[Buddha-l] Non-dual scholars?

[Richard Nance]

On 3/21/06, W. Codling <waynewc at telus.net> wrote:

>  But I have
> always felt that the relevant Buddhist conceptions are better understood
> as tethered to  'unambivalence' rather than any denial of the dualistic
> nature of being.

Since Richard Hayes isn't here to say it, I'll say it: I've got mixed
feelings about that.

>  So my question is: what are the ways in which
> substituting unambivalence for non-dual are problematical from a
> scholar's perspective?

That will depend on what you mean by "unambivalence." Could you say more?

Best wishes,

R. Nance