[lostmsu]

What do you mean by "impossible"? I just described exactly how people get that experience: they mess up definitions. It is a perfectly logical description.

Under influence people think peeing in public is OK is plausible, though logically it is not the best action to take. So that is not unique either.

[sammalloy]

Use the concept of paradoxes in Taoism as a metaphor for nondualism:

> The paradox is that by talking about the Tao, and by attempting to define the Tao, we ensure that the reader does not actually grasp the concept. At its heart, the Tao is nonverbal in its essence, beyond the confines of language. The Tao is an experience rather than definition.

Each tradition has their own version. For the west, it's the coincidentia oppositorum of Nicholas of Cusa. This goes beyond definitions because language can't describe it. This is not a failing, this is the essence of its impossibility.

[lostmsu]

What you just described makes about as much sense as Seado - a word that I just came up with - e.g. no sense at all.

[sammalloy]

You're starting to get it. Paradoxes, contradictions, and nonsense is how these traditions attempt to get the practitioner to overcome dualism. The problem is that you think you can use either-or logic to understand it when the practice is designed to destroy it.

[lostmsu]

Get what? Understand what? Destroy what?

[sammalloy]

Dualistic thinking.

[lostmsu]

As I explained above, what you call "dualistic thinking" is just refusal to follow common definitions for relatively simple concepts. For example, Wikipedia's entry for abovementioned personhood is clear enough to say, that I and you are two distinct persons. The two of us may be called a person, but it has nothing to do with the "way of thinking", and only has to do with the definition of a person. If a definition of a person had a clause, that would prevent congregates of persons to be a person, no amount of "dualistic thinking" would make two of us, or the entire humanity a person.