The lack of a percieved object discrete from the perciever:
What appears to be outer, percievable in common,
Are perceiving awareness; they are not referents
Existing as something extrinsic to consciousness,
Because they are only experienced as common.
The elimination of any further uncertainty :
The counterpart is the one in which what is percieved
Is not shared in common. Here awareness’ referent
Is the minds and so on associated with others.
These do not comprise an object of mutual exchange
For percieving awareness not resting nor resting poised,
Because, for those not resting in equipoise,
It is but their own conceptions that appear;
And because, for those who are resting in equipoise,
It is its faithful reflection that appears
As the object encountered during samadhi absorption.
Mipham: "No one indeed could disprove that all appearances are merely what appears to the mind. This does not however prove that all appearances are substantially identical with mind, nor does it prove the non-existence of outer referents producing the appearances, since it is possible for the minds of others to be known directly by someone with extrasensory perception. And this means that there is no validity in saying that the mind appearing to the other person should be substantially identical to the observing mind or that the continuum of that appearing mind does not exist. And the same would apply to outer objects".
Guru Rinpoche said: not same as mind but not different.