Separate being or very base of each of our being looks like a false dichotomy to me.
I agree. Down or in deep at our base is probably a non dual highly convergent Reality. That deep in, “self” or “other” does not apply, as they are from the relativistic surface of overall reality.
In page 6 of the book Paths to Transcendence, that Thomas recommended to me, it says it a bit differently (than in terms of “depth”) but I think the logic is very similar to my difference-according-to-depth-level concept of a relationship between non dual and duality:
It may be objected here that the Advaita principle is violated: there is one Absolute that is associated with relativity (Apara Brahman) and another that is not (Para Brahman). But this objection would be valid only if it were established that the Absolute undergoes real modification by virtue of its “association” with adjuncts; only then would there be a fundamental dualism constructed by the adjunctless Absolute, on the one hand, and the Absolute associated with adjuncts, on the other. Such a dualism, however, is precluded for Shankara by the fact that no such modification takes place in reality, since the “association” in question is but an appearance, an illusory projection of the Real which cannot, qua illusion, constitute any element or “pole”, such as could allow of an irreducible duo-dimensionality of the Absolute:
The Lordship, omniscience, and omnipotence of the Lord exist relative to the limitations and distinctions of ignorance only, and in reality there can be no practice of rulership or omniscience on the part of the Self, in which all distinctions remain eternally negated in knowledge (Creation,66).
This does not deny the relative reality of the divine attributes themselves nor does it deny that the attributes do indeed pertain to the One Absolute; that the Absolute is the omnipotent Creator and the omniscient Witness is affirmed as a reality that is mediated through the UPADHIS and received by all created beings. These attributes are the forms in which the One relates to the world, and for as long as worldly experience holds; what Shakara does deny is the ultimate metaphysical reality of this whole domain of relations and distinctions, “set up by ignorance”: the One appears as many in relation to a world that is itself illusory. Thus:
Non duality, which is the Supreme reality appears manifold through MAYA, like the one moon appearing as many to one with defective eye-sight….This manifold is not real, for ATMAN is without any part….It cannot in any manner admit of distinction excepting through MAYA (Karika, III, 19).
——————-
All this odd logic is made much simpler to me if I assume there is a difference between Deep Reality and surface reality. The fountain flows from Deep, out into the surface where we live out our physical existence. My depth dynamic view of overall reality may be but another metaphor, but at least it is a USEFUL metaphor for me. I can relate to “going deep” and bringing what is sensed from the depth of being into the surface expression of that very being. The being-fountain takes on different forms as it flows into the world.
One can get a similar dynamic by looking at one’s own mind that is having thoughts. The individual thoughts are NOT the mind itself, but are particular expressions of a mind that can only be sensed as an undifferentiated something or other behind the thoughts.
