Mi'sen

Yes…particularly re the language. I agree that the language of the framework within which one practices both prescribes and interprets experience. (There is always a framework tho is not always obvious or understood by the person practising).

And there is substantial qualitative difference across methodologies, even though the same practice labels might be used.

I think ultimately, all frameworks that encompass meditation/path/technique/interpretation arise in what is to be realized--the ultimate condition of reality. The (unavoidable) conceptual frameworks can't dig their talons into that nonconceptual reality, which is our true nature.

Well here's my take. The dharmakaya is paradoxical and includes a negation as well as a clarity of opening. I've written about these two aspects of nothing.

I’m not entirely sure what either of your replies mean, Ed. Sorry freind. Miscomprehension from my side, I’m sure. I’d like to read your thing on the two aspects of nothing, if you’d be willing to share.

All of it makes sense and seems right. Not sure I could say anything more short of a blog series or something

Yeah, I’m often hesitant to post stuff in this area, but seems like it’s worth the effort in case someone has something interesting to say in the format. Although a full blog series reply would be cool...

I used to write pages and pages of gibberish of observations on this stuff. Being a bit of an undisciplined eclectic, it all makes very much sense. Qualitative differences in practice, even for things that are nominally the "same" practice, are huge across aesthetic backdrops.