i said, it is a functioning thing, nonconceptual (not conceptual)
And I asked, how can a thing be non-conceptual?
the object in your metaphor is purely conceptual ie. a conceptual distinction about one body of water. this is the main topic at hand.
in any case to answer your question a thing is nonconceptual is the sense that it is only directly knowable by a nonconceptual cognition
it an actual functioning thing in the world, not just a conception which is only conceptually knowable
something that is neither the same as the mind nor different than the mind is a mental factor, such as anger
anger is not a type of mind, since it is not clear and knowing (the definition of mind)
nor is it something other than mind, because it cannot be separated from a mind as a separate entity
Your are doing just that, without a problem. Otherwise, how on earth are you able talk about it?
i'm not doing that. i am not eliminating mind whilst still positing a mental factor ie. separating it from the mind as a separate entity
that we can _speak_ about mind and mental factor as individual things is an interesting thing, involving conceptual isolation. this is the study of what is called apoha, and pramana, and it the meaning of the buddhas teachings..that the person is not the same as the parts of a person nor different than the parts of a person. aside from people who realize this, every other mind posits one of the two extremes, such as saying that karma is like the bay compared to the river it splits from. this is the extreme of nihilism, since it asserts that karma is just a conjured name which is not real and that what is actually real are the underlying particle of water