I also think that Mr. Brown's post was very nice, but I do have to disagree with a few things. While most english speaking people may have been raised with a dualistic view of life (if coming from a Judeo-Christian background). But the english language is perfectly capable of describing non-dualistic states. The problem is not one of language.
I am alos a bit confused by your logic. First you are saying that it is a "condition of perception" and I can agree with that. You then go on to say that experience is not a thing and therfore cannot be clearly defined, and I have no problems there. But in your next paragraph you make the orange comparison with the orange as a metaphor for nirvana/enlightnement. The problem here is that an orange is a tangible thing. Not only can an orange be described and measured, but we can even explain the physical process of taste in relation to the physical properties of the orange. If you are saying that a person writing about nirvana/enlightenmnet is describing there experience, than the question is their experience of what? Are they describing their experience of an experience? As you can see this quickly becomes meaningless verbal gymnastics.
I can accept the arguement that a person chooses to believe in duality (in the face of overwhelming lack of evidence), what I do feel the need to argue is the logical fallacy in trying to argue that the idea of nirvana/enlightenment is not dualistic.
Best regards,
Bruce Mitchell