Daniel

The character for confused or disrupted? 亂 ? The conditions which produce this phenomena are the focus of my question. Would you please post a larger section of the original wording? If possible, it would be very helpful for me to see it in the original formatting. For example: if it's formatted in columns, I would like to see that including the line breaks. If not, I would like to see the sentence and paragraph structure. Please and thank you? ^^ This ^^ is the part I am most interested in, but including the characters both preceding it and following it ( in the original formatting ) would be very much appreciated.

Shen is disrupted when: learning true meaning and background is lacking consistent inward directed awareness?

I hear you, but, how is this related to the question I asked? Let's suppose that you're an unlimited God and you would like to help a finite human mind escape from the limitations of self/Self projections. OK? Would that outcome be encouraged by a revelation of divinity in human form? Would that outcome be encouraged by revelation of divinity as a "Self"?

No. Not from being "shown". If you practice a waidan process and achieve results ( without knowing the classic terminology ) then were shown a neidan process with a more instructional terminology, would you say they were interrelated?

I will try to respect that, but, I reserve the right to reply to any post in this thread.

The Dr's credentials are not disputed. What I've shown is that his research, just like all scientific research, has its limitations. You don't seem to understand what those limits are, and as a result, you're exaggerating.

Dr. Adler says attempts to hypothesize the construction of Judaism are super-conjectural and are not data driven. Super-conjectural and not data driven means they are little more than guessing. The question is asked and answered starting at 1 hour and 30 minutes. The link in my post advances to the correct spot automatically.

If that's what I wrote, it's not what I meant.

Then commenting on them seems silly to me. Prefer. Clearly your statements are personal preference. You prefer not to use a text. Maybe you missed what I wrote earlier. I'm not relying on a text. I'm showing that a technique exists, because you're denying it. i have had a lot of instruction over the past 20+ years, and I practice daily. Your assumptions about me are rather gross.

If you think it's gibberish, then, maybe the text isn't for you.

Ignoring the text, Neidan and Waidan are interrelated? Yes or No? That is the question.

Confusion is a natural consequence of avoiding learning.

The text very likely is expressing two (or more) related ideas in the same verse. This is not uncommon for poetry.

What I wrote is coming from reading the Classical Chinese. A couple of Chinese speakers in this thread agree with me.

Good. The inaccurate system is narrow. Ask yourself? Among the two of us, which one is holding to a narrow perspective? Which one is more inclusive? Why make this into either/or? I think ( I sincerely hope ) we both agree the two are interrelated. If not, which one of us is narrowing their perception?

Here's an interview of Dr. Adler on the "MythVision" YouTube channel. This channel is a favorite among atheists and critics of Judaism and Christianity, and, it's good entertaining YouTube content. Whatever faults you may find in me, what cannot be stated honestly is that I avoid the other-side. I listen and I understand what the critics are saying about me, my religion, my faith, and my culture. I am not afraid of the criticism. At approx. the 1 hour 30 minute mark, the interviewer asks Dr. Adler to comment on the construction of Judaism in the manner which you are describing in this thread. Dr. Adler uses the words "super-conjectural" to answer the question. It's a huge mystery. There's evidence which shows when the ideas became a national way of life. But it's impossible to go further than that through rational scientific inquiry. Also note? 1:31:53 Terminus Ante Quem is invoked, by Dr. Adler. Nungali, it's a very important concept which is neglected by every internet , DIY, critical-researcher I have ever encountered. And I've encountered many. Hopefully, the simple fact that I am posting this video will show that I am being fair. I'm not hiding anything. I'm very happy to present both sides of this debate and discuss them both. The difference between us, is, my approach includes both sides. That's the only way to to make a wise judgement. I've queued the video to the appropriate spot towards the end of the interview.

The article you brought is about the challenges of carbon dating. The article reports that the unreliable outlier is being excluded. New evidence brought specificity. It's very simple. An arrowhead dated to 300BCE is discovered. That means arrowheads were created 300BCE or before. An arrowhead dated to 200BCE is discovered. It changes nothing. Arrowheads were created 300BCE or before. An arrowhead dated to 400BCE is discovered. This is significant. New conclusion: Arrowheads were created 400BCE or before. That's it. TAQ. Terminus Ante Quem. The Latest Beginning. The red herring is trying to use "who wrote it first" as a relevant data point for evaluating the construction of a religion in that era. Stories were told and passed by word of mouth. Few knew how to read or write. But the critics of Judaism and the YouTube atheist community consistently push this idea on the overly eager audience who gratefully laps it up. in regard to Dr. Adler's research you're misinterpreting it. He's even stated that explicitly in an interview. I'll see if I can find it.

Nonsense. I'm collecting data. The context is inner alchemy. Nothing is being taken out of context. You're missing the point. You rebuked Livia Kohn. You were wrong to do so in the manner which you did. She did not misquote the text. She did not take it out of context. You don't like it. You don't like her writing. Of course not. She's writing from a different perspective which is oppositional to yours. That's all. Your objections at this point are your own personal preferences. I refer you back to Freeform's words since you respect them. Something to note from the wiki entry on Huang-Lao. They are focused on immortality in contradistinction to the school of thought emerging from the Zhuangzi. Are you following my train of thought? This happens all the time. People start with a text that they like, because it resonates with them. Then they interpret other texts through the lens of the first. In this case, the DDJ is being interpreted through your particular lens, which is fine. The problem arises when a declaration is made: "This is the only correct way. I know the way. There is no other way." That's not Daoist. That's Christian.

Uh-huh. Cinnabar is necessary. For a golden elixir, both gold and cinnabar are needed simultaneously. Did you read the article? It's only 6 pages long. It very clearly is connected to what you are describing. However it's interesting that your diagram lists Li as Yang. Cinnabar as an elixir, a medium, would be Yin.

Bro, that's not true. Not all spiritual traditions. This is where it starts sounding Christian. "None can get to the father except through me" "None can get to spirit except through cutting of desires and stimulation." The only way to make this sort of all inclusive assertion is if the individual is literally omniscient. You've said it's rare. If you have access to an individual ( guru ) claiming omniscience. It's easy to put that to the test.

I agree with this. 100%. With an exception. I rely on the original text, in the original language, as an expression of the will of the author. At this point in our discussion you're saying: "You can't, and, it doesn't exist." ( connecting to "spirit" as referenced in the Freeform's posts via simultaneity ). Since I've done it myself, naturally, I object to this. And since there are academic authors writing about it, that supports my own personal experiences. There appears to have been some rather wise and respected individuals in China around 300BCE doing the same thing. That also supports my experiences. Based on your writing, we both approached /experienced the same thing. That also supports my experiences, but, with a very important implication. If we both experienced the same thing, but approached it from opposite directions, that means the path is not linear. It's circular. ~nods~ Yes. Circular. Even if what I'm describing is the "wrong" way, if the path is circular, all that's needed is perseverance. Both paths are leading to the same destination. That's why my objections to what you had written were cleared as soon as I understood what you were describing. You're the 4th person I've met who has had a credible repeatable experience similar to mine. All 4 of us are walking different paths, yet, we're all approaching the same destination. That tells me the path is not only circular, it's spherical. And if it's spherical, there are many many different paths all leading to the same destination. This conclusion is coming from personal experience, but it is also supported by a "mystery school" in my own culture. I cannot deny the very rewarding self-validation that is produced by this conclusion. I am biased. It's foolish to deny it. However, it would be insane for me to ignore my own personal experiences and the personal experiences of my trusted friends which are perfectly in line with what has been taught, teacher-to-student, teacher-to-student, teacher-to-student, in an unbroken chain of transmission as captured in the written word.

It is.

Related: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huang–Lao https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huangdi_Yinfujing

Or... you don't know how to "use" both. Chin-Dahn: Free-Online with a Google Account: https://www.jstor.org/stable/25130199?read-now=1#page_scan_tab_contents

What do you think of this? See attached? Gold and cinnabar used for alchemy together. It represented a unique unity. Read the summary at the end. References are provided. It's a good source, isn't it? Cinnabar.pdf