Forestgreen

My point would be that there is a difference between a translation of a text and an interpretation of a text, the later is normally designed as a commentary. And, did the author intend it to be a reference to yuan jing? Or to something else? Something that the term "yuan jing" doesn't really cover?

Words and characters transmit ideas. Change them, and the idea transmitted will be different than what was originally intended.

Since my chinese is seriously lacking: No reference to the fabled yuan jing?

Still trying to grasp that aspect. I am less fluid in daoist than in buddhist.

I practice Shaolin, I had no idea what the practice would lead to and what was demanded of me. I do not know where my practice will lead me. I have hopes, but they are different from my expectations just two years ago. Isn't that normal?

I'm not sure that is a full quote and a good translation @Taoist Texts And the pot is not empty, there is water in it. Just no " medicinal herbs".

Any useful texts on that subject? I personally have not found much from the daoist sektion that goes into actually explaining stuff. Compared to buddhist texts, daoist ones tend to focus on wrapping everything in terminology, seldom cutting to the chase. Or, when finally getting anywhere, talking about basic energetics.

In a neidan/neigong thread? For a beginner? Doesn't sound like advice relevant to the situation.

Yes, cannot argue with that. 😄

That is the hard part, isn't it. Separating the worth from the not-worth. In a world where teachers sell their method online, how can a beginner know how to separate the two? Every method have a champion. Every method have people who dislike it. "Lucky is (s)he who haveth a method". Proverbs, 120:37

Jim MacRitchie: Based to some extent on Mantak Chias method? Some might have reservations about that too.

The Malaysian branch does some if the dynamic movements in a unique way, that's for sure.

These practices are supposed to allow the practitioner to awaken to reality (WuZhen). By that, the implication is that before that awakening/realization the practitioner cannot fathom reality and is therefore dominated by ignorance and delusion. Some of them do that by affecting the sense of Self, and by bypassing the five sense organs. Some, if not all, state that the goal, when reached, is an experience that normal vocabulary cannot fully describe. Maybe your attempt to use intellectual methods to analyse the descriptions of long time experiental practitioners is faulty? It gives you an outsider perspective, like a western explorer trying to understand a non-western culture and by default finding it lackning. A cultural anthropologist have to immers himself/herself in the culture studied. The same advice is usually given here on TDB: Practice more.

Now I fixed that for you.

I'm sure you are bored to tears with old quotes from non-active members, and thankfully for both of us I cannot recall the thread, but one of the recently more quoted non-active members actually made a post about this. No longer assessing harm to the point of being a danger to oneself seems to be one possible result of an insane amount of intense meditative practice.

Should say the only ones, referring to all three, not the only one which might be misunderstood as if I only studied buddhist material. The practice is buddhist though, Shaolin to narrow it down a bit.

Yes...

Here we are in agreement. What I do not advocate though, is using a language that was developed for a different area of study. I actually agree with you here, I just do not find a waidan language useful for neidan. Here, you are coming from the koan angle. For me, those metaphors are like a recipy, the ingredients are, well, fight club. It is interesting though that some of the metaphors that are part of my practice, although not derived from waidan, are used in daoist, hindu and buddhist traditions ( the only one I have investigated). The difference being that they are discussed as recipies and the components are discussed quite in the open, except in the daoist tradition that wraps stuff up in even more metaphorical language. It was interesting having this discussion with you, always interesting to get another angle on things. Thanks.

If you had a model which is highly abstract, metaphorical, and could be used on very different and unrelated subjects with quite a few possible ways of interpretation and a model which is less abstract and focused on the process engaged with, which would you choose? The highly abstract because it comes with a sense that things are interrelated, or the less abstract because it doesn't need that extra step of interpretation?

This is just a mental construct. But if you find use or comfort in it, that is fine. In my path I have no use for it, but that is what floats my boat, not yours. Jin dan is an interesting subject. Moreso when one move beyond the metaphorical language and get down to the actual practice.

Ever read the WuZhenPian? Seems to have a lot of " this is the only correct way". Ever studied buddhism? A lot of dogmatic schisms there, splitting hairs and arguing about the correct interpretation.

No. I would say that they resulted in similar/ same results (if that is what you is getting at) without having any interrelation.

Basically, the seminar peddlers of yore hitched on an established vocabulary as a sell. The target populaton existed, so they re-packed a commodity in a way that resonated with the crowd.

If you were shown a waidan process without the classic terminology, and if you were shown a neidan process with a more instructional terminology, would you say they were interrelated? Yes or no? That is the question.

Because there is a difference between a text where the meaning is slightly hidden, and a text that can mean whatever the reader fancies? Although I must admit, looking at some of these old texts and commentaries to them, gibberish is the norm. Thankfully, the confirmatory bias is strong in me.