So, why do some speakers use the same words or 'jargon'?... Well, quite simply, if we're talking about the same thing, why not use the same words? If words are to have any usage at all, there has to be some kind of agreement or consensus as to what a word points to, or what a collection of words describe. So when it is said 'this is an appearance' or is 'what apparently happens', that then, as far as it can, simply means there is just what apparently happens, that's all. Tony Parsons saw this, (so to speak), and there are others who are also confirming what the Open Secret communication is attempting to describe - (We can at this point start the dance back and forth about words can never point to 'what appears' if we really must, but that is itself pointless). I really can't think of a better way to describe no thing being everything, than to say 'this is no thing being everything', and make of that what you will.

I think what probably happened over the years of this communication coming out into the world, is that it has, in some way or other, become clearer; more direct. A bit like a sous chef will often begin with a fairly wide selection of ingredients to begin making a sauce, but ultimately what happens in the cooking process is a reducing of the ingredients down until there is just the rawness or essence of the sauce and its flavour. Of course, no metaphor like this can stand up to scrutiny in the context of a non duality conversation, (and the mind does love to scrutinise!) so, I would add to that, that this would have just been happening naturally, not as an intention of the communicator to combine ingredients to create a certain sauce or flavour, or to get to some kind of rawness with the message - that's just 'what apparently happens' too.

As to the comments on the 'radical' (yawn) non duality speak as 'jargon', it simply comes out of a mind that is, most likely, still trying to make some kind of sense of it, so that it can either be accepted or rejected. That's what the mind does; it's looking for the angles all of the time. This is so it can survive and continue to reign as the monarch of its imagined kingdom, where it feels safe behind its castle walls. In the story, it is both the landlord and the tenant which resides in, and claims ownership of, a body and a world which it claims to be its property.

So, in that sense, this type of communication can only be viewed as an understanding of some kind, which also can include the understanding that it isn't about an understanding. Understandings change. They change with more or less knowing coming out of an individual perspective on something. So an individual will listen to some speakers and communicators and wonder why they are saying the same thing, or using the same words, because it thinks that one should be using and working with their own individual understanding or interpretation on the subject of non duality, or whatever. That's just more ownership; which is totally natural, of course.

I think it's fair to say that there can be an effort to be as clear as possible when it comes to communicating 'this' - no one is making an effort - it just automatically happens. And it wouldn't be wrong to say that there is a natural tendency to not mislead by saying certain words which would be more like describing something different.

It really doesn't matter at the end of the day. I think for those who come regularly to hear this type of communication, it is because something is deeply intuited or sensed, which can leave a flavour of something that feels like home... If only for a little while. But all of that is pure story, because there is only 'what apparently happens', which is home already, and that's the mystery. A communication is what apparently happens in some cases, and either it is resonated with or not.

‍