I found Ratie's chapter in Puspika both interesting but still a little confusing. However, her periodic restatements throughout the chapter that, "separation [between objects and subjects] is an appearance, yet it is not unreal" (Ratie, 388) did help in bringing me back to the main idea as I was reading. I also found her explanations of the painting and "city in a mirror" metaphors helpful when trying to understand this concept. From my understanding (which may be incorrect), in the painting metaphor if the various colors that make up the painting are perceived as separate, such as "yellow" and "red", then it won't be seen as what it is, which is a painting. When various colors are "grasped" together then the painting emerges, however this can only be done if there is a background in which all the colors are present. The various colors, represent the diverse elements of the world and if a person only has a very "synthetic grasp" on the concept of a painting (various lines of color put together) then they can't see the bigger picture, which is that these seemingly separate elements actually come together while still maintaining their own distinct qualities. And it is the background that unites all of these elements without "dissolving their differences" that is ultimately what allows the colors to become a painting, or in other words, as Abhinavagupta puts it, "the variety of the universe is manifest only if there is a Supreme Lord who consists of nothing but a manifesting consciousness, just as a painting [is manifest only if there is] a background" (as quoted by Ratie, 394). This metaphor makes the background in this scenario the ultimate consciousness or reality (?) in which everything exists.

Hope this is ok as a blog post.. I know I'm mostly just trying to sort out my thoughts rather than have any real insight into these ideas. And I would not be surprised if I got this all wrong, in which case I'd really love to know where I messed up or which concepts I'm getting confused!