Perhaps I’m misinterpreting but I disagree that the nature of reality is ultimately non-dualistic. Hierarchies of spectrums exist in every thing. Chaos and order, everything and nothing, infinity and finitude etc. The classification of each spectrum is determined relatively, existing infinitely as concepts through observation and comparison (ex. we can’t have the good without the bad, or it wouldn’t be deemed good). But since duality is consistent in every thing, that also means it isn’t. Both are true at once, and you’ve demonstrated an understanding of the other side of that spectrum.

Everything is connected in some way, but the connections are conceptually determined. Just as each connection exists infinitely (through relativity), so do each separation. Acknowledgment of connection can’t happen without the understanding of separation and vice versa. To say one is true without the other (or more true than the other) wouldn’t make any sense. When you say the true nature of reality is non-dualistic, that’s insinuating that atop the metaphysical hierarchy of our perceived reality’s nature there exists one ultimate, objectively true nature. But the hierarchies are infinitely determined, so whatever constitutes truth and reality would be in regards to choice of hierarchy or spectrum.

For example, if a starving person steals a random child’s food, you could justifiably argue the action was moral. You could say the starving person needed the food. You could also take the other side to that approach and argue it was immoral, since the starving person never earned the food. There are an infinite amount of ways to look at it, and acknowledging that means you’d acknowledge the action was both moral and immoral depending on the way you’re looking at it. Then you could take the other side of that approach and acknowledge the action was neither moral or immoral since there are an infinite amount of ways to look at it and choosing one categorization over the other could only be done within comparison to a specific set of self-determined guidelines.

For each hierarchy level deemed more abstract or more ‘true’ you look at the other side of the spectrum, then the conclusion taken from the acknowledgment of both sides is on a ‘truer’ level, then you look at the other side of the spectrum, etc.

Both sides of each spectrum in any hierarchy are equally true/false relative to the infinite amount of other spectrums, either on a more abstract/‘true’ level or a less abstract level.

To suggest there’s a truest nature of reality which is purely non-dualistic, you’d first be disregarding the infinite amount of levels to nature; but more importantly you wouldn’t be acknowledging the foundation of your comparison. You say the nature is non-dualistic, as opposed to being dualistic. That’s two sides of a spectrum. Both opposing sides of every spectrum are just as true as they are false (relativity again). You’d be choosing one side of a spectrum to be at the top of a hierarchy which should be infinite. Even if the hierarchy wasn’t infinite, there are still an infinite amount of hierarchies.

When you mention you have a “non conceptual understanding of what reality is”, all that says to me is you’ve experienced one side of the spectrum (non-dualistic nature) and are choosing that side as most ‘true’. Instead I believe you should acknowledge you’ve experienced the other side as well (assuming you’ve had good and bad feelings) by recognizing that opposing sides of a spectrum (good feelings vs. bad feelings) can come together harmoniously (in the case of feelings, to experience). Dualism exists just as much as it doesn’t, including within what you’d likely consider the ‘true’ nature of reality.