Shonin wrote:What you have described is not Non-dualism. You have described Monism.
Here's a rundown:
Dualism: There are two fundamentally different kinds of 'stuff'.
Monism: Fundamentally, there is only one kind of stuff - mind or matter. There are two types:
- Idealism: Everything is Mind - the appearance of physical things is a kind of illusion
- Physicalism: Everything is Physical - the appearance of mental things is a kind of illusion
Non-dualism is a rejection of Dualism without asserting a Monism. Mind and Matter are 'not two' - they arise together in some sense.
Actually, I think you raised some interesting points.
Seems like there are different understandings of what the "non-dualism" really means (also "dualism"). Who defines these words anyway? Who is really the authority on these kind of stuff? This is just like there are different understandings of Buddhism.
Some of these understanding about non-dualism (i.e., as a variety of monism) indeed seems to go against what the Buddha taught. (Unless you're one of these certain Mahayanists who think that it's all mind.)
Some other understanding of non-dualism (i.e., that is not monistic, but still also rejects of the idea of two distinct, separate stuff (which in turn, would be based on some people's own understanding of what dualism is (which other dualists might disagree with, because these people might say that the dualism is really two things relying on each other, not distinctly separate (which would take us back to the square one)))) this kind of non-dualism (or say, mutual dualism) would then seem to agree with some of what the Buddha taught, like the dependence of namarupa and consciousness on each other. (Like a pair of reeds.)
If this kind of non-dualism, though, implies that these two things are always bound together (theoretically according to a yet different understanding)... then I think this would go against what the Buddha taught. The D.O. then is erroneously viewed as being eternally bounded together; there would be no escape, no nibbana, and therefore the Dhamma would be pointless.
Anyway... I think these different types of views about what the non-dualism and the dualism really means, is one of the reasons why the Buddha recommended against adopting any viewpoints (i.e., not is, not not is, not both, not neither, etc.) It leads to papañca, which would undermine one's practice.