⊠your summary is somewhat off, an a way that is natural given the broader understanding of meditation and non-duality in America currently.
I have some minor quibbles with the quoted text block, plus a main one that you picked up on.
Conversation
It equates non-duality / enlightenment with absence of a self / other boundary. This is not the view of Dzogchen.
(This view in current America probably comes from modernist ZenâŠ
3
1
8
⊠which merged German Romantic Idealism with ⊠probably? ⊠some actual Zen)
âNo self/other boundaryâ is *one* understanding of enlightenment within Buddhism. Itâs not wrong⊠Itâs incompleteâŠ
7
âNo self/other boundaryâ is a form of monism, which is (a) obviously false, and (b) harmful
1
4
There are many radically different conceptions of enlightenment within BuddhismâŠ
1
3
Oh, backing up one step, hereâs a take on the relationship between self and other (âinsideâ and âoutside,â âmindâ and âworldâ) that is non-dual in roughly the Dzogchen sense of âneither separable nor the sameâ:
1
5
The quoted text speaks of âabsence of separation,â which is accurate, but itâs easy to misunderstand as âidentical,â which is wrong.
(So my biggest quibble is not what it says but with what it doesnât say, but imo should have! Maybe the author(s) say this somewhere else.)
7
Letâs take a step back and examine ânon-duality.â
Wherever this term is used, itâs helpful to ask: âin this context, what thing is asserted to be ânot dualâ with what other thing?â And: âIf these things are ânot dual,â what *is* their relationship?â
These are the sorts of picky questions STEM-educated people like to ask & Romantic people hate. I am a STEM-educated person.
I find reluctance to ask these questions is often based on an eternalistic hope âenlightenmentâ will magically solve all problems
Generally speaking, in Dzogchen, ânon-dualityâ means âneither separate nor identicalâ; and then the details of what that means needs to be worked out in particular situations.
đ€ seems neither separate from, nor identical to, bheda-abheda

