I think the idea of a "true nature" reflects a materialist, empiricist, and realist bias. Why approach meditation with such preconceptions?
Where do you objectively draw the line between "specific" and "general" characteristics?
And also, why should objects of empiricism yield more detailed information than objects of the intellect? I would say that there is no clear distinction between objects of experience and objects of inference, since empirical observation is dependent on some degree of conceptualization or rationalization (usually sub-conscious) while objects of the intellect are dependent on experience, no meaningful statement can be made without reference to real things.
The best things in life aren't things.