So well said. Many people think "the differences are just semantics" without realizing the day and night differences that the different clarity and types of experiential insights and view makes, experientially.
"The issue is that one’s view can inform their experiential realization, and experientially there can be subtle structures of consciousness involved which seem profound but still contain obstructions. Also consciousness is quite dynamic in terms of how it begins to intuit and realize dharmatā. For instance emptiness can be realized in the sense gates without being realized in the mind, which can give the illusion of a stable ultimate “knower.” In addition, there can be coarse nondual states that are just a fusion of subject and object which make the continuum seem substantial.
As such, this really is an issue related to experience (rather than just language) and then the language-based ways of describing various types of equipoise are secondary symptoms. Some types of equipoise are inferior in nature, but can be deceiving if the practitioner mistakes them for something definitive. It would be nice if all realizations were identical and this disparity in presentation was just a semantic issue, but realizations are manifold, and disparities in description are often just describing disparities in the quality of experience.
Not saying this to insinuate anything about Dolbupa or gzhan stong etc., just merely commenting on the language versus experience issue and saying things may be more complex than we think." - Kyle Dixon reddit posts compilation https://docs.google.com/.../2PACX.../pub...
A Compilation of Some of Kyle Dixon's Wonderful Postings Part 2
If it is asked what nāma is in the sutras that analyze nāmarūpa, [nāma] is the four aggregates that are non-material, i.e., vedanaskandha up to vijñānaskandha. If it is asked what rūpa is, anything which is rūpa is all of that which is the four great elements or uses the four elements as a c...
"Typically this topic is an uphill battle for many in this subreddit due to people either parroting Thanissaro Bikkhu, or misunderstanding the absence of characteristics in the context of Mahāyāna, which if mishandled results in some sort of neutral, indeterminate view. Both ideas only serve to endlessly obfuscate the meaning of anātman, precisely because both iterations of this error hinge upon some sort of unjustified ambiguity." - Kyle Dixon in reddit compilation https://docs.google.com/.../2PACX.../pub...
Wow. He put in words very succinctly, on a very frequent problem I see in reddit