It can be useful to differentiate between language and states. The term "contemplation" can refer to "being in the state of nondual-contemplation", a state where attachment to concepts of self and other is cut through. The compulsion or need to conceptually define consciousness is cut through. The presence or absence of the concepts themselves is peripheral. The utility lies in knowing that you don't have to do anything you don't want to.
If consciousness exists before thought and things then consciousness exists regardless of the presence or absence of thought and things. If consciousness is the ground of thought and things, then consciousness is also "the conceptual mode of defining self and other" since distinguishing the difference between "consciousness" and "the conceptual mode of defining self and other", is itself another conceptual mode of defining self and other.
...the conceptual mode of defining self and other, isn't necessarily the ultimate definition of consciousness, and therefore there isn't necessarily an ultimate difference between consciousness and thought & things...since that difference is asserted by thought & things and not by consciousness.
On the other hand, if thought & things assert self and other, and if there is no ultimate difference between consciousness and thought & things, yet one is asserting self and other and the other does not, then how can there be any ultimate assertion of the existence or non-existence of subject and object?
I know this is convoluted, but thats sort of the point. Intellectual thought or even duality isn't necessarily antithetical to the "non-dual state"...can in fact be its primary vehicle. This is signified by the concept of Achintya-Bhedha-Abheda in Vedic thought, the inconceivable power of the non-dual Absolute to "be" dual as well.
In fact the Absolute is neither dual nor non-dual. Non-duality depends upon duality, being its polar opposite. It is also a concept, and one that is relinquished in the state of non-dual contemplation. Then the question of permanent duality, impermanent duality, permanent non-duality or impermanent non-duality cease to have any meaning.
If consciousness exists before thought and things then consciousness exists regardless of the presence or absence of thought and things. If consciousness is the ground of thought and things, then consciousness is also "the conceptual mode of defining self and other" since distinguishing the difference between "consciousness" and "the conceptual mode of defining self and other", is itself another conceptual mode of defining self and other.
...the conceptual mode of defining self and other, isn't necessarily the ultimate definition of consciousness, and therefore there isn't necessarily an ultimate difference between consciousness and thought & things...since that difference is asserted by thought & things and not by consciousness.
On the other hand, if thought & things assert self and other, and if there is no ultimate difference between consciousness and thought & things, yet one is asserting self and other and the other does not, then how can there be any ultimate assertion of the existence or non-existence of subject and object?
I know this is convoluted, but thats sort of the point. Intellectual thought or even duality isn't necessarily antithetical to the "non-dual state"...can in fact be its primary vehicle. This is signified by the concept of Achintya-Bhedha-Abheda in Vedic thought, the inconceivable power of the non-dual Absolute to "be" dual as well.
In fact the Absolute is neither dual nor non-dual. Non-duality depends upon duality, being its polar opposite. It is also a concept, and one that is relinquished in the state of non-dual contemplation. Then the question of permanent duality, impermanent duality, permanent non-duality or impermanent non-duality cease to have any meaning.