"Solid vision" like "pure vision" can appear out of "ignorance", or as expression of knowledge, which is the end of "ignorance"
What is the difference then? The supposition that pure vision has no external source but "self-generated". That is not the case, however, as there are conditions for the pure vision just as for the solid one. Both appear as visual phenomena, and only mentally makes one a difference between solid and pure, but not visually. And that mental difference is just the supposition that pure vision is self-generated. And there is another assumption here.
for you it's important if "pure visions" appear or not. For me it's important how visions appear. "Solid visions" like "pure visions" are only visions/appearences; both are nothing special and both seems to be lack of knowledge/transparency, if "ignorance" seems to be "active". You always talk about "visions" in the context of "ignorance". But the mentioned "difference" in the "straw-metaphor" is about "solid visions" and "pure visions" in the context of "knowledge/transparency". And you can't understand this "difference" in the way you "think about" it.
The described natural capacity and development of "knowledge" closes this important gap.
That idea of capacity and development do not exist in Zen, so it cannot be used as an explanation or basis for the occurrence of pure visions distinct from other sensory phenomena. Consequently, both solid and pure are interpretations not made in the Zen tradition, thus even if they came up during meditation, they would not be handled in any special way.
If knowledge/transparency is really immeditate obvious and relative stable, the described natural capacity and development of "knowledge", closes the mentioned gap.
If knowledge/transparency isn't immediate obvious and relative stable, it seems there's no natural capacity and development of knowledge", closes the mentioned gap.
For me it doesn't matter which names and sectarian context one gives the possible "methods", which leads de facto to "knowledge/transparency". Knowledge is knowledge, ignorance is ignorance. But there are a lot of possible methods and a lot of methods including a lot of possible different outputs. If one mixed-up this outputs far away from discriminative wisdom, it makes only disorientation and opened the way for the lot of traps. For me it's about these "different outputs", relative independently of the names one gives the methods. Therefore it doesn't matter which names and sectarian context one gives... .
That's why I want to return to my original request and experimental content for soto-brothers/sisters, because I've explained enough: If you just sit in front of the sky or in darkness, like you just sit in front of the sky or in darkness, therefore primordially natural, neither as "practice" nor reified "non-practice", could you tell me something about "pure visions"? If they appear, how they appear
? I'm interested in "how they appear". Do you "reject" these visions, do you "accept" these visions, do you neither "reject" nor "accpect" these visions because "rejection" like "acceptance" doesn't matter from itself? Are these visions lack of "knowledge/transparency" or are these visions the immediate expression of knowledge/transparency.. and so forth.