Conversation

Oh, backing up one step, here’s a take on the relationship between self and other (“inside” and “outside,” “mind” and “world”) that is non-dual in roughly the Dzogchen sense of “neither separable nor the same”:
5
The quoted text speaks of “absence of separation,” which is accurate, but it’s easy to misunderstand as “identical,” which is wrong. (So my biggest quibble is not what it says but with what it doesn’t say, but imo should have! Maybe the author(s) say this somewhere else.)
7
Let’s take a step back and examine “non-duality.” Wherever this term is used, it’s helpful to ask: “in this context, what thing is asserted to be ‘not dual’ with what other thing?” And: “If these things are ‘not dual,’ what *is* their relationship?”