Talk:Nondualism

message: ... it has a dismissive tone to it. 2600:8801:BE01:2500:F45B:FCC9:DC39:5DCF (talk) 15:25, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Fuzzy concept captures it quite well. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:03, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

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

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

message: The old lead is full of problems, the primary one being its non-accessibility to the average reader, overuse of technical jargon, and trying to define a concept differently defined by different traditions, calling it "fuzzy". I propose to replace it with:
This is a much more accessible lead, easier to understand for the average reader, distinguishes and nondualism from monism, which the current article fails to do. Skyerise (talk) 00:16, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: MOS:LEADLENGTH says three to four paragraphs and doesn't say robust (at least i didn't see that). Issue we have on this article over the past month (since when i got involved at least) is an attempt to support different POVs in the LEAD (presently the 'nondualism is an asian thing') is given way excessive weight. Your proposed change alleviates that. I think if we err on the side of a trimmed own lead, say three to four short paragraphs (for now), it will force us to be concise and summarize rather than debating different concepts in the lead. Then over time as the article stabilizes, we can always increase the summarization in the lead. To be clear, I still support your proposal (as it deals with the Asian weight concepts which are important), I am just giving some color here to my comments. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:57, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The first paragraph may be a little wordy, but the rest seems essential, and the last paragraph perhaps not inclusive enough of all the systems, but that can be fixed once we figure out how to handle qualified nondualism/nondual monism... Skyerise (talk) 21:42, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

text: Is there any way you can try to merge in as much as you can from what the three editors (myself included) already agreed to for the lead at Talk:Nondualism#First%20and%20second%20sentence above? Thanks. Wolfdog (talk) 00:26, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: See, the problem is that the English term is not derived from the Eastern ones. Nor do all traditions of nondualism suggest "that the personal self is an illusion" - that's specific to Hindu branches of nondualism. Those lead sentences are trying too hard to make Advaita out to be primary or source form of nondualism. It isn't. The former lead is biased, regardless of how much time was spent to hash it out. Skyerise (talk) 00:49, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Talking about "nonaccessibility," that's a good description of your proposal. If you think the English term is not derived from Asian terms, then you'll hace to explain where it does come from, according to which sources. And Buddhism also regards the personal self as ultimately non-existent. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 03:20, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: No, Dzogchen does not view the "personal self" that way. Nor does Buddhism in general. Buddhism views all phenomena, including the personal self, as "interdependently arisen", which is in no way the same as "non-existent".  While lower Svatantrika does use the illusion metaphor, that is considered a "lower" form of Madyamika. Prasangika does not use such a metaphor; its basis is that all appearances are emptiness, true; but emptiness isn't the same as  non-existence. In the doctrine of the two truths, all phenomena exist as interdependent appearances. That is, Madyamika addresses the nonduality of appearance and emptiness. Appearance and emptiness are inseparable, and this is applied to both external and internal appearances. The "personal self" or "ego" is just another interdependent arising of the union of appearance and emptiness that arises within the sense of "mind", no different than what arises from any of the other sense-factors. Correcting the false idea that emptiness = non-existence or that appearance = illusion is one of the first lessons when studying Madyamika in shedra. Madyamika is about having a clear view of the process of the arising of appearance. It does not deny the arising appearance as unreal. Skyerise (talk) 11:12, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

text: That's an interesting diff, Jtbob. I don't want to keep reinventing the wheel though, Skye, and am wondering if you can incorporate any of the above agreed-upon language into your new rewrite. Jtbob, do you entirely prefer Skye's over my earlier rewrite option? Remember, that we may get opposed at any time on either version, so we want to be a pretty unified front, if possible. Wolfdog (talk) 19:48, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Wolfdog, yes I prefer Skyerise's re-write. I think the lead should be much more accessible and I agree with Skyrise's statement "There is no real reason to get into etymologies in the lead at all". I think this would greatly simplify the lead and let us focus on the article. It seems for now that there is a persistent argument about the lead, and if we use a more simplified approach, that can allow editors to focus on the main body of the article. Ultimately we would normally be summarizing in the lead and just discussing what is due in the lead. Right now we seem to be discussing the overall scope of the article. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:04, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: You should consider putting a 'yes' !vote in the vote section, as your reasoning seems solid. So far there is no formal opposition, though I suspect it's just a matter of time... it will be interest to see the eventual outcome. If the new lead is accepted, we can then discuss whether it needs any modification if someone chooses to take it in that direction... Skyerise (talk) 22:53, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I do plan to vote, sometimes just like to comment a bit first as my position sometimes changes. I'll vote now. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:34, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

text: 👍Wolfdog (talk) 21:38, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  You now have sufficient backing that you can make your lead changes. I won't revert, though I may edit here and there. Thanks. Wolfdog (talk) 11:24, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, I think I am supposed to wait until the RfC ends. That will be Sept 30 unless someone who didn't !vote ends it by removing the RfC tag. Skyerise (talk) 12:40, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm a bit behind the times on RFC policy. How does that date get determined? Thanks. Wolfdog (talk) 18:09, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: A bot automatically removes the tag after 30 days; if an editor thinks it needs more discussion, they put the tag back, otherwise it is considered ended. Of course, it can be closed at any time by someone not involved. Since I opened it I can't arbitrarily close it. I think editor who has not !voted can though, or a neutral closer can be requested at Wikipedia:Closure requests. I've got a crew of fans just waiting to report me to WP:ANI for not following process, so I'm happy to wait another three weeks if necessary. Skyerise (talk) 18:21, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC: Proposed new lead 

message: *Yes - Use the draft paragraphs as the new lede.    Robert McClenon (talk) 04:23, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: MOS:LEADLENGTH says three to four paragraphs and doesn't say robust (at least i didn't see that). Issue we have on this article over the past month (since when i got involved at least) is an attempt to support different POVs in the LEAD (presently the 'nondualism is an asian thing') is given way excessive weight. Your proposed change alleviates that. I think if we err on the side of a trimmed own lead, say three to four short paragraphs (for now), it will force us to be concise and summarize rather than debating different concepts in the lead. Then over time as the article stabilizes, we can always increase the summarization in the lead. To be clear, I still support your proposal (as it deals with the Asian weight concepts which are important), I am just giving some color here to my comments. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:57, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The first paragraph may be a little wordy, but the rest seems essential, and the last paragraph perhaps not inclusive enough of all the systems, but that can be fixed once we figure out how to handle qualified nondualism/nondual monism... Skyerise (talk) 21:42, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Responses (!votes)

message: :Is there any way you can try to merge in as much as you can from what the three editors (myself included) already agreed to for the lead at Talk:Nondualism#First%20and%20second%20sentence above? Thanks. Wolfdog (talk) 00:26, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: See, the problem is that the English term is not derived from the Eastern ones. Nor do all traditions of nondualism suggest "that the personal self is an illusion" - that's specific to Hindu branches of nondualism. Those lead sentences are trying too hard to make Advaita out to be primary or source form of nondualism. It isn't. The former lead is biased, regardless of how much time was spent to hash it out. Skyerise (talk) 00:49, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Talking about "nonaccessibility," that's a good description of your proposal. If you think the English term is not derived from Asian terms, then you'll hace to explain where it does come from, according to which sources. And Buddhism also regards the personal self as ultimately non-existent. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 03:20, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: No, Dzogchen does not view the "personal self" that way. Nor does Buddhism in general. Buddhism views all phenomena, including the personal self, as "interdependently arisen", which is in no way the same as "non-existent".  While lower Svatantrika does use the illusion metaphor, that is considered a "lower" form of Madyamika. Prasangika does not use such a metaphor; its basis is that all appearances are emptiness, true; but emptiness isn't the same as  non-existence. In the doctrine of the two truths, all phenomena exist as interdependent appearances. That is, Madyamika addresses the nonduality of appearance and emptiness. Appearance and emptiness are inseparable, and this is applied to both external and internal appearances. The "personal self" or "ego" is just another interdependent arising of the union of appearance and emptiness that arises within the sense of "mind", no different than what arises from any of the other sense-factors. Correcting the false idea that emptiness = non-existence or that appearance = illusion is one of the first lessons when studying Madyamika in shedra. Madyamika is about having a clear view of the process of the arising of appearance. It does not deny the arising appearance as unreal. Skyerise (talk) 11:12, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

text: That's an interesting diff, Jtbob. I don't want to keep reinventing the wheel though, Skye, and am wondering if you can incorporate any of the above agreed-upon language into your new rewrite. Jtbob, do you entirely prefer Skye's over my earlier rewrite option? Remember, that we may get opposed at any time on either version, so we want to be a pretty unified front, if possible. Wolfdog (talk) 19:48, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Wolfdog, yes I prefer Skyerise's re-write. I think the lead should be much more accessible and I agree with Skyrise's statement "There is no real reason to get into etymologies in the lead at all". I think this would greatly simplify the lead and let us focus on the article. It seems for now that there is a persistent argument about the lead, and if we use a more simplified approach, that can allow editors to focus on the main body of the article. Ultimately we would normally be summarizing in the lead and just discussing what is due in the lead. Right now we seem to be discussing the overall scope of the article. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:04, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: You should consider putting a 'yes' !vote in the vote section, as your reasoning seems solid. So far there is no formal opposition, though I suspect it's just a matter of time... it will be interest to see the eventual outcome. If the new lead is accepted, we can then discuss whether it needs any modification if someone chooses to take it in that direction... Skyerise (talk) 22:53, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I do plan to vote, sometimes just like to comment a bit first as my position sometimes changes. I'll vote now. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:34, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

text: 👍Wolfdog (talk) 21:38, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  You now have sufficient backing that you can make your lead changes. I won't revert, though I may edit here and there. Thanks. Wolfdog (talk) 11:24, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, I think I am supposed to wait until the RfC ends. That will be Sept 30 unless someone who didn't !vote ends it by removing the RfC tag. Skyerise (talk) 12:40, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm a bit behind the times on RFC policy. How does that date get determined? Thanks. Wolfdog (talk) 18:09, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: A bot automatically removes the tag after 30 days; if an editor thinks it needs more discussion, they put the tag back, otherwise it is considered ended. Of course, it can be closed at any time by someone not involved. Since I opened it I can't arbitrarily close it. I think editor who has not !voted can though, or a neutral closer can be requested at Wikipedia:Closure requests. I've got a crew of fans just waiting to report me to WP:ANI for not following process, so I'm happy to wait another three weeks if necessary. Skyerise (talk) 18:21, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC: Discussion

message: Hi, I had a read of Christian contemplation and mysticism sub-section, and it needs a substantial revamp because it is talking about mystical union with God through love and neti neti. Non-dualism does not espouse to unite somebody with something because it does not consider anything separate at all in the first place. The goal is to realize this supposed fact.  
I am lost and confused myself, perhaps, merge this whole non-dualism page with mysticism. Whatupis (talk) 07:50, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Sykrise, will you be able to explain how mysticism is different from nondualism in the lead. Sorry, my brain is a mess right now with all these seemingly similar philosophies. Whatupis (talk) 07:52, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

text: No it is not ok to merge this with mysticism. I agree with your statement "Non-dualism does not espouse to unite somebody with something because it does not consider anything separate at all in the first place." I suggest to just delete it from the article. This article does need a lot of cleanup. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:08, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, yes, there is some confusion of traditions that have some element of nondualism but are not overall nondualistic. For example, the nondual element of The Cloud of Unknowing is the practice of unknowing in meditation, not the goal of union with God, which indeed is mysticism. Basically, some Christian mysticism. such as that of Meister Eckhart and The Cloud of Unknowing - use nondual views or methods; it is not the seeking union with God that makes them nondual. This simply needs to be explained more clearly. Skyerise (talk) 10:40, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, that clears a lot. Whatupis (talk) 11:48, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mysticism infiltration