The author distinguished between the exoteric version and the esoteric version for the initiate. If you are of the exoteric school it makes sense that you are unaware of the initiate’s esoteric “advaitic monism.”
Oh, geez! Ha ha ha. Nice try, but about on the same level of argumentation as that of the author. The author did a whole lot of making pronouncements but little if any distinguishing between anything in any way that could be remotely called analytical. The "article" is a pastiche of quotes loosely assembled around a theme. Many statements are true in themselves but the author makes the grave error of assuming that their assembly makes for something larger that is true or even more true than the sum of its parts. This is, at least, the parts to the whole fallacy. Or that their juxtaposition to her characterization of them somehow validates what she claims they say. There is little development of any thought. The form is statement followed by a quote with similar language to the statement as support for the statement, again and again and again.
To support her thesis, she even quotes, without remark, Darwinists' false claims about Darwinism's importance to the practice of science, but any port in a time of polemical storm.
Fundamentally, Darwinism is materialist monism and as the pillar of natural science is the devilish idea by which naturalist god-men have "decapitated God" and seized control of the order of being.
Darwinism has
never been the "pillar of natural science." Darwinism is the Johnny-come-lately of natural science. Its proponents are a very small tail-if that-desperately trying to claim that it has caused each and every movement of the dog. Darwinism is not "materialist monism." It may be that its proponents wish it could explain everything and claim it explains everything, but that's not the same as monism. It may be materialist, but assertions to the contrary, it is not monism, applying
only to matters of biology and, except in a fanciful sense, to nothing else at all.