What does nonduality actually imply?

[quant-um]

Hello!

First time poster, long time metaphysical journeyer, and exploring the depths of nonduality/ontology/realism.

I have a few questions regarding what we can actually know about nonduality.

As a preface, I currently see nondualism as a category of belief systems (monism, nihilism, etc) and nonduality as the concept itself of not-dual.

Does nonduality imply the absolute/ineffable is all their is? Aka...does it imply duality "this OR that" doesn't exist and there is only that which we cannot know or experience its true nature?

Or...does nonduality imply the absence of absoluteness...aka "this AND that" both exist? And does that also tag along with the "which we cannot know?"

Or even yet, does it imply neither and is still open for debate?

Lastly, even if we say nonduality exists or doesn't exist...or it is this OR that...however we add qualia to it, does it now not become nondual, and therefore we can only know/experience/talk about duality, and we are 100% conflating nonduality by trying to theorize about it? If so, doesn't that make the entire subject really pointless...like it ends up looking at itself like...well we proved that we can't prove anything!

Sorry if these are noob questions to this forum...I don't know the level at which ye speak/theorize yet or if these have already been answered

Also, please give you a reason why you believe what you do regarding my questions and not just a "no, it is actually this way" if you do comment, thanks!

[ScottRoberts]

I have a few questions regarding what we can actually know about nonduality.

As a preface, I currently see nondualism as a category of belief systems (monism, nihilism, etc) and nonduality as the concept itself of not-dual.

Does nonduality imply the absolute/ineffable is all their is? Aka...does it imply duality "this OR that" doesn't exist and there is only that which we cannot know or experience its true nature?

Or...does nonduality imply the absence of absoluteness...aka "this AND that" both exist? And does that also tag along with the "which we cannot know?"

Or even yet, does it imply neither and is still open for debate?

Lastly, even if we say nonduality exists or doesn't exist...or it is this OR that...however we add qualia to it, does it now not become nondual, and therefore we can only know/experience/talk about duality, and we are 100% conflating nonduality by trying to theorize about it? If so, doesn't that make the entire subject really pointless...like it ends up looking at itself like...well we proved that we can't prove anything!

It seems that folks use the concept of non-duality in two general ways. One is that it applies to a fundamental state described as "undifferentiated", "unconditioned", and so on. From that state, somehow differentiation and so forth occurs, giving rise to duality. The other is that there is that undifferentiation and differentiation are not two, but one. Note that these are two different meanings of the word 'nondual', and so if one says "reality is nondual" one gets two distinct ontologies.

I am a partisan of the second meaning/ontology. I find the first ontology unsatisfactory, as it has no means of showing how and why the dual state arises from the nondual (in the first sense). If, instead, one starts with the second meaning: that the many is not other than the one, that the undifferentiated is not other than the differentiated, one can get somewhere. Also, one can discern that this nonduality of the one and the many can be discerned in our own conscious activity, which is to say it empirical, while the first is not. This, however, requires an extension to conventional (Aristotelian) logic, which I call "nondualist logic". For how to apply nondualist logic, if interested, see my essay Tetralemmic Polarity,

[quant-um]

Surely there is at least one other way nonduality is seen, since I currently see it this way: non-absolutism (which is different than undifferentiated). Non-absolutism essentially states there is no "or" when it comes to ontology, just "and". The undifferentiated which I'm sure you know then refers still to the "or" because it highlights our seemingly un-ending microcosmic origins going past the quantum and into what we consider "the unknown". Therefore, it is still up for debate in my view. I'll explain further why I believe this in the next paragraph.

Taken with a bit more pragmatic approach, non-absolutism offers respite from the "or" by inserting us into a paradox of non-absolutism attempting to disprove its own existence...and to me that's as far as we may be able to get because that becomes unsolvable! Undifferentiation in the way I see it cannot do so in that it immediately falls victim to falling apart from its infinitely inwards spiral of self reference because it still is a concept within duality trying to explain the unexplainable. When you truly ask what aspect of the nondual is actually unexplainable, it is the non-absolute nature it holds and less so the illusion of un-differentiation.

To me personally, I see monism as the exit on the highway that says, "congrats you've made it!", luring one into a very attractive and reasonable and happy feeling belief system (everybody loves unity unless they're pretty far on the sociopathic spectrum), but the highway keeps going forever and there is no "made it", the highway for me becomes the belief system and exits(absolutist belief systems) are just attachments to things outside of ontological primacy, fun to look at and discuss and attempt to debunk, but ultimately still not referring to the absolute ontology of anything.

Monism in a way seems to disagree with causality and then still subtly rely on it to form its structure. To me, one-ness is still a duality, because it is a concept in our mind that must imply a definition....and definitions imply there are antonyms right? If there is one-ness, then there is also assumed to be non-one-ness, thus creating a duality. Yes you can technically say every single belief system or even theory/concept is like this, but I urge you to consider the quality of the non-absolute nonduality version and tell me if you think it is the only one that actually references absolute ontology, since its dual nature becomes exist vs not exist, whereas monism for example has the dual nature of one vs not one. It seems to assume realism is our absolute ontology and then uses that assumption to support that realism exists which is self creationary. Non-absolutism on the other hand makes no assumptions in attempting to prove/disprove absolute ontology. Thoughts on this?

[ScottRoberts]

Ok, first ignore my previous comment, as I now see it is irrelevant to your concern.

Second, as far as I can tell, what you call "non-absolutism" is what is usually called "skepticism". Am I right? If so, then I would say that you are totally confusing things by calling it a form of "nondualism". Nondualism is, as the term is usually used (your use being the only exception I have ever come across), an absolute claim ("reality is not-two"), and so simply is not "non-absolutism". Of course, as you seem to be indicating, a philosophical argument of the form "we should be skeptics" is either common sense (we can't be absolutely sure of our metaphysical claims) or a somewhat self-defeating thing to do if taken itself to be an absolute, but that's the skeptics problem.

[Soul_of_Shu]

Sorry, I just realized that my previous post here was misplaced in the wrong topic thread, and so has been deleted and moved to where it was first intended to go.

[quant-um]

No worries @soul_of_shu! Thanks for letting us know

@ScottRoberts:

I have since found a better word for non-absolutism: Anekantavada. The concept is basically pluralism as applied to ontology. It is a belief that states all is, as we cannot know otherwise and it is pragmatic to be accepting of other beliefs if we cannot disprove them. Essentially it is an ontological belief encompassing omnism/syncretism and applying those traits into an ontological stance saying "all is". It carries also an assumption of another ontological theory being that we cannot possibly know the ineffable, which leads us back to pragmatism as a solution.

[ScottRoberts]

Is this saying that since I cannot know if belief A is true, and cannot know if belief B is true (and beliefs, C, D, ...) that I should believe they are all true? I find this illogical. And meaningless.

And what does this have to do with nondualism?

[quant-um]

It is not that we should find them all true, but more so that they are all accepted as that person's truth, since all we can know is our own truths emergent from our own experience.

This has to do with nonduality (not nondualism which is a category of belief systems) because in my view the concept of anekantavada (non-absolutes) seems to mirror my current view of the definition of nonduality.

My main questions for the group in the post are:

Does nonduality imply the absolute/ineffable is all their is? Aka...does it imply duality "this OR that" doesn't exist and there is only that which we cannot know or experience its true nature?

Or...does nonduality imply the absence of absoluteness...aka "this AND that" both exist? And does that also tag along with the "which we cannot know?"

Or even yet, does it imply neither and is still open for debate?

The second question relates to Anekantavada.

[quant-um]

Sorry I should also note that I see a link between the ontology of nonduality and anekatavada in that it COULD be true that all are true given the possibility that nothing can be false (with the nonduality version that is the second choice).

Not making a claim here, just entertaining various definitions of nonduality since everyone I talk to has a different one and wikipedia or dictionaries aren't helpful.

[ScottRoberts]

It is not that we should find them all true, but more so that they are all accepted as that person's truth, since all we can know is our own truths emergent from our own experience.

Then that's just tautologous: what a person believes to be true, is what is true for that person.

Meanwhile, I consider myself to be justified to say that some things that some people believe to be true are in fact false. For example, Young Earth Creationism.

This has to do with nonduality (not nondualism which is a category of belief systems) because in my view the concept of anekantavada (non-absolutes) seems to mirror my current view of the definition of nonduality.

Which is? Perhaps if you could state it as precisely as you can, your questions would make more sense to me.