Monism and Nondualism

[dyanaprajna2011]

What is the difference between monism and nondualism? I never really got that there was much of a difference, but whenever I read some philosophical work, and these ideas are talked about, they're always spoken of as if they're two completely separate things.

 

[Madhuri]

Well, monism is complete Oneness. But non-dualism could refer to pantheism OR panentheism (which is neither monist or dualist, but somewhere in between).

That's all I can contribute..

 

[Willamena]

In Monism, things are thought together as one, in either substance or token. "The universe" is an example of objects that are "really one thing": no part can be said to be exempt of being the universe (although what gets to qualify as a "part" can sometimes create an exception, i.e. abstracts). The universe is the token "every-thing."

Non-dualism brings consciousness and object together, so that the observer "dwells in the whole as one," often described as unity; for example, the state achieved in meditation with realization of the whole (I forget the word, when subject and object are revealed as one). It sees beyond both dualism and non-dualism to a third perspective, one one where even that duality is one.

 

[Quintessence]

I think others have gotten it, though we might want to keep in mind that there are many types of "dualism" so it can refer to many things. Rejection of dualism (or non-dualism) would basically be the rejection of dividing whatever the thing of reference is into only two categories. Monism would be seeing things as belonging to a fundamental unity, but non-dualism could also include ideas like Empedocles' four roots (aka, the Four Elements).

 

[DreadFish]

To me, the basic difference is as simple as this: monism is one, non-dualism is not-two.

How can there be one without a second?

 

[purefat]

What is the difference between monism and nondualism? I never really got that there was much of a difference, but whenever I read some philosophical work, and these ideas are talked about, they're always spoken of as if they're two completely separate things.

If you feel reality is "one thing," this refers to monism. Take that one thing and imagine it evaporates or that it was never really there: that points to nondualism.

The first thing you'll notice is that monism is comfortable to the mind as it can somehow be grasped. It's nice to know there's "something there."

However, nondualism can be distressing because you can't wrap your mind around it.

If the monist says there's one thing and the nondualist says no thing, the two teachings would appear very different. You can see the fork in the road.

 

[K.Venugopal]

Monism is only a scientific discovery that says all existence is of one essence. Non-dualism is the art of living with a non-fragmented mind. Monism is a statement of objective fact - non-dualism is the subjective experience of that fact. Monism discovers the sugar - non-dualism tastes the sugar, becomes the sugar.

 

[K.Venugopal]

To me, the basic difference is as simple as this: monism is one, non-dualism is not-two.

How can there be one without a second?

'Not-two' does not translate to 'one'. One is as countable as two. Indeed, how can there be one without a second? Non-duality simply is.

 

[Quintessence]

Monism is only a scientific discovery that says all existence is of one essence. Non-dualism is the art of living with a non-fragmented mind. Monism is a statement of objective fact - non-dualism is the subjective experience of that fact. Monism discovers the sugar - non-dualism tastes the sugar, becomes the sugar.

Can you explain to us how monism is "scientific" and "objective?" Speaking as a career scientist, it has never struck me in this way. The way in which humans assign categories to the universe is a highly subjective process no matter if you're dividing the pie into one or many categories.

 

[K.Venugopal]

Can you explain to us how monism is "scientific" and "objective?" Speaking as a career scientist, it has never struck me in this way. The way in which humans assign categories to the universe is a highly subjective process no matter if you're dividing the pie into one or many categories.

Meaning monism is an objective conclusion about the nature of the external world and non-dualism is the art of handling the subjective self. Hence, I would say monism is a scientific conclusion about the outer world whereas non-dualism is a spiritual adventure of the inner world.

 

[Willamena]

Can you explain to us how monism is "scientific" and "objective?" Speaking as a career scientist, it has never struck me in this way. The way in which humans assign categories to the universe is a highly subjective process no matter if you're dividing the pie into one or many categories.

An example of monism as scientific and objective is an image of the world, everything in it, all composed of atoms of matter/energy.

Monism reduces everything to a common base. It doesn't nuch matter what the "base" is.

 

[Quintessence]

Not all science is reductionistic to the point of monism, though. Ecology in particular trends quite the opposite. That may be why I was confused.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

In Monism, things are thought together as one, in either substance or token. "The universe" is an example of objects that are "really one thing": no part can be said to be exempt of being the universe (although what gets to qualify as a "part" can sometimes create an exception, i.e. abstracts). The universe is the token "every-thing."

Non-dualism brings consciousness and object together, so that the observer "dwells in the whole as one," often described as unity; for example, the state achieved in meditation with realization of the whole (I forget the word, when subject and object are revealed as one). It sees beyond both dualism and non-dualism to a third perspective, one one where even that duality is one.

I'm not sure I understand. Aren't monism and nondualism, in this case essentially saying the same thing?

 

[Willamena]

I'm not sure I understand. Aren't monism and nondualism, in this case essentially saying the same thing?

Monism is when you're looking at a cookie, and you're not looking at crumbs. You're not looking at butter, flour, salt, and sugar, or at the act of mixing, a mould (cutter), or the heat of an oven that was used to make it. Monism is us when we're just looking at a cookie, and that's all we see, is a cookie. And we say, "Oh, look. It's a cookie!" It has parts--if we switch mental modes then we know it has parts, and it has process by which it was made. But in seeing only a cookie, in the monist perspective, we are genuinely not looking at the rest. We see The One and we consider it to be the truth.

That's how a human is made, by the way. This guy in our heads that we treat like a "being," that we believe is real and aware to the extent that we give it rights, that we elevate so high as to build whole cities, countries and civilizations around, and that we give to "live on" after our body has expired. It's a token man, made of neurons, memories, and circumstances. In our monism, we consider it the truth.

If you get a chance to read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, a motorcycle works because it's put together well. But it's not just its physical parts, it's also the manufacturing, the maintenance, and a whole lot of skill that goes into keeping it working. Those are parts too. All its parts and processes are needed for the whole to exist. But the motorcycle is also the billion year old plants that died to put fuel in the engine and the metals that were formed along with the creation of the Sun and the Earth. In this sense the whole world is parts of the motorcycle. The circumstance that has resulted in this moment in time, in this place, on this planet, in this universe created a motorcycle. It created you too.

Where monism is a perspective on the world, non-dualism does away with perspective. Opposites are an arbitrary divide. An opposite would be that there is a cookie and there are non-cookies (cakes, pastries). There is black, and there is non-black. There is truth, and there is non-truth. There is, and there is not. Dualism. I have in mind Alan Watts' example of a window outside of which is a tree. Through the faculty of a window we separate ourselves from what we see "outside" the window, and we subsequently consider ourselves to be an "inside." i.e. a mind. Non-dualism dumps the unnecessary part of that picture, which is the window.

IMO, it was added by us, by language to be precise. It's an illusion of thought/speech. We are all passively taught the think in terms of the window from the moment we learn our first words, and it is passed down through generations in language and culture. We are taught that there is a subject "I" that acts and interacts (verbs) with objects (nouns) that are non-"I." Doing away with that window doesn't make you a tree, but it does put things in a whole new perspective.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Monism is when you're looking at a cookie, and you're not looking at crumbs. You're not looking at butter, flour, salt, and sugar, or at the act of mixing, a mould (cutter), or the heat of an oven that was used to make it. Monism is us when we're just looking at a cookie, and that's all we see, is a cookie. And we say, "Oh, look. It's a cookie!" It has parts--if we switch mental modes then we know it has parts, and it has process by which it was made. But in seeing only a cookie, in the monist perspective, we are genuinely not looking at the rest. We see The One and we consider it to be the truth.

That's how a human is made, by the way. This guy in our heads that we treat like a "being," that we believe is real and aware to the extent that we give it rights, that we elevate so high as to build whole cities, countries and civilizations around, and that we give to "live on" after our body has expired. It's a token man, made of neurons, memories, and circumstances. In our monism, we consider it the truth.

If you get a chance to read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, a motorcycle works because it's put together well. But it's not just its physical parts, it's also the manufacturing, the maintenance, and a whole lot of skill that goes into keeping it working. Those are parts too. All its parts and processes are needed for the whole to exist. But the motorcycle is also the billion year old plants that died to put fuel in the engine and the metals that were formed along with the creation of the Sun and the Earth. In this sense the whole world is parts of the motorcycle. The circumstance that has resulted in this moment in time, in this place, on this planet, in this universe created a motorcycle. It created you too.

Where monism is a perspective on the world, non-dualism does away with perspective. Opposites are an arbitrary divide. An opposite would be that there is a cookie and there are non-cookies (cakes, pastries). There is black, and there is non-black. There is truth, and there is non-truth. There is, and there is not. Dualism. I have in mind Alan Watts' example of a window outside of which is a tree. Through the faculty of a window we separate ourselves from what we see "outside" the window, and we subsequently consider ourselves to be an "inside." i.e. a mind. Non-dualism dumps the unnecessary part of that picture, which is the window.

IMO, it was added by us, by language to be precise. It's an illusion of thought/speech. We are all passively taught the think in terms of the window from the moment we learn our first words, and it is passed down through generations in language and culture. We are taught that there is a subject "I" that acts and interacts (verbs) with objects (nouns) that are non-"I." Doing away with that window doesn't make you a tree, but it does put things in a whole new perspective.

To be honest I'm still confused,

So the monist understands that a 'motorcycle' is the entirety of all its parts and processes and maintenance, including the fossil fuels and everything? So what does the nondualist say about the motorcycle?

So the nondualist says there is no difference between the tree outside and ourselves inside? Or perhaps, even, that neither of those things exist? What does the monist say about the tree and the self?

 

[Willamena]

To be honest I'm still confused,

So the monist understands that a 'motorcycle' is the entirety of all its parts and processes and maintenance, including the fossil fuels and everything? So what does the nondualist say about the motorcycle?

So the nondualist says there is no difference between the tree outside and ourselves inside? Or perhaps, even, that neither of those things exist? What does the monist say about the tree and the self?

There are authors who explain these things much better than I ever could. Maybe start here...

The Heart of Understanding: Commentaries... book by Thich Nhat Hanh

 

[wellwisher]

To me, the basic difference is as simple as this: monism is one, non-dualism is not-two.

How can there be one without a second?

I think therefore I am. This describe how thinking allows consciousness to isolate part of the whole, relative to itself. This is still part of the one, but a magnified part of the one; non dualism.

In science, deep diving into a very specific aspect of realty often leads to Specialization. Specialty thinking causes one to see unified creation from a unique magnified center of focus. This is useful, but it can cause one to lose track of the forest because of the trees; dualism due to the wrong unity projection from any specialty center.

As an example, say you were in a deep forest and your job is to investigate the trees in one small area. All your focus is now on that one part of the forest. From these nearby trees, you are then asked to explain the unity of the forest. You have good data connected to these few oak trees, so you say this is oak forest. This conclusion will integrate the forest, with your speciality conclusions, but it may not be correct for the whole forest since the forest has thousand of trees in all directions; dualism due to the wrong global conclusions.

The next day, we walk to the end of the forest and climb to higher ground, so we can see the entire forest all together. We cannot see the tiny details of yesterday, but we can see how the unity of forest is not just one type of tree. This is like the POV of the generalist; non dualism; unity of the larger picture and it larger bulk parts all seen together.

Specialization is a challenge for science, since each hand and finger does not always know what the other hands, feet, toes and fingers are doing. Each stays to too close and tries to make their unique speciality center apply to areas beyond their own sight; explain the full forest. This might explain the need for casino math.

The Generalist can see the unity of the forest, since they have a broader view that overlaps all the specialties. However, they lack the details of each specialty. However, they can walk into the forest and stop at any place and know how the forest will integrate, in advance; non dualism.

Say the person on the hill who see the entire forest was to meet the other person in the trenches, who knows specific local trees very well. How can the non dualist help the dualist overcome being divided by his near sightedness? Since the specialists needs to stay put in his area of the forest, he will need to go vertical up a tree to get above all the trees; z-axis and 3-D thinking. Now he can be seen from the hill.

 

[Willamena]

There are authors who explain these things much better than I ever could. Maybe start here...

The Heart of Understanding: Commentaries... book by Thich Nhat Hanh

Or... watch Free Guy, 58 minutes in.