[nermise]

I think you've defined it in your own terms, I haven't noticed Buddhists using the term dualism in the same way and I don't think the Buddha ever used the concept of dual/non dual in the pali canon.

I've always interpreted dualism is considering subject and object separate, so "me" and what I observe is separate, rather than considering the interrelationships.

Nothing exists in a vacuum, everything is dependent on something else. Everything we experience can be broken down into more detail or aggregated up into larger entities, this is why the Buddha talked about us being composed of 5 aggregates.

Recognising this leads to loosening of our tendency to attach to things at the level of aggregation we normally interact with (ie the self, I me, you, level), loosening of attachment leads to freedom from Dukkha.

It appears maybe the topic you really want to talk about, rather than dualism in general, is "if there is no distinct and separate self, what gets reborn?" I don't have a strong opinion on that and the topic has been done to death.