Forestgreen

If they cannot be falsified, they are not theories. So yes, theories should be tested. Otherwise, they are just ideas.

The fundamental nature of prior heaven is empty, [nonexistent] primordial qi. In short, it is emptiness, that is all. I found this to be useful, if understood as in page 47. Using two traditional Chinese terms, the unconditioned and conditioned domains are respectively defined as precelestial (or prior to Heaven, xiantian, lit. “before Heaven”) and postcelestial (or posterior to Heaven, houtian, lit. “after Heaven”). The postcelestial domain is distinguished by multiplicity and relativity; it is the state that features transitory events and phenomena that succeed one another within space and time. The precelestial domain, in one of the approximations that might be used to describe it, is the constant and omnipresent original state of Oneness, which contains all events and phenomena independently of whether they do or do not occur, and with no distinctions of space and time, here and there, before and after. I interpret this from the theravada abhidamma theory, which makes it comprehensible and in line with my experience during practice. I find this slightly too abstract in it self though. When the alchemical texts use the word “original” (yuan), they refer to the Origin (yuanshi), i.e., to a primordial substance that is not born in the postcelestial state. Therefore the Shihan ji (Records from a Stone Casket), attributed to Xu Jingyang (also known as Xu Xun, trad. 239–374), says: 元陽即元精，發生於玄玄之際。元精無形，寓於元炁之中。若受 外感而動，與元炁分判，則成凡精。 Original Yang is the same as Original Essence, sent forth from the bourns of the Mystery beyond the Mystery. Original Essence has no form, and resides within Original Breath. If it receives an external stimulus, then it moves: it separates from Original Breath, and becomes the common essence. So yuan yang = yuan jing, and yuan jing resides within yuan qi. And according to Huang Yuanji, yuan qi is also Xing. And the unified qi of the vast harmony is the unborn ming suspended between heaven and earth, which is also real xing and real ming. About here, I usually waves with a white flag and return to the buddhist terminology.

With a friend?🤣

Yes, we can only cultivate/practice/develop how the body utilize those subststances, if we are looking at it from a physiolgical ppint of view. My real question was answered though, that the discussion so far was on the level of the preliminary practice.

Did you find any of these descriptions useful in your practice?

Is dan dao about cultivating post heaven qi?

No, but your model of conditioned reality would fit better in another section on the site. It makes it easier to communicate, since we basically are discussing categories and models. Have you noticed that many of your posts are interpreted as way of topic when you post them in for example discussions related to neidan?

And most of the time, the right qigong is to do enough of whatever style one is practicing.

Schools of neidan that mixes methods aimed at different leveks of xian, schools of neidan that mixes those methods with thunder rites. A certain buddhist tradition ( mine) that mixes alchemical methods with what was first schamanistic methods for affecting life but then devolved into methods of how to hurt people (poison hands). Stuff like that.

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?

I would disagree with that. Yes. And that kind of qi is not what the MCO is about (see next comment). Again, not what the MCO within the context of neidan is about. My opinion (I might be biased and totally wrong here) is that the qigong/neigong varieties often are contrieved methods. My opinion is based on the method I practice, where most of the energetic movements and other sensations arise as a result of proper practice.