Franco, I think you have it about right.
The problem with this philosophy is that it combines bits and pieces of Christianity (and Descartes view of the mind/soul) with nondual traditions such as Buddhism and Hinduism. Saying that ultimately, everything is one is to say that there are no fixed distinctions; everything is in process, and everything is affected by everything else, including your own consciousness. But to say that your subjective reality in here
is the only reality is to say that you exist separately and distinctly from the rest of the world, which is out there
, but if you accept the principle of non-duality, then there is no fixed, permanent subject which exists in here
. Everything is out there
, including you!
The interesting thing about the subject-object duality is that we can pursue it in two different directions -- either the subject is real, or the object is real. But non-duality embraces both paradoxes by saying reality is simultaneously objective AND subjective. But subjective truth is very different from objective truth -- subjective truth gives us beauty, meaning and love, while objective truth gives us facts and measurements. Neither one of them stands alone as the ultimate reality, and to say that is to get into some fairly serious moral problems. As Charles Manson said, "If all is One, then nothing is wrong." What is Enlightenment magazine calls this view Neo-Advaita. I strongly recommend this article
to get some perspective. Here's a quote:
Neo-Advaita seemed to be missing something significant. Isolated from its Eastern religious and historical context and taught as a quick-fix, no-frills contemporary path to spiritual enlightenment, they noticed its tendency to ignore traditional values like ethics and the cultivation of personal integrity. Whatís more, it didnít give much credence to the values of the Western Enlightenment, either. Rationality, critical analysis, and common sense all took a back seat in its mind-transcending philosophy.