Is Buddhism about non-dualism?

[Inedible]

All compounded things are impermanent. We have dependent origination. We don't say that it is all one thing, regardless of which one thing we may pick. Even if it were all one thing that one thing would be impermanent, unsatisfactory, and not me or mine.

[pegembara]

’ When, Maluṅkyaputta, you are not ‘therein,’ then you will be neither here nor beyond nor in between the two.

https://suttacentral.net/sn35.95/en/bodhi

Is "in between the two" the non-dualism, which Buddha rejected?
or
What Buddha called non-dualism is different to the non-dualism explained by other sects?
Can I say that the Buddha's Path (Noble Eightfold Path) non-dualism?

I am not even sure what non-dualism means.
The above to me means that the centre/subjective experiencer or the "I am" conceit(asmiimana) is no more.

There is no Bodhi tree,
Nor stand of a mirror bright.
Since all is void,
Where can the dust alight

Huineng

“Mendicants, I will teach you a duality. Listen …

And what is a duality? It’s just the eye and sights, the ear and sounds, the nose and smells, the tongue and tastes, the body and touches, and the mind and thoughts. This is called a duality.

Mendicants, suppose someone was to say: ‘I’ll reject this duality and describe another duality.’ They’d have no grounds for that, they’d be stumped by questions, and, in addition, they’d get frustrated. Why is that? Because they’re out of their element.”

"Now, if there are any who ask, 'Would there be the right contemplation of dualities in yet another way?' they should be told, 'There would.' 'How would that be?' 'Formless phenomena are more peaceful than forms': this is one contemplation. 'Cessation is more peaceful than formless phenomena': this is a second contemplation. For a monk rightly contemplating this duality in this way — heedful, ardent, & resolute — one of two fruits can be expected: either gnosis right here & now, or — if there be any remnant of clinging-sustenance — non-return."

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

[form]

’ When, Maluṅkyaputta, you are not ‘therein,’ then you will be neither here nor beyond nor in between the two.

https://suttacentral.net/sn35.95/en/bodhi

Is "in between the two" the non-dualism, which Buddha rejected?
or
What Buddha called non-dualism is different to the non-dualism explained by other sects?
Can I say that the Buddha's Path (Noble Eightfold Path) non-dualism?

I am not even sure what non-dualism means.
The above to me means that the centre/subjective experiencer or the "I am" conceit(asmiimana) is no more.

There is no Bodhi tree,
Nor stand of a mirror bright.
Since all is void,
Where can the dust alight

Huineng

“Mendicants, I will teach you a duality. Listen …

And what is a duality? It’s just the eye and sights, the ear and sounds, the nose and smells, the tongue and tastes, the body and touches, and the mind and thoughts. This is called a duality.

Mendicants, suppose someone was to say: ‘I’ll reject this duality and describe another duality.’ They’d have no grounds for that, they’d be stumped by questions, and, in addition, they’d get frustrated. Why is that? Because they’re out of their element.”

"Now, if there are any who ask, 'Would there be the right contemplation of dualities in yet another way?' they should be told, 'There would.' 'How would that be?' 'Formless phenomena are more peaceful than forms': this is one contemplation. 'Cessation is more peaceful than formless phenomena': this is a second contemplation. For a monk rightly contemplating this duality in this way — heedful, ardent, & resolute — one of two fruits can be expected: either gnosis right here & now, or — if there be any remnant of clinging-sustenance — non-return."

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

That is duo pair. It is not duality.

[Alino]

The only duality I see in the Dhamma is division on: dukkha and non-dukkha; things that lead to more dukkha and things tgat lead to freedom from dukkha.

Imho.

[SarathW]

Buddha's highest teaching is non-duality!
Nirvana is below the non-duality!

[circuit]

Buddha's highest teaching is non-duality!
Nirvana is below the non-duality!

no. no. no.
wrong

The Buddha never mention that Nibbāna is below

[DNS]

Buddha's highest teaching is non-duality!
Nirvana is below the non-duality!

I didn't listen or watch the video, but see that it is Professor Thurman. He is a Vajrayana (Tibetan) Buddhist, not Theravada. As I mentioned, some forms of Mahayana could be considered non-dualism in their doctrine, but not Theravada.

[Bundokji]

Non dualism does not negate dualism, akin to mandalas in Himalayan Buddhism. The opposed forces at circumference are resolved at the still center. In dualism, there is no still center.