Often I think I need to destroy the one ring, and in that way the evil within will be banished. But if you follow non-duality, there is no good without evil. I know you godless heathens won't relate but if God is everything and infinite, then he would necessarily encompass good and evil.

What I get from that is the only way to destroy evil is to destroy God. For if God is everything good and evil, and there is no separation in non-duality, then there is no devil, only God. Everything must be a facet of God, then god must be destroyed. Furthermore in non-duality, we are also a part of the one, indistinguishable, inseparable, so we too must be destroyed.

So to summarize, following this logic, all must be destroyed, there is no good without evil, no evil without good, no evil without God, no evil without you. In the greater sense, you are the evil just as you are the good, all is one.

So to cast the ring of power into mount doom is to destroy the remaining essence of Sauron, but does not destroy Gandalf. In the end they're the same, and evil potential still exists while Gandalf still lives. So it's not a direct comparison unless the ring is separate from Gandalf. If all is one, Gandalf is inseparable from the ring, to destroy the ring is not destroying the evil.

For the final point, you cannot cast all your evil away, because it's inseparable from the good.

...

I came to this conclusion a few years back. I imagined it as two birds, one, the red bird, had passion, emotion, but also was out of control as I was out of control, some of him was good, but some was evil. The second bird, the blue bird, had logic and meticulous self governance, 100% control, but no love, no passion, no emotions at all, no evil, but also no good. The Blue bird was convinced that if he killed the red bird, order could reign supreme, no more issues as I had them. But ultimately it would be a sociopathic emotionless life, a half life without feelings or emotions at all.

Good and Evil then are complimentary. I reasoned that evil depends on your reference. Place evil on one end of a long line and good on the other end. No matter where you stand, there is good to one side and evil on the other. Say you choose to do no evil but move along the line and your reference changes, when moving what was seen as evil or good becomes the other. You can move all the way to the end of evil and then all is good, but then atrocities are good as well. Move all the way to the end of good and all is evil, but then there is nothing that can be done without doing evil. In truth they're inseparable, nothing is objectively good, nothing is objectively evil. But to admit that is to admit atrocities are neither good nor evil, and morals are no longer relevant.

To have society, you must have morals just as to have interaction you must have ego, and both are as subjective as defined by the reference and that reference is outside of you. Are you good or evil? What is your ego? Both are behaviorally defined and both are necessarily based on an independent reference.