A truly non-dual teaching?

ALL teachings are dualistic, even the so-called non-teachings, and ALL teachings utilise fictions, at least initially, and your favourite non-dual teaching is no exception!

For example:

-Pointing out teachings or descriptions of what-is and teaching of any kind all imply duality. What (object) is being pointed out? And to whom (subject)? Pointing implies a subject-object duality, at least initially. Non-duality strictly speaking doesn’t need a teaching.
-To compare different teachings to each other is dualistic.
-To call one teaching truly non-dual and another dualistic is itself dualistic and relativistic, obviously.

Not that there is anything wrong with apparent duality!

A matter of degree

It’s just a matter of degree: some teachings are far less dualistic than others and point the way out directly and efficiently, which doesn’t necessarily mean they are better teachings, whereas others take a different route, which actually may be more helpful than the more direct teachings at certain points on the journey.

ALL teachings are non-dualistic?

So either ALL teachings/expressions/non-teachings are dualistic….or alternatively one could say that ALL teachings are essentially non-dualistic, as non-duality is all there ‘is’!

To have it any other way would be dualistic, and duality is a fiction!

Oneness Being

Another way of putting is that there are not really lots of different teachers and teachings at all – although that is how it may appear from within the fictional dualistic paradigm – there is only Oneness Being ❤