Ahhh, the paradoxical nature of word play.
Virtuous man as opposed to non-virtuous one? Having a deluded concept
vs. not having one, or vs. having a 'pure' concept? Or when a deluded
mind arises vs. not arising? Liberation vs. ????? Without making any
distinction between wisdom and stupidity why bother with the label of
prajna? When Sila, Samadhi, and Prajna are the same as greed, anger,
and delusion, why bother calling them poisons? Being in accordance
with the nature of enlightenment as opposed to being a generator of
alarm and fear?
Distinctions heaped upon distinctions, this is the religion (Dharma)
method of non-discrimination.
From an objective analysis of what is being said, it appears to be a
heap of discrimination praising the loftiness of non-discrimination.
Really it seems to come down to a matter of perspective, and the
inherent limitation of words to try to convey that which cannot be
said in words.
So much has been said about the inherent unity in diversity, or
diversity in unity, if you prefer. Oneness is the fact. Diversity
appearing in that oneness is also a fact (illusory separation, as was
stated previously). The changing changes, that which does not change,
does not change. One who has stepped beyond, or transcended the
changing can say there are no distinctions between heaven and hell,
etc. Even though they may have an appearance, they are seen to be of
the same substance (which is no substance). For the one who takes the
changing appearances to be true however, heaven and hell, greed,
anger, and delusion, etc., are experienced as being very real. This
can easily be see upon investigation, and without investigation, one
is left to guesswork and conjecture.
Cheers Mate!