Mi'sen

Yes…particularly re the language. I agree that the language of the framework within which one practices both prescribes and interprets experience. (There is always a framework tho is not always obvious or understood by the person practising).

And there is substantial qualitative difference across methodologies, even though the same practice labels might be used.

Yeah, I’ve been having a number of chats recently with senior practitioners/teachers and there seems to be a big issue around language, and a general lack of semantic maturity. One person I spoke to also highlighted issues between oral tradition and textual sources (in teaching)

The qualitative differences across methodologies is also a really good point. Even where the phenomenology of a state/stage/insight sounds very close across traditions, the value & interpretations relating to that can be really different, and a source of much confusion.

Yes, I think this is important. Worldview from one tradition or another can radically change what a practice means, or what you should/can do with it.

And that’s in addition to practices themselves being superficially similar, but subtly different in methodology, or sometimes even radically different in direction/outcome despite superficial starting points.

Seem to be quite liberal with my radicallys today.

Ha. I seem to be radically liberal with my quites, as it happens. Also, thank you for the food for thought re: practices which are superficially similar but functionally divergent.