Non duality of BuddhaVacana

[thang]

In the Majjhima Nikaya Gopaka Moggallana Sutta Commentary, there is an interesting story about the brahmin Gopaka moggallana.

One day the the brahmin Gopakamoggallana had seen venerable Mahakaccana was climbing the mount Gijjhakuta. Then the brahmin had said "he is like a monkey". Hearing this, the Tathagata had said "It is good that he will beg pardon, otherwise he will be born as a money here in the Veluvana". The brahmin heard this but was reluctant to beg pardon from the Thero.
Nevertheless he thought "There is no duality of the words of the Samana Gotama" and grew many kinds of trees in the Veluvana and protected them in order to live in the next life as a monkey.

[SarathW]

Nevertheless he thought "There is no duality of the words of the Samana Gotama" and grew many kinds of trees in the Veluvana and protected them in order to live in the next life as a monkey.

Could you give me the sutta reference?

[Volo]

Nevertheless he thought "There is no duality of the words of the Samana Gotama"

But this simply means, that what Buddha says is so and not otherwise, no duality "it may be true or it may be not".

[thang]

Could you give me the sutta reference?

That was in Atthakata and I don't know about an online version.

Would the Realized One make an ambiguous statement?

I said to him: ‘Sunakkhatta, the naked ascetic Pāṭikaputta is not capable of coming into my presence, unless he gives up that statement and that intention, and lets go of that view. If he thinks he can come into my presence without giving up those things, his head may explode.’

‘Careful what you say, Blessed One! Careful what you say, Holy One!’ ‘But why do you say this to me, Sunakkhatta?’ ‘Sir, the Buddha has definitively asserted that Pāṭikaputta is not capable of coming into the Buddha’s presence, otherwise his head may explode. But Pāṭikaputta might come into the Buddha’s presence in disguise, proving the Buddha wrong.’

‘Sunakkhatta, would the Realized One make an ambiguous statement?’

[thang]

But this simply means, that what Buddha says is so and not otherwise, no duality "it may be true or it may be not".

Aren't those same ?
{what Buddha says is so and not otherwise} = {no duality "it may be true or it may be not"}

[Volo]

Aren't those same ?
{what Buddha says is so and not otherwise} = {no duality "it may be true or it may be not"}

Yes. I just thought you meant, that commentary supports some kind of advaita non-duality.

[thang]

Aren't those same ?
{what Buddha says is so and not otherwise} = {no duality "it may be true or it may be not"}

Yes. I just thought you meant, that commentary supports some kind of advaita non-duality.

Oh no, this is about non-dual-meaning/certainty of the Realized one's words.
I think this is the Non-duality in Buddhism.