Forestgreen

What if that is not true? What if, for example, methods based on other goals have been interwoven in the tradition for a millenia? Then this is just one possible goal, and perhaps not the goal ones teacher is aiming for.

It's a lived experience. If it is outside of ones lived experience, for all practical purposes it is as if it doesn't exist.

I believe that when we understand a method, we understand the principle behind. Working with the principle ( mechanism), methods can be simplified. I also do not believe that we can start from the principle, years of teaching at uni has taught me that an absolute majority of people need methods first.

A system should be able to lift a broad spectrum of people to a higher level. Some systems try to be ChanWuYi, which means it grows. Too narrow, and fewer will have use of it. Too broad, and the practitioner will have problem with progressing beyond the fundamentals. I believe that many teachers have read a text and then tried to reverse engineer it, using methods they already know. They have no lineage keys to that specific text, but might be very efficient in developing something else. Only if they try to fit it in with everything else. I see this in chinese traditions, where the correllation charts become cumbersome and overwhealming, often correlating processes that are, in reality, not really close to each other. Some systematization is useful.

This is my experience when training a system. Around two hours a day, not doing all the stuff. That is why the idea of going into several systems parallel seens so far fetched. So either are people training multiple systems either not actually practicing the system as it is supposed to be practiced ( enoughtime, every day), or they have found very small systems.

Medical science and psychological science use both qualitative and quantitative methods. Just like the two truths in Buddhism, both are useful as long as they are not conflated with each other. Some tend to value one over the other, which technically is an "unscientific" view.

We can archive this under "common misconceptions about neidan".

We will always have quantum physics ( and breakfast at Tiffanys). The idea of essentialism though has been questioned both by philosophers, scientists, and buddhists. Are there subtle realities? I would say yes. Are they based on essences/substances? According to abhidhamma theory, as far as I understand it, no.

The modern meaning of the term seems to be in conflict with how it developed. Sighs. It's like being at work, in psychological theory some of the terms are so mixed in meaning that communication breaks down.

I find it easier to level this down to a personal level: I cannot learn two or more systems at one time, because inevitably I end up doing similar things parallel. Focusing on one system, I can go deeper. Are there exceptional people that can do more? Absolutely. Is there a risk for less-than-exceptional people that they collect systems without full benefit? Well, I could list systems I have tested but quit practicing. I got some out of it though, different teachers from different methods have different ways of explaining things, and that made me understand my main practice better.

Because it has no substance?

So a substance from a philosophical point of view, not a substance as an ordinary dictionarie would define the term in english?

In which sense is qi a substance?

I practice one system, and I d not have time to practice that to perfection. Doing two or three, I would either have to skip actually absorbing into the methods I know quite well, or skip work.

I'm curious, who has the time to delve deeply into two systems?