Talk:Nondualism/Archive 1

New section?

This page conflates two quite different philosophical views: monism and what could be called "nondualism proper".

Monism holds that the two items in a pair are actually the same; nondualism proper holds rather that they are inseparable or that there is no hard line between them, but that they are not the same.

The distinction between these two types of views is considered critical in Zen, Madhyamika, and Dzogchen (all of which are nondualisms proper, whereas advaita Hinduism is monist).

Then a section "Nondualism v. Monism" might be in order, if you want to add it. FT2 01:50, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I moved the Ramesh quotes.... this isn't a Ramesh page after all. A sentence or two about him would be fine.... Sethie 18:39, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I say we remove the theravada section... obviously, theravada isn't into nondualism!

Any other comments on this....? Sethie 16:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

No one has commented... so I am taking it out. Please direct any conversation here. Sethie 10:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Its bizzare to make madyamaka (which is philosophy), zen (which is a tradition), dzogchen (which is a teaching) separate categories, and of the same classification. I mean, a dzogchen practitioner is possibly versed in madyamaka philosophy; in any case Longchenpa shows how prasangika madyamaka and dzogchen go hand in hand. And madyamaka is also fundamental philosophical position behind zen too. If one would speak of zen, then instead of dzogchen, one should speak of tibetan buddhism, or nygma shool. If one would speek of dzogchen (which btw is not that different in POV from mahamudra and lamdre), then i dunno zazen would be more logical element of the same clasification. In any case, dzogchen is not an philosophical position; it takes mainly madyamaka as philosophical position, but a method and a state. Also, I dont really understand why one would slice buddhism in such ways. And why wouldnt you say teravada to be nondual? anatta seems a nondual doctrine; cuz its not just my lack of self, but everythings lack of its self - an essence, a separate identity. And it certanly doesnt claim oneness, so it would seem non dual. Also, not two, not one seems dzogchen, not madyamaka way of expression. I definitely agree with the poster above, how here nondual and monist are explicitly equated; a nondual view of dzogchen is an experience of rigpa, where all dialectical positions, including madyamaka and monism are just provisional skillfull means; a nondual position of madyamaka is negating all methaphysical claims, and monism is a metaphysical position.

I think the nondualism article (at least the introduction) is very well written. My hats off to whoever wrote it. About the discussion above, I think you are talking about nondualism (advaita) and qualified nondualism. I think it is ironic that some people want to sub-divide the topic of nondualism. That is so hillarious. That is what Shankaracharya spent his life trying to rid us of. But it will never end -- will it? Is that not the nature of mind?

-- No comment yet? Let me then repeat my suggestion of at least some discussion why the presentation of buddhism is fragmented into such arbitrary categories, and made incomplete by it? What promted precisely such selection? And what dismissed teravada? Also; yes, there is clear difference between monism and nondualism, and it is not, contrary to poster above, hindu-specific, nor a reason to conflate real differences.. In dzogchen, its said, not one, not two; nor separate or different, not the same --Aryah 04:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Buddhism & Pantheism

Would someone please clarify the Buddhist veiw on dualism and pantheism . Are their different veiws ? And is Nirvana related in any way to pantheism . Thank you Hhnnrr 09:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Nirvana and pantheism? of course not, buddhism has no idea of everything either being a god (or anything even having a soul), nor does it consider worshiping gods particularly fruitfull - it only acknowledges the existance of a superhuman, powerfull but unenligtened pantheon. Heres how Buddha supposedly speaks with Brahma:

He asked the god Brahma when he visited him in his courthouse: - Do you, my friend, still hold the view that you held before (that gods are immortal), or have you understood that even the glow of Brahmas world must come to pass? Thera-gatha XX (impromptu translation from another language)

Nirvana means just extinguishment, finally the cessation of the cycle of birth(suffering). In mahayana, it is specifically said to be identical to samsara, the cycle of suffering rebirth after rebirth.. So no 'atman is brahman' makes any sence in this context at all ... So, the question is then, what should duality mean in your question? Id preffer it if a very general word like duality, and consequently nonduality were not made into a specific (religious) jargon; we could be talking about the difference between Cartesian dualism of spirit and matter compared to monism (philosophical materialism, like for instance marx, or philosophical idealism like plato), but then saying nondual doesnt make much sence - why not simply say monism? Or we could be speaking about nondualism of whitehead, which instead of a fixed idea of essence - be it one essence (monism), or two types of essences (dualism), has as a fundamental concept process, dinamisms that are neither material, or ideal, but have in potentiality both.. And this is ontological dualism; we could be speaking about ethical dualism - good vs evil, or religious dualism (two opposing gods, like in zoroastrism, or, in some extent gnosticism and even somewhat christianity) - and religious monism (pantheism (like hindu), monotheism) etc etc...

In all buddhism there is no true vs false self, or any other essence vs experience (or idea vs matter) duality, since it generally rejects anyone or anything having a self (essence). There are no good vs evil dualism - some acts are more or less skillfull, if one would take into consideration their (karmic) consequences, but there is no such thing as a 'bad' or 'good' person, or force... Specifically in mahayana, nirvana and samsara are also said to be the same. And some pantheistic idea like 'we are god' - would be true only in the sence of maybe one day getting an unfortunate rebirth in higher realms (unfortunate cuz its rather comfortable and long-lasting) :) --Aryah 00:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I made some additions to the introduction (not to the existing material) in order to clarify that nondualism was being presented as a belief, a condition, a tradition, etc. I added a couple meanings to nondualism: that it may be viewed as a practice and as a quality. Someone mentioned elsewhere that it is hilarious that nondualism be sub-divided. Perhaps we can laugh and do it at the same time. --Umbada 14:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Whitehead, monism, buddhism

First, let me reiterate, this article is confusing monism and nondualism - there is allready an article on monism, and on many instances in wikipedia, links termed non-dual lead to the article on monism; it should either differentiate, monism and nondualism or merge with that article. But since monism is here present, there is a thinker much closer to the idea of nondualism proper thats missing here; Alfred North Whitehead. while advaita vedanta is idealist monism, and, for instance, many scientists, and say, marxists are materialist monist, he was a strange inbetween, a neutral monist; thinking that the basis of both mind and matter is the same, but that basis is called process, and process is not material or an idea; it has some (not many) characteristics of both.. In any case, another ambiguity in the concept of nondualism is - not dualist about what - like this demonstrates, in the context of western philosophy, tipically dualism reffered to dualism between mind and matter; advaita nondualism primarly concearns nonduality between atman and brahman; buddhist nonduality, as expressed in dzogchen, speaks about nonduality between the mind and mental phenomena (dharma), also (it explicitly says so in the Great Chariot by Longchenpa) - Madyamaka and Chittamatra, and of comming and going (in their nature), - and im sure many other things.... and typically in madyamaka i think it could be found in refutation of both existance, nonexistance, both existance and nonexistance, and neither existance or nonexistance; ie refutation of extremes of ethernalism and nilisim, nondualism of samsara and nirvana... If you do recognise nondualism in the doctrine of emptyness, then you can see it in teravada (and common) doctrine of anatta - not-self, also stressing how all phenomena lack any essences ('selfs') that establish their existance... Heart sutra is only a popular expression of this idea (esp in Zen), but sunyata is a general mahayana idea. Also, it would be seen as POV to speak about superiority ('advanced view') of dzogchen towards zen, though not uncommon among dzogchen practitioners (but with notable exeptions, like Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche, who states that dzogchen is not the tip of some hierarchy of levels).. Also, Chittamatra philosophers, though probably not to be found living today, would claim to be the fullest expression of mahayana, - and of course the prajnaparamita sutras like the heart sutra, and traditional 'oponents' of madyamaka - so theres some POV here too. Koans are specific to Zen/C'han.., its factually incorrect to speak of them simply as a laconic pronounciation of madyamaka generally, but are a specific system, and curriculum, of training of a particular school. Shantideva gives some quite clear and practical expressions of madyamaka too, for instance...Its also a little funny to speak of Dzogchen being esoteric 'to date', since its inherently esoteric, and considers itself to be currently practiced in 10 solar systems, and transmitted from beginingless time.. :) also - re marx - claiming that the realm of ideas does not exist at all is also a way of making it nondual, I guess, and many approches to solving the mind/body dualism are precisely of this kind - maybe we should include marxism as a nondual thought? - in any case, if defined as broadly as it is now, i see no way to include idealist monists like plotinus and hegel, and exclude marx ;) I wonder even how to include advaita and exclude marx, darwin and 'the like'.. Also, why would plotinus be named, and pithagoras and plato not? not only are they close in their positions, but heavily inter-influenced, and if 'mysticism' is the implied criteria as it seems, pythagoras was basicly a leader of a mystery cult ;) There should maybe be some 'under construction' template on the article :D --Aryah 03:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Nondualism versus monism

I believe this section needs more explaination as it is not clear what the difference is between these two terms. --Who123 16:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I tried to clear it up a bit. — goethean ॐ 18:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Christianity

The section on Christianity is very short. I'm sure Ken Wilber talks about Teresa of Avila and John of the Cross expressing ideas isomorphic to non-duallity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.84.104.31 (talk • contribs)

Funnily, I came to the talk page to raise christianity too. The current statement is irrelevant to the article on nonduality, its not at all about that topic. I agree with the comment above. The nondual perspectives and approaches within Christianity are relevant, as is Christianity's view towards nondual philosophies. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

A Course in Miracles is a modern day Christian Non-dualistic teaching visit www.facim.org. Perhaps this can be added to Christianity 4.3? (astralcelt@gmail.com)

Internet community Builders?

Is the Internet community Builders section necessary? It's just for one relatively unknown person. It seems to me that it is enough that his (Jerry Katz) website is under external links. I think the point of having a list of people's names who express nonduality is for well known names. More historical or currently well known that is. I would like to delete it. Any objections? Thanks.

---

If "Internet Community Builders" is not meaningful for nondualism, no problem deleting it. If it is meaningful and a well known person actively functioning in that sphere is known, they could be cited. The founder of Zaadz, perhaps. Jerry Katz may be too unknown and his efforts too limited to be worth mentioning.

No mention of Kashmir Shaivism?

Spandini 04:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC) spandini

Proposed Name change to Non-duality

The more common terminology is Non-Duality! For example google for non-dualism: 121.000 hits; for non-duality 264.00! [Michiel, 13 October 2007] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.220.13.177 (talk) 10:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposed External Link

Dhamma and Non-duality by American Buddhist monk Bhikkhu Bodhi http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/bps-essay_27.html Dhammapal 09:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Jed McKenna is not a real person as far as I can tell from research, but a pen name on a series of self published books. This is mentioned in the linked article and elsewhere. Removing reference to him from Contemporary Teachers section. Please provide evidence that he's really a teacher to add back to that section. (oops, forgot to sign) Owlmonkey 09:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Neo-Confucianism

Four asian teachers of Neo-Confucianism were just added by User:24.145.179.34 but I'm really wondering if that's appropriate. They are Wang Yangming, Wang Fuzhi, Yi I, Kaibara Ekken. Anyone else know enough about that tradition? From the description I read that tao and li and qi are considered real and separate. Therefore dualist. But does anyone know if their conception of li and qi ultimately were included in tao or were separate? We really need a citation there. I see that Taoist teachers and teachings are included, which seems perhaps more legit. But some specific teachings like Wang Yangming's idea of innate knowing, "arguing that every person knows from birth the difference between good and evil" sounds darn dualistic. Any citations that compare neo-confucianism to taoism critically around the view of dualism? If there is analysis of neo-confucian view of tao, li, and qi as really non-dual then we should include it as a section or perhaps mention it as part of the Taoist section as a decendent. Otherwise I'd suggest we delete those teachers. Owlmonkey 10:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Christian Science

Removed the following paragraph, to create a more neutral point of view. But really the mention of Christian Science needs a citation for a scholarly comparison of that tradition to non-dualism as this article describes. It could well be that Christian Science should be included here, but from reading that wikipedia article I could not tell that all the required elements were present. And to avoid original research, this really needs a third-party, neutral examination and then citation here. Owlmonkey (talk) 05:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The central thesis of this teaching, written by Mary Baker Eddy, sets forth a radically nondual position, known as the Scientific Statement of Being: "There is no life, truth, intelligence, nor substance in matter. All is infinite Mind and its infinite manifestation, for God is All-in-all. Spirit is immortal Truth; matter is mortal error. Spirit is the real and eternal; matter is the unreal and temporal. Spirit is God, and man is His image and likeness. Therefore man is not material; he is spiritual." (-from her final edition, last revised in 1910, p.468, of Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures -- Eddy's seminal text, which first appeared in 1875.) (removed from article Owlmonkey (talk) 05:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC))

This paragraph was put back without discussion here first. Reverting it now. If you're the author of this, please add something here. I've left a message for you on your talk page. - Owlmonkey (talk) 21:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

solipsism

great distinction to add. but could someone find some citations for it, and also rewrite it to avoid an "I" reference point? - Owlmonkey (talk) 18:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• For whatever it's worth, who ever said nonduality is lack of an "I" reference point? Are you saying advaita is some sort of avoidance? Don't most sages say it cannot be put into words? Saying "it's the lack of an I reference point" is putting it into words. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/omkaradatta/message/1024 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.62.72 (talk) 13:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to the language in that section in January, but someone already edited it to remove the first person based explanation. It now reads more third party. But I think I see your point. I can answer you from the tibetan buddhist tradition specifically, but I suspect you've touched on a larger issue. In tibetan buddhism at least, the question of whether or not one can make assertions about the ultimate and if those assertions are definite is a point of philosophic debate that has been raging for some time and is still discussed. The prasangika school claims that it makes no assertions about the ultimate, to avoid the problem you're getting at which is that any statement about the existence or non-existence of self or other is inherently putting things conceptually (into words) and that cannot be truth. However, as Ju Mipham pointed out, even the prasangika school when talking to people about the path to this realization will describe things using words. For example, the seminal text Madhamakavatara by Candrakīrti of that school is organized into chapters describing the various grounds and paths of a bodhisattva. They do this out of compassion, to help people along. Even if ultimately such explanations are conceptual and in words. Whereas the svatantrika school is more willing to use assertions about the ultimate nature of reality and syllogisms about it such as "I do not exist because ...". But modern variants of that view, such as the svatantrika madhyamaka school, will say that ultimately the prasangika school is right. we cannot make positive assertions when analysing for the ultimate nature of reality. however, when discussing grounds and paths of practice it still is valuable to make assertions and analyse for the relative or obscurative truth as a way to work with our path to realizing the ultimate. So assertions may be helpful. But the prasankigas might disagree. So that is at least one exposition with respect to tibetan buddhism on the issue of "putting it into words". But the debate between these schools about how much to put into words and when is still ongoing. - Owlmonkey (talk) 21:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Etymological Claims

Nondualism, according to various sources is of Latin origin, I'm afraid to say that the Latin "Duos" meaning two, giving us words like "Dualism" and "Duality" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.218.254.135 (talk) 18:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair. Though this article has so far been mostly about the use of the term in English as it refers to the philosophic concept presented primarily in advaita. So though the term may not be etymologically from sanskrit it's used to some degree as the English translation of the sanskrit term. Please sign your comments. - Owlmonkey (talk) 01:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Non Americans?

A bit disappointed as I wound through the list of teachers, philosophers etc that when I reached "contemporary teachers" & "authors & musicians", the lists were so relentlessly American. A few names: Douglas Harding (British), Bob Adamson (Australan), Tony Parsons (British), Ramesh Balsekar (Indian). Fuzzle09 (talk) 12:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Non-dualism versus Monism?

Is the photograph in the "History" section relevant to the article

There's a section on the distinction, but it isn't quite clear: Exactly how is "non-dualism," distinguished from "monism"? I took a few philosophy courses in college and have never heard of such a strange distinction. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 18:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

There may be a larger question here of how to map the Indian philosophic views onto western terms or to contrast them. I take this article to be more an attempt to characterize the Indian take and the monism article to be more firmly rooted in western thought. But then how do they meet or not meet? I know more about the buddhist logics than the hindu logic, but my understanding is still very rough. But from the madhyamakan approach one does not make positive assertions about the universe being singular (monist) particularly because that would still be a conceptual reduction. The madhyamakans I believe already have some arguments about treating the ultimate nature as "one" and the consequence of that view as invalid. However, their definition of existence may be different enough to make the direct comparison with monism more complicated. Not sure really. But in summary, the madhyamakan view of the ultimate is perhaps more the *lack* of existent dualism as opposed to the *assertion* of monism and that difference in view seems quite important to them. - Owlmonkey (talk) 22:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

This is an English Wikipedia, so it will generally reflect the mainstream view of sources in english. Even if non-english sources can often be used, they are not readily verifiable. So, there need not (and should not) be any kind of synthesis of the views of eastern and western philosophy here. Let's leave that for the philosophy Ph. D's to clarify, in their theses and research, not in a fledgling encyclopedia-in-progress written largely by underage kids. So, in the absence of a source distinguishing these terms (you distinguish them very generally by saying non-dualism is more about Indian monism and monism is more about the western conception), I see no reason to not simply merge the two articles. The Stanford Encyclopedia -- which I consider vastly more credible than Wikipedia -- does not contain any entries on "non-dualism," and this just seems to be yet another annoyingly messed up entry on Wikipedia (i.e., along with eastern philosophy and eastern religion being strangely separate articles), due to its chaotic framework.

You are correct about Madhyamaka and that's something that could be added. In some sense, their claims could be regarded as "true monism," but yes, they themselves would probably just say that monism is just another empty concept. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 23:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

But the Stanford article on monism doesn't mention the hindu concept of non-dualism either, so why should we make that particular merge or connection here? Sounds like you're trying to map the hindu idea into a western framework and ontology, which is also the kind of mapping you said we shouldn't be doing. I'm not sure I understand your view exactly. My summation of how this article differs from monism is just an observation, not something i care about. But it does seem that "non-dualism" is how the advaita tradition is rendering their philosophic view as their tradition is being translated into english. Not my choice, particularly, but if you skim some of their works it's the primary term used and notable. So though I don't have a strong opinion it seems reasonable that it would appear here as an article because of that notability and unique usage. But I'm wondering is your complaint that there is not one normative place or hierarchy to discuss the various related views? - Owlmonkey (talk) 01:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I added an RFC. While it's apparent that there is the idea of "nondualism," in India, it doesn't appear to be any different from Monism, in english. If you translate words back and forth between languages multiple times, you can end up with many different words. That's how languages are. So, even with the fact that there is "Advaita," which isn't translated as "Monism," doesn't mean that there is necessarily a non-dualism apart from monism. After all, if this article is about advaita, then it should be renamed advaita or merged with Advaita Vedanta, instead of creating a new term in english which isn't distinguished from monism. And if it is, please provide a source. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 15:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Well I'm not particularly here to defend this article or it's current manifestation, aside from defending it from a continual onslaught of spam links, but I have had an increasing appreciation over the last couple years of how the Indian philosophic schools don't "quite" map to western views with obvious comparisons not withstanding. But for citations, how about the book Buddha Nature By Sallie B. King which draws a distinction between monism and nondualism with respect to buddha nature specifically and comments that scholars such as Ruegg stress that the two are distinct. Then this paper [1] (Word doc, or view as html) from 2005 explicitly warns

"The term ‘nondualism’ is generally used in discussions of eastern philosophies and religions. But it is increasingly being used in discussions of the western mystical tradition as well as in discussions relating inter-religious dialogue.45 The Hindu term for nondualism is ‘advaita’. ‘Dvaita’ means ‘dualism’, so ‘a-dvaita’ means nondualism, or ‘not-two.’ But ‘not-two’ does not mean the monism of ‘only one.’ The mistake of confusing nondualism with monism is really the mistake of logicism. It is similar to the mistake in assuming that the Trinitarian God means One Substance in three modes, or alternatively, three Gods. In both cases, there is an over-use of temporal logic and mathematics to describe what goes beyond temporal thought."

But personally I think what's going on here is the advaita tradtion is distancing itself from the more monist alternative hindu traditions. Renaming this page "advaita" is something we can certainly discuss. You'd still probably want to redirect "nondualism" to that page. To me the question is still if it's a significant, notable usage separate from the western ontology. It seems to me to be so. For the same reason, I wouldn't map the madhyamakan concept articles (like Śūnyatā) into the western ontology. All that said, I agree with your earlier assessment that this is not a good quality article yet nor does it adequately discuss these distinctions yet. - Owlmonkey (talk) 17:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

There is a fundamental difference between "Non-dualism" viz-a-viz "Monism", non-dualism, by concept means that which has no dual, there is no second, for this is the one and only one, and it is not called only one (Monism) because one inherently cannot exist without a relative figure or object, for one to exist or to understand concept of Monism second or relative figure exists hence to eliminate this relativity, which is reflected by the term "Monism", term used for "Brahma" in vedanta philosophy is Non-Dual, which has no dual, not even relative, something which exists on its own, as it is the cause as well as the effect.--talk-to-me! (talk) 18:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

"Not-two" does not mean "one", nor does it mean "none". 24.36.35.188 (talk) 21:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Need something on Judaism

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

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

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

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

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

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

Peter George Stewart

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

Opposition

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

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

Section External Links

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

• On the Nonduality of Good and Evil: Buddhist Reflections on the New Holy War by David Loy

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

Course in Miracles Misclassified

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

tooMuchData

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

Just to clarify, are you recommending that it no longer be an example of a "Christian" non-dual teaching because it's more New Age than Christian? - Owlmonkey (talk) 18:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I would recommend that, yes. ACIM isn't a Christian phenomena, either by any traditional definition, or in any academic nomenclature.

tooMuchData

08:29, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

P.S. when I sign comments with the four tildes it always says "tooMuchData" and then the system later signs for me. Anyone know what the heck is going on!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheResearchPersona (talk • contribs) 08:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Click on "my preferences" in the upper right, and then see if the "Signature:" field is filled in and the checkbox just below that checked. You may have something specified there and/or that Raw Signature box checked. Removing those if so.

As for A Course in Miracles, I'm neutral on the designation of christian or non-christian. If we move it to and create a New Age subsection, let's bring over a citation from its article that supports the designation, perhaps the new age encyclopedia cite? whatever you think best supports the different taxonomy. - Owlmonkey (talk) 19:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

A Course in Miracles is Not Christianity

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

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

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

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

Hello. First, how any person or party would classify the course is not the issue. That could be a personal issue or opinionated perspective. I'm pointing out what the documents themselves say. They directly point to each other as being incompatible and mutually exclusive. The Bible in Genesis chapter 1 has God creating several objects and beings, all of which are distinct from him, such as the planet, animals, and people. In chapter two of Genesis God is interacting with man, and communicating with man. And this continues, for instance with Moses communicating with with God, and a group of people seeing God on a mountain, in Exodus chapter 24. A Course in Miracles says for instance, on page 279: "The first in time means nothing, but the First in eternity is God the Father, Who is both First and One. Beyond the First there is no other, for there is no order, no second or third, and nothing but the First." This directly points to a cosmology that says there is nothing but God - no people or world to have created, no men to interact with, or to make companions for. This is in direct opposition to the cosmology of the Bible. Second and in regards to your question, and as the above references demonstrate, though it expounds a cosmology that is definitely not Christian and is in direct opposition to the cosmology of Christianity, the course does use Christian terminology or language. For instance it uses the word "God," rather than using only something like 'Absolute Oneness.' Kenneth Wapnick discusses the course's Christian terminology as the first question of his outreach program.Obe19900 (talk) 05:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree it's not any one person's classification - yours or mine - that matters, but neutral third party classifications that ultimately decide if there are any. And I tend to agree with you that ACIM is not canonically Christian, though our own conclusions based on doctrine are simply original research. The Wapnick transcript you link however is just laden with Christian terminology and symbolism, as is the course. So to say it is not Christian in spite of the wholesale appropriation of Christian terms and symbolism is questionable because it requires a finer distinction of view than basic taxonomy based on the morphology. I get your doctrinal points, but it's not a simple dichotomy of what is and what is not Christian based on a checklist. ACIM has significantly more in common with Christianity than did Valentinianism, for example, even though that group's founder was counted among the Christian Gnostics. There's plenty of room to include non-orthodox views into a larger anthropologic taxonomy of religions. And I can easily see arguments relating to it's categorization. But let's consider non-orthodox Christianity instead of orthodox for a moment. Because ACIM is clearly not orthodox, but is it clearly also not among non-orthodox comparisons? Consider Christian Gnostic beliefs, it's harder for me to see ACIM as clearly not fitting. But maybe comparative religion scholars are now of that option? Have you found third party citations to that effect? I haven't looked deeply yet. - Owlmonkey (talk) 23:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the content generally, but now we also have the problem of undue weight. ACIM is now by far the largest entry here, more so than Buddhism. Previously we had weighted ACIM to be a single line under Christianity, which is where it still resides. I still believe it deserves about one line, compared to the other traditions described here. How large do you think it should be here (as opposed to its own articles)? We also have similar problems in the list of contemporary teachers, where some have great significance to this concept and some a passing significance and should be removed, in my opinion. - Owlmonkey (talk) 19:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Francis Lucille

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

• The book is found in 24 libraries world wide.

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

Marvelly, P. (2002). The teachers of one: Living advaita, conversations on the nature of non-duality. London: Watkins Pub The teachers of one : living advaita, conversations on the nature of non-duality Books published by this publisher: • Philosophy & Reli... • Psychology • Medicine • Language, Linguis... • Physical Sciences • Sociology • Anthropology • Art & Architecture • History & Auxilia.. • Library Science, .. • Physical Educatio.. I have tons of other references. but I guess this will suffice.

• PS:Brief history:

Recently the Main Article on the Subject was recently deleted mainly because the contributor to the article was new to wiki and could not support the claim (Mainly due to lack of Time and also because did not pickup up the the techical jargon yet) for separate article.Does that imply that we cannot use the name anywhere? if any one has objections give your reasons below. Amarhindustani (talk) 03:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

My thought, as nothing more than a fellow editor, is that this article should not have red links. My suggestion is that you rewrite the article on Lucille in your user space, providing enough referenced material to pass WP:BIO and then link it here. Take care.TheRingess (talk) 19:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Adi da and possible inaccuracies in list of teachers and what to do about it

I don't think that the teachings of Adi Da qualify as nondualist. He was the founder of a Bhakti-oriented new religious movement centred around his claims of avatarhood. His guru (with whom he later broke) was Swami Muktananda, who was not a nondualist but an adherent of yoga (which came out of the dualistic Samkhya school) and tantra (concerned with the Kundalini, a dualistic concept). Adi Da is no more a nondualist than any other spiritual teacher influenced by Hindu philosophy; his development of what he called "Adidam" (basically, his own religion) took him yet further away from nondualism. Unless someone would like to defend keeping Adi Da's name on the page, I will delete it. Rabble Rouser (talk) 06:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually I think the whole list needs to be revisited. There's absolutely no stated criteria for the names in the list. Anyone can add their favorite teacher. In the case of Adi Da, someone else obviously felt that his teachings were sufficiently nondualistic that his name warranted inclusion. Given that there is no agreed upon criteria, then his name should be left in. Either that, or we remove all names that we cannot find sources for that classify them as nondualistic. I think that's a better solution, right now we are running the risk of giving false information. BTW, the irony of classifying teachers as dualistic or non-dualistic does not escape me. I guess there are really two types of people in this world, those who classify things and those who don't.TheRingess (talk) 08:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Many of the names that are unreferenced clearly do belong on the list, however, so we shouldn't delete any of them too quickly. I am going to try and find sources for some of the names so that I can cite them. Rabble Rouser (talk) 06:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Who certifies teachers of non-duality? Are there peer reviewed journals that help clarify who teaches non-duality vs who teaches duality? Is it okay to let anyone on the list who calls themselves a teacher of non-duality? Why do we have a list of only notable teachers, why not include the non notable teachers as well (wouldn't that be non-dualistic)? The list is dangerously close to being non-neutral, in that there is no stated criteria for notability. Probably at this point, it's better to delete the whole list, and start over, get rid of the word notable and only add those names who have been identified by 3rd party sources as being teachers of non-duality. WP:NPOV and WP:RS are not just good ideas, they are the pillars of Wikipedia.TheRingess (talk) 06:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I suppose that would be the best thing to do. Do you think the list should remain on this page, or should we create a separate article called List of Nondualists or something along those lines? Also notice that, in addition to teachers of nondualism, but also anyone who indicated that they had a nondual perspective. Rabble Rouser (talk) 16:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I support the removal of the list. Not just because it was an ongoing headache and spam magnet, but for the view well articulated here that it is too hard to determine accurately. If a notable individual held a nondual viewpoint, then that viewpoint can still be expressed and cited on the article for that person — instead of here. The benefit of having a short list of examples here on this article in my opinion is outweighed by the difficulties of trying to maintain such a list. - Owlmonkey (talk) 20:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

There are rules, there are no-rules but there are some rules

I have added an external site which is a weblog commentary on a weblog. It brings a salient discussion to the fore. In this time of Systems Theology (my choice of term for the global theological discourse that is now taking place) who is to define Nondualism? *"Neo-Advaita or Pseudo-Advaita and Real Advaita-Nonduality by Timothy Conway" a commentary by Ravi dated Wednesday 09/7/2008 B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:16, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

new intro

This intro was better than the current one. The detailed etymology should be moved to a section entitled 'etymology'. — goethean ॐ 19:15, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

whole article is complex

Just wanted to point out that the wording in this article should be simplified. I don't know what the wiki shorthand for this needs simplification is. I didn't know what nondualism was when I hit this page, I'm still not entirely clear. I know I've only skim read the article but the only useful bit I picked up was that it might be related to Zen, and that nondualists (if I got this right) believe there is no line dividing two seperate phenomena. EdwardLane (talk) 13:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

criticism of nonduality

where is the criticism of the epistemological foundations of nondualist thought? 98.220.233.144 (talk) -Preceding undated comment added 15:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC).

Just as unlikely to be forthcoming as a criticism on e.g. monism. Hpvpp (talk) 02:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Clearly this is an idea that needs the US to be considered relevant and a website like Wikipedia to write about it, all the while important topics are removed because they're not considered notable.

Current intro does not define the term adequately

First sentence of intro begins to explain concept, but the remaining intro sentences seem like they belong later in the article. What seems to be missing is a succinct, general definition that explains the concept to the layman. Scurzuzu (talk) 13:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

A Course In Miracles wrongly accused of not being nondualistic

The last section of text regarding A Course In Miracles relies on the following statement: "If a philosophy sharply divides reality into two separate sections ... then the philosophy actually teaches a stark and absolute dualism".

This is true. But, A Course In Miracles doesn't divide reality at all. It simply states that the only thing real is God. That which we call reality is only an illusion, or dream, of dualism. The text should be removed in my opinion.

Kireslin (talk) 13:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done — goethean ॐ 14:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Yoga is inherently nodualistic

Of course, any philosophy or religion with millions of adherents is going to have some variation in what those adherents espouse their religion to mean; however, this compels us to turn to the venerated masters who have defined the subject in question. In this case, we can turn to Patañjali, author of the Yoga Sutras. For an English, Western understanding of this text, I turn to "How to know God: the Yoga aphorisms of Patañjali" By Swami Prabhavananda, Patañjali, Christopher Isherwood. 1953, 1981 The Vedanta Society of Southern California. Firstly the term "Yoga" as explained on pg 15 means "union"; that is to say: "union with God." This is an admittedly dualistic statement. However, the authors realize that their audience is coming from a dualistic understanding of the universe and are learning how to realize this union, thus dissolving the illusion of dualism. The nondualistic goal of the teaching and practice of yoga is explained on page 22: "3. Then man abides in his real nature. ...He knows that he is the Atman...His mistaken belief in himself as a separate, unique individual disappears." http://books.google.com/books?id=90XTo7FtoeUC&printsec=frontcover&dq=yoga+aphorisms+of+patanjali&hl=en&ei=tECJTJ_rNoj0swPhku2eCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CE0Q6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=yoga%20aphorisms%20of%20patanjali&f=false Yendorcire (talk) 20:58, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Merge to Monism?

I find the distinction from Monism to slight to see William M. Connolley (talk) 19:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree. There is no distinction at all between nondualism and monism. The eastern religious traditions are using this word while the west has always called it monism. I'll note the monism page receives around 1000 hits a day while the nondualism page receives 400. Putting it all together would strengthen the article and provide more information. Otherwise, content from each articles ought to be on both pages because it's the same belief with a different name. NaturaNaturans (talk) 08:04, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Disagree. "Nondualism" is also a modern New religious movement, though I agree there are a lot of similarities. It might be good to keep a separate article which is more serious about monism. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:22, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

At second thought, I've also been thinking about splitting "Nondualism" into "Nondualism (religion)" and "Nondualism (modern spirituality)". "Nondualism (religion)" would be more or less the same as "Monism", wouldn't it? Would be quite some work, going through the Monism-article, cleaning up where necessary. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:46, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Monism is generally used to describe a philosophical and/or religious (or spiritual) position. So to the extent that this article about nondualism is talking about a philosophy and/or religious POSITION, then it is just another way of saying monism. But if it's Nondualism with a capital "N" and can be established by notable sources as a religion itself or as a specific notable movement as you suggest, that would deserve its own separate page. But that needs to be made clear and needs to be well sourced. The content on this page I see now appears to be describing a philosophy and/or religious/spiritual position. I think it would benefit readers to know that nondualism as a description is better known as monism in both popular language and by academia and the content can all be one page with the most popular descriptor. I don't believe there is any difference at all in meaning between the two words except that for some reason groups focused on eastern traditions seem to be using the phrase nondualism rather than monism. NaturaNaturans (talk) 09:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

It's precisely that last point which deserves separate mention. Did you take a look at the external links? "Nondualism" has gained quite some popularity. There are even publishers who have specialised on the topic. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:19, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, "mention" of course.. right at the top of the monism article we can explain that monism is called nondualism by certain eastern traditions. Nondualism can redirect to that page or be a page about a notable movement with disambiguation at the top. If we're talking about an idea that is exactly the same, with two words, the more popular descriptor term should be the page. NaturaNaturans (talk) 17:50, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Before doing that, the section on pantheism/panentheism should be expanded, I think. I get the impression that "Nondualism (modern spirituality)" is some sort of panentheism. If the Monism-article contains short definitions/overviews of the various sorts of pantheism, then "Nondualism (ms)" fits in in a logical way, doesn't it? Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:43, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Pantheism/panentheism are about God/divinity, whereas non-dualism/monism are more general descriptors. They often imply divinity, but divinity is not completely necessary for the view of non-dualism/monism. As for it being closer to pantheism or panentheism - that all depends and scholars debate about these things. Panentheism's main disagreement with pantheism is the idea that God/divinity are limited to what we call 'everything'. They say that God/divinity transcends everything. NaturaNaturans (talk) 01:09, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

After doing some further research, it's clear to me that non-dualism and monism are actually distinct concepts, contrary to what I mentioned before. The distinction is very minor but nevertheless they have two separate meanings. The distinction ought to be explained at the outset because these two words come up together all the time. I will start a new talk section on how to approach this. NaturaNaturans (talk) 08:01, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Great! looking forward to it. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:11, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Someone add Eckhart Tolle to contemporary

? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.191.144.164 (talk) 13:26, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Article tags confusing and unclear?

Tags on this article state the the article is confusing and unclear. The concept of nonduality is inherently confusing and unclear. That is the nature of it to begin with. Another tag states that it is also very technical and should be edited to make the article understandable to non-experts. Because of the nature of nonduality, I don't even believe that is possible. Anyone? --JS747 (talk) 17:13, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

First time contributor here. Please excuse anything needing excusing. Below is an attempt to provide a simple explanation of non-duality. I hope it is useful...

Non-duality is a perspective. It is held by the individual. Therefore, what comes next is necessarily an individual’s attempt to communicate an individual’s perspective. Needless to say your mileage may vary. Nevertheless, there are enough examples and evidence from other individuals for one to conclude it is a perspective attainable by others and is more or less the same.

It is a perspective that negates the compulsion or need to pursue questions of a spiritual nature. It might be described as a fundamental separation of ‘ego’ from ‘I’ (this is where the ‘non-dual’ bit originates) followed by an inevitable realization of the true nature of ‘I’. It might further be described as the internalization that any of life’s ‘meaning’ and/or the things that ‘matter’ are choices, and that the ‘chooser’ is ultimately unknowable.

Trying to understand non-duality without its perspective presents its primary challenge. Because it is a perspective it is achieved individualistically. So far it is not ‘teachable’ in any predictably effective way. And like other perspectives either you get it or you don’t and if you don’t, it’s simply not knowable in that moment. As with the color blue, it’s impossible to describe unless you’ve experienced it. But it is nevertheless undeniably real to those that have. Naturally, this phenomenon of ‘individually achieved perspective’ with it’s lack of third part verification leads to endless misinformation, many false positives and critics.

Also see:

• Walt Whitman
• Jed McKenna
• Zen

Infnt.snglrty (talk) 21:03, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Another first time contributor here.

I think that the tags "Confusing" and "Technical" at the start of the article should be removed because the article does as much as is possible to describe what is actually impossible to describe. There is nothing "individual" about nonduality, and it is not a perspective achieved by any individual.

The realization of the nondual nature of reality is the realization that there are no individuals. It is the realization that consciousness does not exist in the universe, but rather that the universe exists in consciousness/God. This is not something which can be explained, because it seems impossible to the logical mind, this is something which has to be "realized" in spite of the logical mind. It is the realization that consciousness itself is just a word used to conceptualize that in which concepts arise.

All things considered, the article does a very good job indeed of trying to describe nondualism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AllAlive (talk • contribs) 23:01, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Another would be editor here...

In a NPOV perspective, A person must be aware or made aware through being taught what the facets of nondualism are. Without understanding the flaws of the gross senses. (1) The inability for mankind to understand that use of just one of the senses is flawed. (2) That multiplicity exists in that nothing is completely wet or dry, light or dark with respect to any descriptor due to the limits of reality. Water evaporates, there are always light photons of some kind unless you are in deep space. (3) The complex interconnectedness which is described in the article.

Oversimplification would only lead to a misunderstanding of the critical nature of understanding the article. To do it would undermine the purpose of informing the reader of a concept which is of a complex nature and is something that must also be felt. "Don't think... Feeeel" -Bruce Lee. Such complex experiences such as feeling Non-Duality conflict with the mind-only western paradigm of thought. Therefore, until people are ready for that it would be reasonable to leave that information out and keep the page as is until Man in general if ever ready for it. 71.209.118.123 (talk) 13:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Long time editor here. This is an encyclopedia. Part of the art of good writing for the general public is making the content accessible. I believe this can be done without the kind of oversimplification that would lead to inaccuracy. Any popular book by Steven Hawking is a good example of such artful writing. I agree that there are some things in the article that are "too technical" or that burrow way to far into the details. I've deleted the highly technical Daniélou quotation as well as the sentence bringing deconstruction and problematization into a very brief discussion of nondualism vs. monism. Feel free to clean up the section or add something that in a less narrow way than what was there clarifies the distinction. Some of the material on this talk page, if properly sourced, would be better than the Daniélou quotation. -DoctorW 19:19, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Sex-androgyny

I've moved the "Sex-androgyny"-section to a new page Sex-androgyny in mythology, to clean-up the Nondualism-page. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:19, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Defining Non-dualism and distinguishing monism

• The Encyclopedia of religion, Volume 10 by Mircea Eliade, Charles J. Adams, Macmillan, 1987, p. 72 says that nondualism and monism are exactly the same
• However several sources insist on differences:

• Allan W. Anderson Self-Transformation and the Oracular: A Practical Handbook for Consulting the I Ching and Tarot, p xvi says: "Non-dualism is not monism. Unlike monism, non-dualism does not reduce everything to a conceptual unity. It simply confesses that ultimate reality is non-dual, beyond thought and speech, and this apprehension is arrived at through a supra-relational intuition. Not two does not imply "therefore, one." Not-two is meant to silence the chattering mind. Only when the mind has been silenced is the revelation of non-duality discovered."

• Philosophy of Sikhism: Reality and Its Manifestations By Nirbhai Singh, p 2 says "..monism is a positive way of affirming oneness of Being and non-dualism is a negative way of affirming the impersonal unity of Reality."

I think the article ought to begin with these distinctions and explain that non-dualism and monism are closely related, some say identical and some make these distinctions. This will be helpful to the article methinks. NaturaNaturans (talk) 08:17, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

One more note. I think nondualism as "a form of monism" should be removed and "a term and concept primarily linked to the Advaita Vedanta-tradition" should be re-examined. Is there a source for that? NaturaNaturans (talk) 08:21, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• Renard ("Non-dualiteit") makes the same distinction between monism and nonduality. Though that's a primary source, I think it's a better source than Anderson, and maybe Singh. It also depends on what the authors exactly mean with "nonduality". I'll try to find more sources (Google-search, "Nonduality is not monism" etc).
• Therefor, I prefer to start with several definitions, to make clear (especially for the spirituality-adepts) that "nonduality" has several meanings, and is more than "nondual consciousness".

• Definitions which distinguish between monism and nonduality;
  • Would fit in perfectly in the introductory section,
  • Could also be part of the proceeding section,
  • Could be treated in each section on respectively Advaita Vedanta, "Nonduality of absolute and relative", and "Nondualism as nondual consciousness".

• As for "primary linked" etc., that's based on my Google-search for the term. But I'll try to find sources, or adapt the lead.
• Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:44, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I've added the Anderson-quote and another source to the "Nondual consciousness"-section. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:28, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Spinoza and Western Section

I read this ebook from 2007. I think it would be a good idea if something about Spinoza was added to the Western section.

http://www.spinbitz.net/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.28.57.1 (talk) 06:00, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

"Definition" in lead

• diff which canged

"Nondualism, also called non-duality, is a term and concept used to define various strands of religious and spiritual thought."

into

"Nondualism, also called non-duality is treating two major concepts as one."

with the following argument:

"topic has to have a definition. please improve if you are not happy"

• diff whic added

"Nondualism, also called non-duality is treating two major philosophical or religious concepts as one."

The lead summarizes the article. The article makes very clear that the term "nondualism" is used for several strands of thought, and gives three definitions, which are different from each other: advaita, advaya, and non-dual consciousness. Your "definition" is not in the article, nor is it sourced. It's nonsense - literally. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:10, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Are you saying this article is about the word nondualism and not about a specific topic? From WP:NOTDIC- Encyclopedia articles should begin with a good definition and description of one topic Bhny (talk) 12:40, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

The term "nondualism" is being used for several related topics, as described by Loy. In daily usage, most persons are not aware of these slightly different meanings. The article, as it is now, is helpfull, since it makes clear these distinctions. The first section also describes these various definitions. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:17, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

An article only has one topic. What is the topic? Bhny (talk) 19:19, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh please. Read the article. The topic is nondualism - and this is being used for several, closely related, topics. Compare with spirituality or mysticism, or Enlightenment (spiritual), which have also acquired various meanings over time. This is about religion, not about maths. See also WP:NOTDIC: "Wikipedia articles should begin with a good definition, but they should provide other types of information about that topic as well." Definitions have been given other types of info also. See also, same page, "Good definitions": "Encyclopedia articles should begin with a good definition and description of one topic (or a few largely or completely synonymous or otherwise highly related topics)" (emphasis mine). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:54, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

The lead makes no sense to me. Can we work together to improve it? What makes Advaita Vedanta, New Age and rejection of Cartesian dualism highly related topics? It seems to be the denial of difference between two opposing views, BUT that is never stated in the lead. So can we state it somehow? As it is now, it seems like it should be split into three separate articles. Bhny (talk) 16:13, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

It's a hopeless topic anyway; I'm not surprised that it doesn't make sense to you. You should try a Google-search, and have a look at some of those sites. You'll go nuts ;) Advaita Vedanta and Adyava are related anyway; "New Age" is too broad; it's "nondual consciousness"; and the rejection of Cartesian dualism can alsoe be aclled "nondualism", may also be related, but not as related as Advaita and Adyva are. Maybe it makes more sense when you're reaaly into this stuff - or have been practicing meditation for a couple of years. Serious, try a Google-search, and let me know what your impressions are. Bets regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:20, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I understand your points, but the article still has to be encyclopedic and be about a specific top. I think the topic is nondualism the idea, not the word "nondualism", so that's why I was trying to find a common definition. Otherwise we have to make it clear that the article is about a word and that exact word has to be used in all the spiritual practices. If the article is actually about three topics then it should be split into three articles. I know this may sound mathematical to you, but otherwise the whole thing seems like a wp:synthesis or an essay (wp:not#essay). Bhny (talk) 06:06, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Unnecessary disambiguation

Is there a plan to create other "Nondualism (X)" articles? If so and it were decided that Nondualism (spirituality) is not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "Nondualism" then the redirect at Nondualism would need to be made into a dab page... So the rename seems a little hasty, maybe move it back until things get decided?—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 06:51, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Guess you're right. "Nondualism (spirituality)" is the primary topic. Several years ago a very enthusiastic editor collected all the meanings of the word "nondualism" into this article, while it is primarily about the spiritual aspect. I'll change it back. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:47, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Nondualism vs idealism

It's unclear to me how nondualism diverges from idealism. Tom Ruen (talk) 13:59, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Idealism holds that all things are mind-constructs; nondualism does not necessarily. While many Madhyamikas, for example, would identify emptiness as construing that the world is mind-built, others Madhyamikas would disagree, saying that this is only true on this non-absolute level: your mind builds a world, but that doesn't mean objects aren't real.

Also, idealism is a Western philosophical notion while nondualism is a large collection of non-identical Indian and Buddhist-Asian philosophical thoughts, and thus the distinction is also historical. Ogress _smash! 17:53, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

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)

Nondualism vs idealism

It's unclear to me how nondualism diverges from idealism. Tom Ruen (talk) 13:59, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Idealism holds that all things are mind-constructs; nondualism does not necessarily. While many Madhyamikas, for example, would identify emptiness as construing that the world is mind-built, others Madhyamikas would disagree, saying that this is only true on this non-absolute level: your mind builds a world, but that doesn't mean objects aren't real.

Also, idealism is a Western philosophical notion while nondualism is a large collection of non-identical Indian and Buddhist-Asian philosophical thoughts, and thus the distinction is also historical. Ogress _smash! 17:53, 25 November 2014 (UTC)