material and could do with some fresh editors. 49.183.73.245 (talk) 09:01, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

The difinitions-sections is indeed complicated. But it's based on sources, giving an overview what's actually meant with the term "nondualism," which appears to refer to various strands of throughout. What complicates it even more, is that those are not totally different starnds of thought, but related: Advaita took over Buddhist ideas. And those different strands of thought are presented to the west in a re-interpreted way, that is, simplified. There's much more nuance to them then the popular books on spirituality will display. Nevertheless, I took a look at the version from about a year ago, and I see your point. I'll see what i can do, without losing relevant info. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:29, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Sunyata

@Joshua Jonathan: Sunyata is nonarising or nonorigination. Don't give Gelug view.VictoriaGraysonTalk 15:04, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

As far as I know, nonarising is anutpada; it's a "consequence" of sunyata. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:29, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
The article describes sunyata as "the absence of inherently existing natures." This is some sort of Gelug type view.VictoriaGraysonTalk 04:34, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Nonarising is sunyata, not a consequence. Sunyata literally means 'voidness'. Sunya literally means 'zero'.VictoriaGraysonTalk 05:38, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
So, what would you suggest, in addition to the Gelug view? NB: the term "nondualism" is hopeless; as far as I can see now, it seems to come from Hindu-oriented writers who've also interpreted Buddhist texts, interpreting them all as pointing to a transcendental reality. The term has been picke-up by westerners, and became popular in the New Age and Neo-Advaita scene with their perennialist bias. While, ironically, the term c.q. "principle" may as well be the good old principle of identity: perceiving underlying identities in "unrelated" "things," based on perceived similarities. As in totemism, and anthropomorfism. And as in Tantra: identification with a higher, godly reality, by concreting this higher reality in rituals, symbols and performances. Tgis may as well be the basic principle of religion. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:40, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I see you have the same issues at the Madhyamaka article. The whole lede is incorrect there.VictoriaGraysonTalk 05:42, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Would we not simply employ the simplex meaning "emptiness" for śūnyatā and then expand upon that word's meaning further? Ogress smash! 05:55, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Vic, we know you don't like the Gelugs; unfortunately, they exist, and they are quite present in this world. What additional info would you suggest, based on which sources? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:45, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
The Madhyamaka lede is not even Gelug view. It is just weird stuff.VictoriaGraysonTalk 12:50, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Vic, I've heard you! Please: what's the alternative, from which sources? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:02, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
In the Madhyamaka lede, I would replace the second and third sentence with: "Nagarjuna and Chandrakirti emphasize that all phenomena are without arising and ceasing". Reference is Center of the Sunlit Sky page 587.VictoriaGraysonTalk 19:00, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Only One exists, nothing exists except for One

I've removed the following additions from the lead:

"*"One God", in Christian bible, Ephesians 4:6 "one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all". Mark 12:32 "The scribe said to him, "Beautifully, my master, you said truly, that He is one and there is no one but Him." Only God exists.
*"reality", in the book "A Course in Miracles": "Nothing real can be threatened. Nothing unreal exists." Only reality exists.
*"Zikr", in Islam Koran, “Lá iláha illalláh”: "There is no creator except for God." Nothing exists except for God."

I think that this is a good trail, and that western notions of "nondualism," although referring to Asian religions, do have origins in western thought. At least it's connected with Swedenborgianism, Unitarianism, and Universalism, and the idea of a good, loving God and a 'spiritual center' which resides in all: "Ik ben een God in het diepst van mijn gedachten" (Willem Kloos [1]). The Asian religions are a 'projection screen' for these notions; and what's been popularised in the west as 'genuine Asian religion,' is itself influenced by western esotericism. Interesting, and without sources... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:02, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Author/Editor/Remover: Thank you for being conscientious about maintaining references within this Wikipedia description of non-dualism. Please help add these back in with references. I don't know how to do that. For clarification: "Non-duality" logically means not-dual or not-two (three or more also contains two), therefore it must be only One. Therefore, only One can exist if there is not two or more. The source is logic. The other points reference specific places in the bible: Ephesians 4:6, Mark 12:32. The book A Course in Miracles is referenced as well as the Koran. These additions therefore are not "completely" without references. Please help me add the appropriate references. Non-dualism is not exclusive to Buddhism or any other single religion. These references to non-dualism in Christianity and Islam are accurate and should be rightfully added back to improve this Wikipedia explanation of non-dualism. Please help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.181.44.183 (talk) 14:32, 21 September 2015 (UTC) (24.181.44.183 (talk) 14:41, 21 September 2015 (UTC))
@24.181.44.183: is there any secondary source, that is, a book on these books, that makes these observations? Or are it your own private thoughts? In that case, it's WP:OR. If there are secondary sources, please mention them, so I can help you with them. By the, way, consider creating an account. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:04, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

@Mr. Jonathan: Thank you for your support. I know near nothing about Wikipedia, so your assistance is helpful. For example, here is one secondary source, a book about books including the Bible and Koran: >http://hazrat-inayat-khan.org/php/views.php?h1=6&h2=1&h3=1 : Book: "Vol. 1, The Way of Illumination", Author: Hazrat Inayat Khan. I don't know how to properly site this. (24.181.44.183 (talk) 18:09, 21 September 2015 (UTC))

Ah, Inayat Kan. Universal Sufism. It should go into the Islam-section at "Perceived similarities." But, Inayat Khan is also a primary source. Any scholarly textbook that you know of? I'll give it a try later. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:58, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Two ideas

These edits replaced

"Nondualism, also called non-duality, "points to the idea that the universe and all its multiplicity are ultimately expressions or appearances of one essential reality."[1] It is a term and concept used to define various strands of religious and spiritual thought.[2] It is found in a variety of Asian religious traditions[3] and modern western spirituality, but with a variety of meanings and uses.[3][2] The term may refer to:"

by

"Nondualism, also called non-duality, is a term that is used to describe a variety of related concepts[2] from Asian religious traditions[3] and modern western spirituality. The term describes a unification of two ideas that have been distinguished as separate and asserts them to in actuality be the same. Some of the things this term may refer to are:"

There are several problems with this edit:

  • It replaces sourced content ("one essential reality") by unsourced content ("a unification of two ideas");
  • "a unification of two ideas" does not summarise the article; it's not even in the article;
  • The term does not refer to "things," but to "terms" or "concepts."

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:22, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Espín & Nickoloff 2007, p. 14.
  2. ^ a b c Loy 1988.
  3. ^ a b c Sarma 1996.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nondualism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:43, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

A Course in Miracles

User:Obe19900 has re-inserted three times diff1 diff2 diff3a section on A Course in Miracles which is WP:UNDUE, WP:QUOTEFARM and WP:SPAM. ACiM is only a minor topic regarding nondualism, if relevant at all; it's undue to give it so much attention. Apparently, he's been doing the same in 2008, see User talk:Obe19900#Nondualism and User talk:Obe19900#Nondualism (Response to Graymornings), when User:Graymornings and User:Owlmonkey also explained to him that this info is undue. So, please stop it, and stick to Wiki-policies. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:12, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Joshua Jonathan you are incorrect about ACIM relevancy to non-dualism - User:Obe19900 10 April 2016
In reference to your note on my Talk page - Ms Sarah Welch you are incorrect about the nature of my addition to the page, it is very constructive - User:Obe19900 10 April 2016
@Obe19900: youtube.com is not WP:RS. Please discuss your proposed changes here, with reliable sources, and gain consensus with @Joshua Jonathan. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:14, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
@Ms Sarah Welch reference has been updated to the original DVD in wikipedia reference format, removing the youtube reference per your input - User:Obe19900 11 April 2016
@Obe19900: The DVD does not meet WP:RS standards either. I suggest you self-revert and try locating a source in peer reviewed scholarly book, journal etc. You may also want to read and reflect on WP:WWIN. Your edit warring is disruptive. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:18, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

You still haven't adressed WP:OR, WP:UNDUE, WP:QUOTEFARM and WP:SPAM. Let me expalin what the problems are with your edit:

  • WP:OR: none of the quites make clear hoa ACiM is nondualism, or related to the content in the Wiki-article.
  • WP:UNDUE: even if ACiM is related to nondualism, it's insignificant for the topic. At best, it could be placed under New Age, and that is such a vast topic, that it's totally undue to even mention it there. Even if we narrow it to New Thouht, it's still undue.
  • WP:QUOTEFARM: we don't write an encyclopedia by copy-pasting quotes.
  • WP:SPAM: this looks more like a way to draw attention to ACiM.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:14, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Response/edits @ User:Joshua Jonathan

  • Agree on the first quote that it doesn't directly refer to nondualism - removed the first quote.
  • WP:UNDUE: Untrue. The entire bases of ACIM is pure non-dualism. A page on Non-dualism without a section on ACIM is an incomplete page on non-dualism.
  • WP:QUOTEFARM: Removed the first and largest quote leaving the text reference.
  • WP:SPAM: The Non-dualism page is a page about non-dualism, and ACIM is an integral part of the philosophy or idea or teaching or what have you of non-dualism.

Obe19900 (talk) 19:16, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

@Obe19900: What you added, and still remains, is all WP:OR. I can't find the word "nondualism" or "dualism" in the book you cite, A Course in Miracles. It is not on page you cite, and the two quotes you provide do not mention it either. Did I miss it? Can you identify the page number please where either nondualism or dualism appear? The book also seems WP:SPS and thus non-WP:RS, can you explain why you believe it meets wikipedia's WP:RS guidelines and why you feel it is not WP:PLUG? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:05, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
@Ms Sarah Welch:, apparently yes, you did miss it. It says it right in the quote that I linked in the page: "...no second... nothing but the First." I don't "believe" it's a non-self-published work I know it is. It is published by The Foundation for Inner Peace, Judy Skutch, the scribe of the work (Helen Schuchman) was not its publisher. Perhaps something of her needs to be added? On your last point, as I mentioned earlier, the Non-dualism page is a page about non-dualism, and ACIM is an integral part of the philosophy or idea or teaching or what have you of non-dualism, and a page on Non-dualism without a section on ACIM is an incomplete page on non-dualism. Obe19900 (talk) 1:46, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
@Ms Sarah Welch: P.S. You seem very savvy on the Wikipedia lingo and such. Please let me know any other ways or changes that can make the entry a better fit. Obe19900 (talk) 1:48, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Just remove it. It's WP:UNDUE and WP:OR. Your personal preferences are standing in the way of an objective assessment. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:49, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
@JJ: Are you able to verify anywhere that the author(s) mention nondualism. If the authors are just saying "only "God" (i.e. absolute reality) as existing in any way, and nothing else existing at all", that could be idealism, rather than nondualism. It feels like OR-synthesis to infer the authors are speaking of nondualism, when they don't explicitly make that conclusion/assertion. We should avoid mixing neo-Advaita or Buddhism in the same sentence as this. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:02, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Blogs and other non-RS

@Joshua Jonathan: This article has some blogs-supported content, which should be removed and tagged for WP:RS cite request. Do you want to do the honors, or should I when I get time? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:06, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I think it's more than just "some"; especially the neo-Advaita content is largely derived from blogs and similar sources. Given the fact that this "neo-Advaita" is an essential element in "nondualism," I'd prefer to keep as much as possible of those sopurces. Otherwise, very little remains. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:07, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Ah, Frank Morales, okay. I'm not so happy, though, with the trimming of the "neo-Madhyamaka" info; the point, "An alternative to the Perennialist and essentialist (neo-)Advaita understanding of nondualism," and non-essentialism, is missing now. And I still think that "A Course in Miracles" does not deserve a subsection of its own. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:13, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
@JJ: Nunen is cited often, but is not listed in sources and giving harv errors. Please check and add. I agree the "ACIM" needs some thinking, if and how we can include it. There is a lot of nondualism related WP:RS published in last 40 years, and that is what should support 85%+ of this article. How about we trim the sections on neo-Madhyamaka and neo-Advaita, based on unclear "may be non-RS, may be RS" to less than 15%? Some of the blogs are clearly misinformed or misrepresenting neo-Madhyamaka, neo-Advaita, etc. and we should not summarize the polemics of neo-Advaitins against competing schools, or polemics of neo-Buddhists against competing schools, or etc. It is okay to summarize what they state their own views to be, with "according to..." phrasing. For comparison, we need to rely on established scholarship, or else this article will read like WP:Soapbox. I will try to trim, along these lines. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:36, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Re-ordering of Buddhist info

I've grouped the Buddhist info together. This developement of the advaya-concept was new for me; in light of this, it makes sense to put the Buddhist info together. Previously, I'd split it, because of the similariteis between vijnapti-matra and advaita. NB:on eblogger once commented that this Wiki-article changes all the time, reflecting the changing and varied ideas on "nondualism." I like that comment; it's a reminder that this article is not a likely candidate for "Featured article" status. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Nunen

@JJ: If you add back Nunen, please add source details for WP:V. As I noted day before yesterday above, "Nunen is cited often, but is not listed in sources and giving harv errors". Some views attributed to Nunen seem non-mainstream, may need clarification from RS for NPOV. But, first I would like to read whatever this Nunen source is. Another request: any content you re-add back, please include either page numbers or quotes. For some old content, the whole book has been alleged as support, without any page numbers; in these cases, I tried to look for support but [1] was unable to, and [2] it read like amazing OR, non-mainstream, or possibly innocent misunderstanding. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:36, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I'll have to look at it. No idea anymore what the source said, or looks like. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:26, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Ah, yes, I see the problem: Nunen, Luís César (n.d.), Nothing Outside, Lulu.com. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:42, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
@Joshua Jonathan: Lulu.com is WP:SPS. See this 'lulu.com is non-RS' note by admin @Utcursch. I agree with @Utcursch. The Nunen claims are fringe-y. Unless you can find alternate scholarly sources, I suggest we remove all Nunen content. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:04, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Self-published indeed. It's a pity for this nice distinction between "epistemological approch" and "ontological approach." - Hold on, the ditinction was made by Murti in "The Central Philosophy": "'Advaya' is purely an epistemological approach; the advaita is ontological." And here is Nunen. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:29, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
@JJ: Lets take Nunen and other WP:SPS out. Murti source should suffice. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:29, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Kiyota and Jones

Wouldn't it be better to move this info from the Definitions-section to the main-section on Madhyamaka?:

"Accoding to Kiyota and Jones, the concept of adyava developed in response to early dichotomies in Buddhist thought. Early Buddhism schools such as Sarvastivada and Sautrāntika, that thrived through the early centuries of the common era, accepted a dualism wherein grahaka and grahya, or mind and matter respectively, were viewed as two realities.[19][20]

The later Madhyamikas, states Yuichi Kajiyama, developed the Advaya definition as a means to Nirvikalpa-Samadhi by suggesting that "things arise neither from their own selves nor from other things, and that when subject and object are unreal, the ming, being not different, cannot be true either; thereby one must abandons attachment to cognition of nonduality as well, and understanding the lack of intrinsic nature of everything". Thus, the Buddhist nondualism or Advaya concept became a means to realizing absolute emptiness.[19]"

I'll try to read the source. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:40, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

On p.120 starts the section on Yogacara. Yet, this is not Kiyota on Yogacara, but Kiyota on Śāntarakṣita's classification of philosophical systems. P.137-139 is on Kamalasila's commentary on the Lankavatara-sutra. I'm not so sure that this is representative for Yofacara in general. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:00, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
@JJ: Yes, indeed Yuichi Kajiyama in the Kiyota's book is summarizing Yogacara views (while discussing Śāntarakṣita). Here are a few more sources: [1] David Loy in Nonduality: A Study in Comparative Philosophy; Quote: "The Yogacara claim of cittamatra (mind only), that only mind or consciousness exists"; (Loy goes on to discuss, how in his opinion, this theory of theirs led them to being misinterpreted as a form of subjective idealism).; [2] Jay L. Garfield, Jan Westerhoff in Madhyamaka and Yogacara: Allies or Rivals?, Quote: "In these verses we find advice on the meditative realization of the philosophical position that constitutes the key tenet of Yogacara, namely that only phenomena are only mental in nature"; (BTW, this is a good WP:RS on advaya in Buddhism, discusses advaya, differences within Buddhism schools on nondualism) [3] Douglas Duckworth in Mipam on Buddha-Nature: The Ground of the Nyingma Tradition, pages 45-47; [4] Steven Emmanuel's A Companion to Buddhist Philosophy, pages 155-156, etc. all affirm Yuichi Kajiyama in the Kiyota's book states to be Yogacara school's views. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:42, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
@JJ: Should add that there is some disagreement too. A few state that "mind only" is not completely accurate, because Yogacara goes further and states that even 'mind-only' doesn't really exist. I am fine if you want to add the dissenting views as well, for NPOV. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:48, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
I wouldn't call it "dissenting"; I would rather call it "correct" understanding. Mind-only has often been misinterpreted as an absolute idealism; apparently it's not; see Kochumuttom. It's not an analysis of an absolute One, vijnana, but a pragmatical analysis of the workings of the mind and the "creation" of our reality.
As an aside, but an important one: I find it fascinating how Yogacara resembles post-modern philosophy and social-constructionism. Also, when I read Kochumuttom, and his explanation of Yogacara as representation-only, it made very clear sense to me. Mind-only, as some sort of absolute idealism, is mind-boggling to me, while representation-only (call it "realistic idealism," or "relativistic idealism") is very sensible. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:21, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
@JJ: If you wish, call the other side dissenting with the so-called "correct" understanding. Regardless, we should summarize all sides of the numerous WP:RS. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:27, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
@JJ: Ahhh!, I see you already are trying to summarize the sides. I like your idea that we re-organize and re-arrange text between the definition-main sections to improve clarity of both sections. Some context in the definition may be important for clarity. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:43, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Mind-only

Thomas A. Kochumuttom (1989), A Buddhist Doctrine of Experience: A New Translation and Interpretation of the Works of Vasubandhu, the Yogācārin, p.1–5, 32–38 definitely does not say that "The Yogachara school posited Advaya, as the idea that only mind exists." According to Kochumuttom, Vijñapti-mātra is better translated as representation-only'. It's one of the main theses of his work. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:11, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: I added the Yuichi Kajiyama source for "The Yogachara school posited Advaya, as the idea that only mind exists." On page 120, Quote: "The other group is nondualism (advaya-naya) represented by the Yogacara philosophy which maintains the existence of mind only." So it is well supported (but see the context for more). As you comb through the article, please see the sources I added, rather than old sources, since I tried not to delete old content and old sources. But some sources and particularly the blogs still bother me as they are not reliable, and may lead to "X definitively does not say Y". May be split the sentences or something, to make the Buddhist sections clearer, as to who is stating what. Yuichi Kajiyama is right about Advaya 'mind only' stage of Buddhist thought in 1st millennium. If you would like, I can add more WP:RS for this. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:26, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Kochumuttom gives an important nuance to this "mind-only." This is the line in question as you added/edited it:
"The Yogachara school posited Advaya, as the idea that only mind exists, thereby formulating the Buddhist idea of nondualism as "pure consciousness" or denial of object-subject distinction.(ref:"KiyotaJones1991p120")"
Unfortunate coincidence that the Kochumuttom-reference appeared right beyond it... Well, anyway, I understand you intention; I'll have to look through the info and the sources again, to do justice to your edits and to my intentions. Sorry for the messy way it looks now; I'll work through it. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:26, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
@JJ: No worries. No hurries. Take your time. The adoption and evolution in nondualism concepts within Buddhism was mostly a 1st millennium phenomena, as Yuichi Kajiyama and others explain. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:10, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
I've added the term citta-matra, for clarification. But I've added this quote in a note:
"Some later forms of Yogācāra lend themselves to an idealistic interpretation of this theory but such a view is absent from the works of the early Yogācārins such as Asaṇga and Vasubandhu." [2]
See also below. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:04, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: I am fine till we include and explain the dualism and the nondualism history in Buddhism, and summarize different interpretations of the Yogacara views. FWIW, Andrew J. Nicholson discusses Vijnanabhikshu's views on page 180 of Unifying Hinduism, and embeds therein the following definitions: [1] Madhyamaka – also known as the school of emptiness; [2] Yogacara – also known as Mind-only. Vijnanabhikshu's text, of course, just uses the terms Sunyavada and Vijnanavada respectively. A decent comparison of Madhyamika and Yogacara is in the book by Gadjin Nagao's Madhyamika and Yogacara (translated by Leslie Kawamura, 1991). Garfield and Westerhoff is another WP:RS, already cited in this article, whose pages 4-5, 112-122 etc discuss Yogacara's mind-only doctrine. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:25, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Proposed merge with The Principle of Oneness

The recently created article at The Principle of Oneness appears to be covering much the same ground as Nondualism. McGeddon (talk) 13:36, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I've moved it into userspace; it's incomprehensible, and poorly sourced. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:08, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough. --McGeddon (talk) 11:39, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Chinese Buddhism sections

The Chinese Buddhism related content is either unsourced OR or is an OR on Whalen Lai paper because Lai is saying something very different. The Lai paper hardly mentions nondualism, FWIW, and that too in the context of non-Chinese Buddhism. We should either add sources that support the Chinese Buddhism content in this article, or remove the OR. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:39, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Garden of Eden

Added Garden of Eden as one of the religious metaphors (list at end of article) signifying non-dualism. Genesis 3:5 suggests that the Garden is beyond both good and evil, existing as a non-dependent reality, although the tree of duality (knowledge of good and evil) sits within the garden itself, suggesting an infinite universal struggle between unity and duality. 2603:3006:E01:500:A46B:56F4:13BD:F373 (talk) 15:15, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Hesychasm

@Ms Sarah Welch and JimRenge: if there is something like a Perennial philosophy, it is not so much a "philosophy" as it is a practice, with roots in philosophy. Eastern-Orthodox Hesychasm shows strong similarities with Buddhist and Hindu meditation practices; its similarities with (Neo-)Platonism also connect it with Gnosticism and Western Esotericism. It looks liek a descent history of "Nondualism" couls be written consisting of:

  • 1. Buddhism and Hinduism
  • 2. (Neo-)Platonism, Christianity, Gnosticism, Western Esotericism
  • 3. Modern mutual east-west interactions: Transcendentalism, Neo-Vedanta, Perennialism, western Buddhism, New Age, "Non-Dualism"

Some links:

I won't argue that Platonism influenced India, or that India influenced the Greek world; but at least one gets the impression that it might be possible that there was some exchange of ideas and prctices during the Hellenistic and Roman periods. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:16, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: Hesychasm! This source compares it to Buddhism and Hinduism on pages 144-146 and elsewhere. On page 352, it mentions Upanishads. But no mention of nondualism I could find. Worth more digging in other sources, interesting as this is! On speculations about the Indo-Greece interactions, Staal had some interesting ideas, page 22 onwards (and Appendix, p. 235). @JimRenge: Did you get this ping? I didn't. Just curious if Template:Yo with more than one username works, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:11, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
I first misspelled your name; I removed the tag, and then re-inserted it. Apparently it is connected to the thread, not just to the tag. Anyway, fascinating topic. The term nondualism, of course, is from westerners who have adapted to Advaita Vedanta. Protestant westerners, maybe, since "we" (I also have a Protestant background) seem to have lived in a desert regarding Christian mysticism. Conze suggested a 'bio-psychological Perennialism' to explain the similarities: something in out brain-wire leads people from different times and cultures to have the same experience. "Prajna and Sophia," if I recall correct. Reminds of cognitive science of religion. I think they've got a point; the technique seems to be the same, the explanatory framework shows similarities (the One/God, Brahman/Shiva), but also differences (redemption and resurrection versus enlightenment and the end of samsara). Thanks for the sources, by the way.
Here's another fine one: Essence–energies distinction. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:55, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Mysticism has definitely been a big part of Christianity. The regions where it flourished more, saw more asceticism and monk traditions too! The heritage goes back further. Dionysius, Proclus, Plotinus and their likes pondered on it, called it Henosis.... they may be a part of puzzle. Ysabel De Andia wrote a fine book on Henosis, but in French. John Rist's works from 1960s onwards are interesting too, and in English. There is far too many similarities and "same experiences" between the histories of Buddhism/Hinduism/Jainism and Christianity, and your "lived in a desert" analogy is a good one! Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:01, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I received the ping (sometimes it does not work) but I was busy in real life and distracted by the Buddhakahika activities. Joshua, I would not be surprised if the history of nondualism began even before Buddhism and Hinduism. The similarity of the practice in Hesychasm and Buddhist mantra practices like nianfo is obvious. I also assume that similar practices may result in similar experiences and insights (neurophysiological changes included). JimRenge (talk) 00:19, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

This article should actually start with those nondualism adepts, like Stuart Schwartz, and then go back in time, to the Transcendentalists with their mix of Neoplatonism and Upanishads, and then explain what similarities there are, either in practice & theology, or historically. But then, that's also about Perennialism, which sought to integrate Neoplatonism with Hermeticism and Christianity. Hermeticism is a form of Gnosticism, which also shows similarities with Indian religions, yet according to the scholarly mainstream developed independent from those Indian religions. Et cetera; the topic is complicated, and a solid article would probably be a new creation, that is, original research. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:29, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

At second thought: in the section Nondualism#Development of the modern understanding of "nondualism", the section on Perennial philosophy could be moved upward, since it started already in the Renaissance. And the section on Nondualism#Western philosophy and religions already has info on Gnosticism & Neoplatonism, which could be expanded. The section on Christian mysticism should explain more about mystical prayer and apophatic theology, the main practices of mysticism. So, not that bad after all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshua Jonathan (talk • contribs)
@JJ: But is Hesychasm same as nondualism, according to the sources? Mysticism =/= nondualism. @JR: The history of nondualism may indeed precede Buddhism, Hinduism, and definitely Christianity. The eternal question, "who am I", may be more ancient than we give most cultures credit for. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:45, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Here's a blog on hesychasm and nondualism. Not WP:RS of course, but an indication. "Mysticism," of course, is more than "just" nondualism (the contemporary western pop understanding); but nondualism (cwpu ;)) surely refers to a stae of mind, c.q. understanding, which is akin to concentrative and deconstructive practices. Compare Apophatic theology to sunyata and neti-neti, or Self-inquiry. Apophatic theology seems to be an important part of Hesychasm; to me, it seems to be the equivalent of Vipassana, whereas mystical prayer is the counterpart of Samatha. Years ago, I already had the impression that Gnosticism resembles Buddhism, but I'm really flabbergasted to see such strong parallels!
And yes, those parallels may well be due to similar practices. The question "Who am I," the question "Who or what is God/Reality/Life," the practices of mantra-repetition and sustained attention; think only of hunters observing a prey, or shamans gazing at the stars.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Nondualism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:53, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Removed content on F. H. Bradley

I removed the following from the article, as it has long been without citation. However, discussion of what F. H. Bradley meant by "The Nondual" and the traditions he was drawing upon would certainly be relevant in this article if someone is up for doing a little research. Sondra.kinsey (talk) 19:22, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Western nondualism

Perennialism and Transcendentalism are certainly relevant to this article; no need to remove that info. NB: I suspect that nondualism is neo-Platonism in a neo-Vedanta guise. Would be worthwhile to search for info on that. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:29, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: I was going off of the lead section, which offered numerous, seemingly unrelated definitions of nondualism:
  1. "there is no absolute, transcendent reality beyond our everyday reality"
  2. "nondualism of cognition and that which is cognized" or "non-duality of subject and object"
  3. "all of the universe is one essential reality, and that all facets and aspects of the universe are ultimately an expression or appearance of that one reality" (I assume this is what you mean by Neoplatonism)
  4. "mysticism" (a fairly undefined term itself, but which usually involves some form of "transcendent reality beyond our everyday reality")
I think the array of (contradictory?) definitions is already problematic for a Wikipedia article, as is the frequent use of the term in its definition. However, the content I removed seemed to me to connect to none of these definitions, except perhaps "mysticism". The only explicit mention of nondualism I removed was "Contemporary Perennialism sees nondualism as the essence of all religions{{citation needed|date=January 2013}}". Given the lack of explicit connection with nondualism, I figured this section was either WP:OFFTOPIC or WP:OR. I'm guessing this section is based on applying the "one essential reality" definition to a theology of religion, but I can't see how one article can accommodate all this smorgasbord of content, and that still seems like WP:OR. Am I missing something? Sondra.kinsey (talk) 04:10, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
@Sondra.kinsey: thank you for your reply, and apologies for my late response; I was on holiday, with an awful internet-connection. I'll give a longer response tomorrow morning, but on the fly: "nondualism" is a horrible topic qua definition. There is a problem with WP:COMMONNAME here: scholarly usage, and popular usage. David Loy gave two definitions, from Hinduism and Buddhism (advaita and adyava); the most common usage seems to be a pop-spiritual understanding of Advaita Vedanta, c.q. neo-Vedanta, c.q. neo-Advaita. More tomorrow. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:57, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
I've read your answer with more attention now. The first three definitions appear as [1], [3], [2] in the lead. "Advaya" and "Advaita" are based on Loy's work; "non-dual consciousness" is the popular (western) understanding of Advaita Vedanta as found in neo-Vedanta and neo-Advaita. The popular usage isn't clearly defined indeed, but can be found throughout the web and the spiritual corners of western bookstores. The roots of this 'popular understanding' can be traced back to the modern western interest in neo-Platonism, which started during the Renaissance, influenced the Transcendentalists, was exported to India by the Universalist Church, and transported back to the west as neo-Vedanta by Vivekananda and the like. And yes, altogether it's a "smorgasbord of content," as you called it, because the term "nondualism" has been applied in so many contexts with so many meanings... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:44, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: I appreciate your taking the time to explain this to me and value your evident knowledge on this topic. However, it seems to me that you are tracing an idea currently called nondualism, through a long and complicated transmission history. My concern is that seems to constitute WP:OR; these historic groups did not use the term nondualism, and I don't see scholars cited here which refer to their ideas as nondualism. I still contend this content should be removed. As an aside, it also looks to me like the tradition history you are tracing is more precisely called Perennial philosophy anyhow. Sondra.kinsey (talk) 23:37, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

@Sondra.kinsey: I'm reading David Loy's "Nonduality" again, in response to your concerns. He starts that book with a quote from Plotinus; it gives a hint of the perceived similarities. I think you're right about "tracing an idea currently called nondualism"; the term "nondualism" is, of course, a translation of "advaita," a term which came to be used in the west only since the 19th century, and more specifically probably the 20th century. So, indeed, pre-20th century groups wouldn't have used the term "nondualism." Yet, the link between western strands of thought, more specifically neo-Platonism, and eastern strands of thought, especially Advaita Vedanta, have been thoroughly studied. See, for example:
That studies like these have not been cited (yet) is not a reason to remove other, sourced info, but an invitation to improve the article, I think. And here are also some non-scholarly sources:
And yes, "nondualism" in the western sense is indeed almost synonymous to Perennialism, as it is also synonymously with mystical experience (and some sytrands of modern spirituality). In a previous version of this article the emphasis actually was on this Perennialism, that is, a search for seemingly related strands of thought. All in all, it's a confusing term, actually. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:23, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
PS: what do you think "nondualism" is? What defin ition would you give, based on which source? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:51, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

All of this is just about the spiritual/religious concept? What?

I came here for the mathematical meaning of the term. >:( Sinsearach (talk) 06:33, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

@Sinsearach: explain?!? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:48, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
I've moved the page to "Nondualism (spirituality)." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:50, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Ah, joyous! Sinsearach (talk) 00:41, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Different Text When Redirected

I noticed that when the page is accessed correctly (that is, through the URL https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondualism_(spirituality)) the third bullet point in the introduction reads as follows: "Nondual consciousness, a view in modern spirituality. This view regards nondualism as an universal psychological state, which is at the core of eastern and western religions. It is derived from Neo-Vedanta and neo-Advaita, but has historical roots in neo-Platonism, Western esotericism, and Perennialism."

However, when the page is accessed incorrectly (that is, through a URL like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondualism or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-duality and being redirected ) the third bullet point in the introduction reads as follows: "Western esotericism and Perennialism as perceived by and influenced by western Neo-Vedanta. This view regards nondualism as the core of eastern and western religions. It is derived from (neo-)Advaita, but has historical roots in neo-Platonism and western esotericism, and can be found in modern spirituality."

This creeped me out because I do not know why the page would operate like this. I was especially concerned about my sanity when I noticed the difference because of the spooky spiritual/mystical content of the page. So, I shared my concerns to calm myself. If anyone knows how to fix this problem and/or knows why the problem exists in the first place, it would be good of that person to share his or her insight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.88.142.185 (talk • contribs) 00:45, 28 July 2017 (UTC)‎

@174.88.142.185: orobably a time-lag in some update somewhere. When I follow the links, they all arrive at the same version. Nice coincidence, that this happens here at this page. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:32, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Organisation of the article

The article is now organised around the (etymological?) definitions of David Loy. Somehow, this doesn't satisfy me. After all (proposed rewrite),

"Nondualism" primarily refers to a mature state of consciousness, in which the dichotomy of I-other is "transcended," and awareness is described as 'centerless' and 'without dichotomies'. Although this state of consciousness may seem to appear spontaneous ("Cosmic Consciousness", Richard Bucke), it usually is the "result" of prolonged ascetic and meditational/contemplative practice, which includes ethical injunctions. While the term "nondualism" is derived from Advaita Vedanta, nondual consciousness can be found within Hinduism (Turiya, sahaja), Buddhism (Buddha-nature, rigpa, shentong), and western neo-Platonic traditions (henosis, mystical union).

The problem with this short introduction is that is mostly based on primary sources; I doubt it if many scholarly sources can be found. What to do? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:10, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Ive partly rewritten the lead, and changed the main headers; I hope this works. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:46, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Nondualism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:57, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nondualism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:48, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Category problem: Advaita and Nondualism are mutually inclusive

See Category talk:Nondualism#Category problem: Advaita and Nondualism are mutually inclusive

The following discussion 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.

I notice that at the present time, Category:Advaita has Category:Nondualism as a subcategory. Conversely, Category:Nondualism has Category:Advaita as a subcategory. This is a problem, because according to WP:SUBCAT, "no category should be contained as a subcategory of one of its own subcategories". I'm not sure I see an easy fix. Should these categories be merged? I think there needs to be a discussion that draws on experts in categorization and experts in the topic to decide how to fix these category schemes. I'm not sure where that discussion should happen. Perhaps someone with experience in categorizing can start the discussion? --Presearch (talk) 04:37, 7 August 2019 (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.

An important question is not addressed.

In Hinduism, are the non-dualists condemned as they would be in the Abrahamic religions? When Jesus said "I and the Father are one" it got him crucified. Or is a pluralism of ideas allowed in Indian culture? Is there violence over this, or is the discussion kept on an intellectual level? I can't seem to find anything about this on the Internet. Thanks 2600:8801:B011:300:A556:B16E:1655:5D49 (talk) 15:06, 20 May 2021 (UTC) James.

Source question

Hi, I wish to use the quote cited at Note 1 Cosmic Consciousness, by Richard Bucke however no page number is given, and after much searching I cannot find within the actual text of the book any segment of the supposed quote. I would deeply appreciate a complete citation (page number, pub date etc) so I may use this quote in the article I'm writing. Thank you! Seiberth (talk) 23:42, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

- Cosmic Consciousness: A Study in the Evolution of the Human Mind by Richard Bucke is available through Google Books - you may be able to find your quote by searching the text - Cosmic Consciousness - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 00:52, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
Yep I tried that Seiberth (talk) 04:23, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
As far as I remember, Bucke postulated a "Cosmic consciousness," which manifests universally. But I don't recall how 'spontaneous' that cc appears; yet, the statement also reminds of William James. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:18, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Reminder: self-luminosity

Self-luminosity: "Self-luminosity (svayam prakāśa) means self is pure awareness by nature.91 Advaita's concept of self-luminosity is a non-dual self-awareness as the..." Walter Menezes (2017), "Exploring Ātman from the Perspective of the Vivekacūḍāmaṇi", p.198 link. Compare "Extracting the essence of the sruti", verse 104-113: "the seeing," "Turya." See also Talk:Advaita Vedanta#Self-luminosity. Something very essential is still missing here... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:12, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

samuel 2008 missing link

"Samuel 2008" looks like a broken link, I can't find out what book that refers to, and I could really use an authoritative source on early non-dual thought.. any help appreciated Trampax (talk) 13:47, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

c.q.?

This article uses "c.q." in several places, which I (and I'm sure many other people) am not familar with. I looked it up, and it doesn't appear to be described in some well-respected dictionaries (e.g., m-w.com), but it might mean "casu quo". If so, then it appears to be misused. I'd fix it, but I'm not sure what the person who wrote it was trying to say. 68.175.0.170 (talk) 09:55, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

"Or." I've changed it. Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:44, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Contemporary Western nondualisms

Will just repeat hear what I posted on Joshua's talk page: Disagree with your reversion of the Nondualism edit. The added content is nothing more than can be read on the pages for each of those two subjects. Normal practice is to suggest that sources be ADDED, which is why you see the related tags on pages. Simply reverting the honest legitimate work of others is just rude pedantry. Wikipedia can't really afford to keep hemorrhaging editors, and stuff like this is why it's been happening for the last five to ten years at least. The polite thing would be to revert your reversion and add the tag please, and I can try to add them in later. Chris Rodgers (talk) 02:09, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

How hard is it for you to add sources straightaway? I reverted because of the never-ending stream of unsourced original research that spirituality-related pages attract. The Christian Science does not mention nondualism; bad sign, especially since it has GA-status. A Course in Miracles has nondualism, without any explanation or source. Doing a quick Google-search shows that CS was influenced by Neo-Vedanta; that's what you can write, in the Theosophy-section. The rest is undue. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:46, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
Apparently then you are far wiser than to be subject to such trivial details as WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM. Whether it mentions the word explicitly is comically irrrelevant: anyone who has read its core text knows it's a nondualism, which is part of what earned it most of its scorn in its early years - and yet gave the New Age movement its roots by way of Hopkins and the founders of Unity, Religious Science, and a host of other things I wouldn't expect you to be conversant with. And demanding sources be immediate is an indefensible absurdity, which leaves me wondering what other destructiveness of others' labors you have left in your wake: WP:IMPERFECT WP:PERFECTION WP:NOTPERFECT. Also, as one much more familiar with its origins than you, and who worked with its best-known academics, your uncited source on Neo-Vedanta is simply categorically mistaken and ignorant, irrespective of his/her/its "credentials," which would be fairly easy to establish if I have the time later. Please go back and review the policies I just cited and note that they directly contradict your misinterpretation. You are however not a gatekeeper with ownership entitlement to the article. (Comment edited). Chris Rodgers (talk)

Minimal phenomenal experience

Reminder: Josipovic, "Nondualism and minimal phenomenal experience." And: "tonic alertness." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:14, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Why I removed Jeff Foster quotes from 'Definitions'

The reason why I removed these quotes is because they are not from a scholarly source nor a traditional religious source, and instead are from a particular Neo-Advaita teacher. They are not wrong, but they merely promote a specific neo advaitin perspective, and its best to have the definitions section be non-sectarian, general and scholarly. I will place this under "neo advaita". Javierfv1212

Definition

@Wolfdog: your most recent edit added the following text to the lead diff:

In spirituality, nondualism, also called nonduality and interconnectedness;[1][2][3] and nondual awareness,[4][5] is a fuzzy concept for which many definitions can be found,[note 1] all of which depart from dualistic cosmology,[6] including the negation of dualistic thinking, the nonplurality of the world, or the lack of difference between subject and object.[7]

References

  1. ^ Grimes 1996, p. 15.
  2. ^ Seager 2012, p. 31.
  3. ^ Madigan 2010.
  4. ^ Hanley, Nakamura & Garland 2018.
  5. ^ Josipovic 2018.
  6. ^ "Nondualism". Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary.
  7. ^ Loy, David (2012). "Chapter 1: How Many Nondualities Are There?" Nonduality: A study in comparative philosophy. Prometheus Books, p. 17.

"Including [...] object" is fine, since this is also in the article; "all of which depart from dualistic cosmology" is not okay, since this is an addition to the WP:LEAD which does not summarize the article, nor is a dictionary an appropriate source for such a statement. MW gives two definitions; the first one

a doctrine of classic Brahmanism holding that the essential unity of all is real whereas duality and plurality are phenomenal illusion and that matter is materialized energy which in turn is the temporal manifestation of an incorporeal spiritual eternal essence constituting the innermost self of all things

is incomprehensible and wildly inaccurate; the second definition

any of various monistic or pluralistic theories of the universe

is non-informative, and does not justify the statement "depart from dualistic cosmology." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:28, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

This is all fine; I may just make some minor (mostly punctuation) changes Wolfdog (talk) 20:25, 12 March 2022 (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?

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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,[1][2] pure awareness and pure consciousness,[3][4][5] refers to the concept of a basic awareness without discursive thought or dichtomies, which can be found in numerous spiritual and religious traditions.[6][7][8][web 1]

References

  1. ^ Hanley, Nakamura & Garland 2018.
  2. ^ Josipovic 2019.
  3. ^ Fasching 2008.
  4. ^ Srinivasan 2020.
  5. ^ Gamma & Metzinger 2021.
  6. ^ Loy 1997, p. 178, 185.
  7. ^ Hamley 2018.
  8. ^ Josipovic 2020.

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,[1][2] pure awareness and pure consciousness,[3][4][5] is awareness without concepts and without the ordinary duality of distinctions, like distinctions between subject and object,[2][6] or a level of awareness that transcends such distinctions.[7]

References

  1. ^ Hanley, Nakamura & Garland 2018.
  2. ^ a b Josipovic 2019.
  3. ^ Fasching 2008.
  4. ^ Srinivasan 2020.
  5. ^ Gamma & Metzinger 2021.
  6. ^ Loy 1997, p. 178.
  7. ^ Hamley 2018.

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,[1][2] pure awareness and pure consciousness,[3][4][5] is awareness without concepts and without the ordinary duality of distinctions, like distinctions between subject and object,[2][6] or it is awareness that transcends such distinctions.[7]

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

  1. ^ Hanley, Nakamura & Garland 2018.
  2. ^ a b Josipovic 2019.
  3. ^ Fasching 2008.
  4. ^ Srinivasan 2020.
  5. ^ Gamma & Metzinger 2021.
  6. ^ Loy 1997, p. 178.
  7. ^ Hamley 2018.

Proposal #2

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

Nonduality, also called nondualism[1] and nondual awareness,[2][3] is a fuzzy concept originating in Indian philosophy and religion.[1][4][note 1] 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.[1] Common elements are "the interconnectedness of everything,"[5] forming a "singular wholeness of existence that suggests that the personal self is an illusion;"[6] an awareness of this unity, without the usual strict distinction between an observer and the things observed;[1] and thinking without dualistic concepts to support this nondual view and experience.[1] According to the common core thesis, these various views are essentially not different from each other, and have nondual awareness at it's core.[1]

References

  1. ^ a b c d e f Loy 1997.
  2. ^ Hanley, Nakamura & Garland 2018.
  3. ^ Josipovic 2019.
  4. ^ Hamley 2018.
  5. ^ Grimes 1996, p. 15.
  6. ^ Katz 2007.

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[1] and nondual awareness,[2][3] is a fuzzy concept, originating in Indian philosophy and religion,[1][4][note 1] implying that the universe forms a whole that can be experienced as such.[1][page needed] The Asian terms from which it is derived have specific, somewhat different meanings depending on context, but common elements are "the interconnectedness of everything";[5] a "singular wholeness of existence that suggests that the personal self is an illusion";[6] an awareness of this unity, without the usual strict distinction between an observer and the things observed;[1] and thinking that lacks dualistic concepts in order to support this view and experience.[1] According to the common core thesis,{we may have to discuss this further} these various views are essentially the same.[1][page needed]

References

  1. ^ a b c d e f Loy 1997.
  2. ^ Hanley, Nakamura & Garland 2018.
  3. ^ Josipovic 2019.
  4. ^ Hamley 2018.
  5. ^ Grimes 1996, p. 15.
  6. ^ Katz 2007.
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.[1]

into

According to the common core thesis,{we may have to discuss this further} these various views are essentially the same.[1][page needed]

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[1] and nondual awareness,[2][3] is a fuzzy concept, originating in Indian philosophy and religion,[1][4][note 1] positing that the universe forms a whole that can be experienced as such by the human mind.[5] 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,[6] forming a singular unity that implies the personal self is an illusion;[7] an awareness of this unity, without the usual strict distinction between an observer and the things observed;[1] and thinking that lacks dualistic concepts in order to support this view and experience.[1] 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.[8]

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

  1. ^ a b c d e f Loy 1997.
  2. ^ Hanley, Nakamura & Garland 2018.
  3. ^ Josipovic 2019.
  4. ^ Hamley 2018.
  5. ^ Loy 1997, pp. 178, 185.
  6. ^ Grimes 1996, p. 15.
  7. ^ Katz 2007.
  8. ^ Loy 1997, p. 185.

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)

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.


Cite error: There are <ref group=note> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=note}} template (see the help page).
Cite error: There are <ref group=web> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=web}} template (see the help page).

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nondualism/Archive_2&oldid=1187251552"