From my perspective non-dualistic mode excludes oneness as it excludes manyness because 'one' depends on 'many'.
From my perspective duality is not illusion. What is similar to an illusion however is the way phenomena appear to be real or true or to exist from their own side.

I respect that different people have different perspectives on this. The words which we use and how we
understand those words, in my opinion, has a lot to do with how we see things. I do not embrace that the
concept of one can not exist without the concept of many. One can exist without two but two can not
exist without one. Divine truth is singular and not dependent on anything else. Actually the words which we
use are inadequate to describe non-duality. Regardless, non-duality does not exist because of duality and
that is one reason why I reject that one-ness can not exist without many-ness. Often I use synonyms to
better understand words related to a concept. For instance here are some synonyms for the concept of
one-ness.

Connective-ness
Union
Harmony
Joined
Attunement
Unification
Atonement
Wholeness
Love
Cooperation
Holiness
Agreement
Concordance
Symmetry
Combination
Singleness
Accord
Radius of a circle
Continuity
Balance
Consistency
Totality
Solidarity
Oneness

There are written and spoken languages which have no concept, translation, or a similar word to the words
which we use who speak English. The more we elaborate on something, or interpret something, the further
away from that something we get. We can get to a point where all we have is our concept, or interpretation,
of that something and not that something itself. Higher truths exist in silence as they transcend thoughts and
words; yet verbal discussion and mental speculation on these truths can be useful. :smile:

As soon as language is applied there is necessarily duality. Every name assigned necessarily implies its opposite because what called X is necessarily different from non-X.

Here I cannot agree because non-X obviously depends on X.

But isn't that the illusion of duality? That there's a distinction between X and non-X, when in fact they're one and the same?

I'm also curious as to how you've arrived at this conclusion? I might be missing something, I thought non-dualism and oneness were synonymous.

Well, you may of course reject all language conventions and e.g. call a car 'apple' although an apple is not a car and a car is not an apple. But I would not call it an illusion that you can drive a car but not an apple and eat an apple but not a car.
According to my experience 'oneness' isn't the appropriate expression because it affirms what isn't in non-duality. 'Oneness' from my perspective refers to an imagination of something which contradicts the fact that there is no 'something' in non-duality because any 'something' would refer to an object. Some call it 'ineffable' but then they make many words about it as if what they can imagine and express with words would be rightly called 'ineffable'.

X and non-x are mathematical concepts, non-duality is not a concept. Concepts are mental constructs with borders, a mental framework. Non-duality is an experience which has no opposite, no framework, no borders, etc. Non-duality is not objective; in fact it is all encompassing. I am expressing here as best I can what I have experienced of non-duality, so this is my truth as best I can explain it. The finite may be dependent on the infinite but the infinite can exist without the finite. Opposites can only exist in duality; they do not exist in non-duality. Non-duality is not the opposite of duality rather duality is contained within non-duality and not along side, or opposite of it; in my humble opinion. But regardless of our differing points of view I do thank you for the discussion.

you cannot apply a concept and say that it isn't a concept. A concept is the meaning concomittant to a linguistic expression applied.

Non-duality is not duality. That is the meaning of 'non-duality'. In that sense is what is non-X the opposite or - maybe better - negation of X.
X here is just a variable standing for any designator/name.

Yes I can, because the word "non-duality" may be a concept, but me sharing of my experience of what I call non-duality is not.:smile:

Hello,

I just have a curiosity.

What is with in Oneness? Is all inclusive in this?
If so then would think would be inclusive of both the dualities and non-duality and there is neither, just what is.
If not then would think there is no Oneness, but individual expression.

Will admit though, that this is a bit of a mind game. For it is attempting to disguise between multiple perspectives of things and the connections found/ observed/realized or not.

In living life notice there is both the individual expression and connections with in these. It may be all stems from a common source, but in their expressions and one perspectives of such there appears to be diversity. All, becoming and within the consciousness, IMO.

If not all with in the consciousness, then would anyone be aware of such in order to point out there is or isn't this or that/ this and that?

I agree Moonglow, it is a bit of a mind game.:D