Maybe it is to say that when you turn and meet the eyes of another you already know that you're the same basic stuff. That's why you open your mouth and start talking. Because you know you'll get an answer back.
Perhaps the text is there to remind you of the significance of that intuition, and to look for generality in plurality, as a useful abstraction. There are other texts that seem to teach you the use of fear, vision, smell and taste, touch and feel.
Maybe it's a manual for your vehicle, and not some philosophical movement.
Just a thought.
In your view (or the view you are defending) is there any reason to be compassionate towards other beings ? If the answer is yes than that compassion should have extended to avoiding all manifestation so as to prevent their suffering.
If the answer is no, because they are just like characters in a novel, then there seems to be a very fundamental difference in morality between this view and most other spiritual teachings, which do teach compassion.
The idea that all manifestation should have been prevented to prevent suffering seems to take for granted, that the joys of life are not worth the suffering. I would disagree about that.
Yes, because that has always been my experience. I have never experienced a state of joy or happiness that seemed so good that I could see it as justifying suffering. I have however in the past experienced states of suffering so horrible that I would have given anything for them to end.
In this view the ego self existed before, but only in so far as I exist as the character in a novel, while I am reading it. So I would say yes, it is OK to torture a fictional character if it makes sense in the context of the story.
Personally I find that explanation circular and unsatisfying. So the goal of life is to get back to what you were before life began, what's the point ?