You are what you are looking for.

(This article is in response to a question).

Introduction

Non-duality—which roughly means “not two”—is a practical way to point students toward an experience, or rather (and this is important), a reality that cannot be pointed to directly.

Oneness, however, is a concept, and, while it may certainly be true in some sense (there is only one reality) it has drawbacks as a way to point to the underlying reality that is absolute, universal and ever-present behind all experience.

For one thing (no pun intended), thinking “one” or “oneness” (the “-ness” adding “the quality of”) is already an image and concept of an object: one with quantity, implicitly bringing along multiplicity.

Oneness implies two-ness, which is duality; how could one have a “one” without a “two”? Therefore it is not oneness, already. It never gets off the ground.

Now, you could say “zeroness”—and it is a word, just not a very commonly used one. One of the uses of that word parallels what we are talking about here: “[zeroness] Represents Śūnyatā—emptiness or the lack of inherent, separate existence.” However, what is being written about here is not Buddhist per se.

In more Detail…

The Linguistic Trap of “One”
“Oneness implies two-ness” is the crux of the issue. The mind is entirely built on contrast. It cannot comprehend an object without a background. Therefore, the moment the mind asserts or conceptualizes “One,” it immediately visualizes a singular entity, boundary, or state. But the very act of conceptualizing “One” requires a subject (the thinker) observing an object (the concept of “One”). The mind has instantly recreated duality in the very attempt to escape it. As I noted already, the suffix “-ness” turns it into an attribute, a quality that can be possessed or lost, rather than the fundamental ground of reality.

The Subtractive Power of “Not-Two”
This is exactly why the term A-dvaita (literally “not-two”) was formulated as a negative pointer rather than a positive description. “Not-two” is not a noun; it functions as a verb, a solvent. It doesn’t attempt to tell the student what reality is—because reality cannot be spoken—it merely tells the student what reality isn’t (divided). It removes the conceptual boundary of separation between the observer and the observed without leaving a new, shiny concept (“The One”) for the ego —meaning the sense of sepration itself, since there is no one to have an ego—to grasp onto and turn into an idol, as it were.

The Efficiency of “Zeroness”
In mathematics, zero is not a quantity; it is the empty placeholder, the infinite capacity that allows all positive and negative integers to exist without being any of them. Similarly, pure consciousness isn’t a “thing” or a “one” to be found among other things; it is the empty, aware capacity in which all “things” (thoughts, sensations, worlds) appear. It elegantly strips away the localized, objectified baggage that the word “one” carries.

Is It Monism?

Similarly, non-duality is not the same as monism. While monism correctly rejects the idea of a divided universe, it replaces it with a positive assertion: the theory that everything is made of “One” single substance or overarching reality. Monism is an intellectual conclusion. It remains a concept generated by the mind, and therefore falls into the same linguistic and conceptual traps as “oneness.” It attempts to package the infinite into a singular, graspable idea. Non-duality, by contrast, isn’t a theory about what the universe is made of; it is the direct, experiential absence of a boundary between the observer and the observed.

This is duality — that This, which has two and one. This – this theatre, this dance platform on which I am writing and you are reading, or speaking and hearing — is the dance of duality.

The same absurdity or illogicality can be seen if one considers whether there could be more than one universe. If there were a second universe, it would imply that there is some way to stand outside and witness the two universes for it to be “known”: otherwise, for all intents and purpsoes, it is non-existent other than as pure intellectual speculation — which is useless for us. Therefore you cannot have two universes without a third universe that sees it. And, this would imply a fourth, and so on… reductio ad absurdum.

Non-duality is a pointer, a mere description of the absolute reality which cannot be known directly, anymore than one could see the very seeing of one’s own eye.

You Are what you are looking for.