Forestgreen

In my practice, the first would be a description of energetics on a post heaven intermediate level, and the second would be seen as a misunderstanding of the process.

Yes, believing that humans are set apart would be a sign that the insight is faulty. Sorry that I checked, I know that this is Buddhism 101. But the discussions on neidan should also be neidan 101, and....

I wrote that we have to understand how terms are defined. So "alchemy " could be more specified as neidan, and defined as the process of reversal from postheavento preheaven energetics. That definition could be furter elaborated with inclusion criteria and exclusion criteria: In this practice we do this and not that. With ( insert term here) we mean (internal result), and not (the external substance or imaginary beast) that we used as a simili. And here, your comment finally makes sense in this context: Some of the internal results are hard to describe, but sometimes it is just the teacher that is unwilling to describe it.

The worst thing when comparing traditions is that we have to understand how terms are defined in that tradition. Which is funny, there was just some posts about how definitions of terms were a bad thing. 😁

Silent thunder: "Awareness (the experience of being) itself is Alchemy."

Because it is such a cool practice. Or, there are other texts than DaoDeJing, where wuwei philosophy is less prominent. The yellow court scriptures comes to mind. Their pursuit was a specific spiritual path. There are quite a few different daoist traditions, developed with different goals in mind, some of these traditions use the term neidan today. At least one of the methods did most likely not originate from within the chinese daoist tradition.

My guess is that @Antares would say that dying and rotting is going with the flow, while southeast asian internal alchemy would reverse that process and go against the flow. I would again guess that Antares would point to the answer above. Much guesswork here, but the most likely answer might be 1) So that one has the time to practice the alchemical process to perfection, and 2) the result would ideally be that one sheds the husk in a nice form made of light.

Two terms for Joy, xi and le. Elation and Joy.

Not if we are discussing that which was so defined.

Yes, I agree. I just see no reason to add this in the practice of neidan, except that it is useful to not follow ones desires (by which many virtous behaviours will appear by themselves, ziran, very daoist).

That would depend on how "de" is translated. It seems like the term developed just like "virtus" did. In my practice, the answer is yes. Most likely, someone else will say no, and because of differences in traditions we will both be right. I might add (great post btw), that what you wrote about the senses leading to different worlds is central to the practice. This, not a lower dantian full with whatever. So we reverse it, so we can go back ("ni") to the same world. Reality.

Said schools added correllations, expanding the ancient four around a center model until it became the correllation tables we see today.

And that relates to defining a term so it can be discussed without total confusion?

How about a nice walk in a forest?

Caffeine creates tachycardia, the Ego believes that we are up for the challange? That would explain stupid things I've done when younger.😁

And the circle defines the term.

In my practice, this happens because we habitually interpret the world through the five senses. The seven refined nine reversed elixir focus on this, and everything else follows.

I would say that the Confusian tradition and the five elements school have been so enbedded in the Chinese worldview that they influence other traditions. This has been going on for so long, that most Chinese probably cannot separate them. The result is a barrier to understanding.

That would make the topic very hard to discuss.

That would be a broken or dead lineage.

So if I think if the term "emptiness" as the absence of a permanent and unchangeable self, explained by dependant origination, would we be relatively close aligned when it comes to the theoretical frame?

This, I would agree with. But, just out of curiosity, since we might discuss this topic again, what is your definition of emptiness? So I can understand this. I read your answer to Mark Foote. It is good to be back here. It reminds me that buddhist practice is more than the aspects that I am studying, and that they all are just convenient means to an end.

Here we use different frames of reference. For me, touching stillness and being mindfull of how conventional reality relates to dependant origination are early stages and still far removed from seing the buddha nature ( and the practitioner still needs methods/tools to develop further). If this is the frame that is taught in the traditions you are familiar with, then that is fine, and there is no point in taking this discussion further.

There are, and have been, numerous buddhist schools. They have argued most about every word in the sutras, and about how to practice. I try to narrow it down to "what I do", as long that it has support in texts and tradition. That would be my guess.

It's not abstract, or at least less abstract than 90% of other buddhist terms and concepts used. Those terms describe things that happens within the body and the consciousness. So there must be another reason that explain why those particular concepts have been dropped.