寒月 Hanyue

To add to Joeblast's advice; Search 'piriformis stretch', there are plenty of videos online looking at this, be discerning and find one with an exercise that seems sensible and easy that makes sense to you. Work to release the tension in your pelvis floor/perineum. Use intent, breath, or whatever that helps you release it. Lie semi-supine for 10-20 minutes and deeply relax, allow the pelvis to open and the spine to decompress. Take any and all of the advice given and play, find what helps and works for YOU

Apparently. But no-one apart from Drew ever understands this stuff I'm not married, but I'm beginning to feel that way! So I'm done, time for practice. Best to all

Regarding 'stilling/calming the heart', How do we do this? I don't think anyone has gone there as succinctly as JB in his original post! The problems lie with the fact that it appears some have read "fixing the shen in the zu qiao" as being upper dantian work when it is not, as Drew explains in depth. Quite simply you cannot truly calm or still the heart unless you allow the shen to return/gather, or put another way, drop whatever it is that is stopping and preventing the shen from returning. And the way that the old Ch'an and Daoist practitioners did this was with awareness of zuqiao. If the shen is still emitting outwards (primarily through the eyes) how can you calm it and still it so it sinks and dantian fills? You can, but how much? It is not even, in my opinion, a 1-2. Returning the shen with zu qiao IS calming the heart, calming the heart IS returning the shen with zu qiao. The same as both of these IS filling the dantian [from above]. They are ONE thing, but three aspects. Stages are an illusion, even if we experience them that way. Wrap your head around that one This is why you need to read the whole book and re-read it, and re-read it and go in circles, because what you need at the 'beginning' is later, but to get there you need to start somewhere. And yes, that is my opinion, it is an informed one and have good reasons for it, but it is mine.

Yes Drew, what "you" wrote, you are the author of your blog post are you not? You can quote bits of a book all you want, but the interpretation and the message being given is yours, not the book authors. Their interpretation and message is, well, THE BOOK. Everyone is responsible and should take ownership of what they present, it is YOUR understanding. That you read a book and feel it has the same understanding is fine. If someone spends day after day filming a group of people and interviewing them, and then edits a film choosing what to include of what they said, or what to remove of what they said. Who's view is it? Is it the groups, or is it the director/editor of the film? Since they actually choose what to include and what to cut, and the order in which to present those things? I was taught that it is the latter. So yes I view your blogpost as yours, and your view despite being heavily potted with quotes of Lu K'uan Yu's interpretation and translation of Zhao Bichen's writings. I apologise if that actually offends you, as it is not meant to be offensive Nor did I feel that by referring to your blog post as yours (I would have thought it clear that when I say "what you wrote", I am in fact referring to what you wrote and not the quotations), that it would be necessary for you to re-edit your blog, so apologies for making you feel that way. I value your thoughts and insights and appreciate you going to all the trouble that you do to explain things. But to then say it is definitive and the only true way to read a book, I have to disagree with that, even if I overall agree with your view of the book. It may be a higly informed and valuable way to read the book, but I still don't view it as definitive.

Marevlous stuff, you got a better life and you've aquired have the training you need to read critically and find the answers to your question

Damn it, Drew you made me dig out my copy! I liked most of what you wrote, but I still think you make it sound different to what is actually being discussed. The thing is, the relationship between the zuqiao the various dantian [ I am under the impression that the use of upper/middle/lower dantian is an addition by Lu K'uan Yu in the translation] and so on is something that is certainly confusing. Zhao appears to have intentionally made it so by constantly using various names and terms, but this is quite a Chinese thing. They like various names because of Lao Zi. I largely agree with you, and certainly that chpt one is not about upper dantian cultivation. However I do want to point something out, as I see it at least. "It is only when true vitality develops.... that the latter is called the precious cauldron." p. 10, Chapter Two. I do not read this as meaning that the upper dantian does not exist before the true vitality is 'developed'. It means that the name is changed, because the nature of it has been changed by the development of 'true vitality'. The 'upper dantian' is there, but after the true vitality develops it becomes the 'precious cauldron'. Maybe we are just saying the same thing, but it seemed different to me, so I mention it just in case. There are always big problems being precise, especially with translations, it has always appeared to me that the English text is as much product of Lu K'uan Yu's practice and understanding of such things, as Zhao Bichen's. Simply put, as with many Daoist alchemical texts a lot of the language is smoke and mirrors to distract you from the actual method involved, which is usually far more simple than many want to hear. I suppose people, regardless of time and place and race or creed often crave complexity. I've been taught that it is more a case of simple but deep, and the effort should not be in understanding the method, but in doing it. Let me clarify that statement. What I mean is that the effort should not be in having to understand what you are doing. You are taught something and you do it. If you have to spend a long time trying to even understand the method, then something is not right. I do not mean there should never be any effort in pondering the method and deepening ones understanding of it. That is not the same thing. The former is a half complete puzzle that the student is trying to solve, and until they do so, their gongfu will be lacking. The latter is having been given something, and then going further with it. This is an important difference. The zuqiao has no single location. It is inherently tied to the eyes, the 'core' of the cranium, the shen and to the heart. It's nature and the experience of it adjusts and changes according to your 'gongfu', which really shouldn't be much surprise, since everything shifts according to your 'gongfu'. Do not chase a definitive understanding, because the Chinese never did. So if you project that onto what they have left behind, then you are bringing something to the table that will get in the way of understanding what they were doing and talking about. Everything rooted in classical Chinese thought is rooted in the yi jing, meaning nothing is fixed, and everything changes. In Daoism the only thing bigger than change is Dao, which is why if you name something, it is not the "chang Dao" (constant Dao). There is no stage 1, stage 2 etc. It is an illusion. The method is the method, the changes occur but the method remains, the elements of the method change, or in modern terms "get an upgrade", and so the method goes deeper, and round and round we go. Best,

Never said not to have fun, have you seen most of my posts! "But well we talk about a "low level" Taoist Yoga. Mechanical Qigong and not High Level Qigong." I completely disagree with this . Daoist yoga low level or mechanical? huh Just because when people try to describe something and put it into words it becomes dry, and then people read it and perceive what is being said as dry and mechanical does not make it so! There is no low-high level discrepency here except in the imagination. That people continue to perceive Daoist alchemy as a series of steps that they must practice to attain something, rather than a process that simply is and unfolds, is well, a problem with reading books. This is the biggest mistake, and the funniest paradoxical position, and I know the Chinese are laughing! As far as I'm concerned, any interpretation/translation/understanding that enables someone to 'get' something better, and to have that aha! moment where something inside of them can reach further towards the Dao, that is the right interpretation/translation/understanding. This is how I was taught to view things, but it also makes the most sense to me. The next bit is realising that the process is dynamic and there was never meant to be only one way to see these things. Meaning if you overly attach or hold on to that aha! moment, you will not grow and move to the next one. I keep seeing people, scholars included, reading texts modern and ancient as though what is described are stages or steps in a "method" a 1-2-3-and on. Ironically this is not how the Chinese themselves viewed learning or development, and the perceived grammer is usually not present in the original Chinese text, it appears only in the English attempts to translate it. Master Wang simply did away with all this kerfuffle by teaching directly and simply. We should not forget that classically the Chinese always had "teach the student, starve the student" in mind. So I ask, in all honesty. What is the actual difference, alchemy is alchemy no? Best,

It is quite simple, Taijiquan is a martial art Qigong means qi work Neigong means inner/internal work Qigong as a generic term can be used to describe anything and everything which falls into the various interpretations of what the term means. Meaning, it means everything and nothing! It is so vague. Neigong, there is martial neigong and there is Daoist neigong, and they are NOT the same thing. However there have been various martial practitioners who also stuided Daoist neigong and infused that into their practice too. Taijiquan is a martial art, which was influenced by a way of using the body which today is most commonly associated with some forms of qigong. This is martial neigong, which is at the heart of taijiquan. There are a few lines of genuine taijiquan that have also incorporated Daoist practice and meditation within the forms. The most common line is of jinshanpai, and its influence upon Zheng Manqing, and it is largely Zheng's followers who go on about the Daoist connection of taijiquan in the West. However, most have not learned the Daoist aspect at all. The Chen style did not have Daoist neigong within it, although Hu Yaozhen and Chen Fake both trained Feng Zhiqiang to infuse the Daoist neigong into Chenshi Taijiquan, leading to Chenshi xinyi hunyuan taijiquan. I do not know if other lines of Chen taijiquan went there from other routes or not. Wu style, I know Liu Hongjie infused his Daoist practice into the Wushi taijiquan and allegedly passed that on as a form that could be used as shengong and Daoist meditation. The above are examples of people doing what Ya Mu means by; "practice neigong alongside the tai chi and integrate these energetics inside the movements" Ya Mu refers to low-high level, as far as I know within Daoism an equivilent would be pre-post heaven. Martial neigong is about bodymind and is about post-heaven practice, because it is about you in the world and surviving combat. Daoist neigong is usually pre-heaven practice, and is more about "spiritual" things. But please do not get stuck on my words. If you cripple someone or kill them, would this create karma? or as Ya Mu says, "attached energetics", there is of course your own reaction to such events, then there is all the associated reactions, from the person, their friends, family and so on. Many people try to remove the idea of inherent violent intent from martial art practice thesedays, however martial art is martial art and we should not forget what it is and what it is for, even if we seek something higher or fold something else into the mix. A high level Bagua teacher told me this, just the other day. Best,

Okay let me clarify/add something further regarding this. There is nothing to move from A-B-C or to anywhere, it is a falsification that occurs when we try to describe something. The same with ningshen 凝神, it has less to do with gathering the shen than it does letting go of that which prevents it from gathering. People talk too much as though these things are dead and mechanical, they are not, they are alive and organic and have a nature. This is half of what the Daoist texts are trying to impart. Just let them BE! Then things will happen, you don't have to do anything or make anything do anything. Everything has de, which is "virtue" but not in the modern sense, in the old English sense "an effective, active, or inherent power or force", this is why de is translated as virtue, not because it has anything to do with morals/ethics*. The Shen wants to go outwards, it also wants to come back. So the better question is, why does it go out and not come back? The next question is what is the natural relationship and consequence of having the shen either "out" or "in" (to talk simplistically). And then of course yin-yang becomes taiji and I know Friend is aware of what I speak of how does the shen go out but stay in, or come in and stay out? Best, * I want to clarify that there are always multiple levels of meaning to any Chinese term, and certainly in more recent times de is used in the context of morals/ethics in some circumstances. I am however highlighting an older meaning and implication that was tied to the context of the terms use in old Daoist texts.

Really, wow...er....er.....ahh, shit

Yes. In nature as much as possible, and in BIG nature as much as possible (though it is rare these days)

My honest opinion, is. If you have to ask, you know the answer! There are methods around this idea that are not problematic, but most methods out and about are incomplete and have the potential for great internal harm. HOWEVER the male ego is usually bigger than the methods regardless and so, well. Any skill or attribute should be developed, taking full power hits from day one is stupid. The body needs time to change and develop accordingly. Best,

Good for you, has it actually helped?

Friend, That is WAY too complicated for me. And I feel it is wholly unecessary. People have always liked words and to complicate things, we know this was the case even before Daoism proper was established, otherwise we would not have the Lao Zi. You are far in your path, and so can see the truth in the words, but for me, it is still meaningless. I like simplicity, maybe that is why I have ended up where I have? Who knows Best,

Hi RV, It is not a one thing only thing. Why generate energy if you lose it because you didn't put the lid on? That is what I mean by 'capping it off'. Preventing leakage doesn't just happen down below The idea is to develop plasticity and choice and know why you do one thing or another at any given time. People seem to hold dearly to something and think that is all there is. Why put a lid on, or when, why not put a lid on and when? This plasticity is largely an automatic aspect of jingdonggong as passed on by Ya Mu. The energetics are not a method (do A, do B, do C and so on), they happen because the circumstances are "correct". The methods out and about are because people are chasing the "correct" circumstances. It is my opinion, and I stress my opinion that in our line it is summed up as "stop the world". Best,

As may be, however I will tell you now that if you seriously look into the perception and imagery of many things from the past you will find that how we view such things is largely a recent construction and is not accurate regarding the reality of the past. I have found this to be true with many things. Read critically and study old and new writings, make up your own mind. Now you can argue that what is done "in the name of" by people who feel they are, or in fact do legitimately represent something, is not actually representative of the thing they claim to represent. Wars and killing have often occured "in the name of" one religion or another.

Well the mods can MOVE the thread to the Tao Forum if they want, no problem with that. But I just didn't want the whole thread DELETED. It's not like we haven't had multiple threads on the same topic but discussing it differently before

I will look for you. I read about it a long time ago. But you can google it. As with all history accounts and versions vary. [edit:update] All my journals are in storage so can't go through those. "At first sight, Buddhism should have made a better fit with native beliefs than Christianity or Islam, because it could incorporate traditional deities and rituals, but the reality was different. Monks viewed the shamans and other tribal spiritual functionaries as rivals with opposed moral codes, and took ruthless action against them." "The real problem in Siberia was that which drew Buddhist hostility upon shamans" R. Hutton: Shamans "the poor shamanists were everywhere hunted down. No forests, no mountain could hide them from the vengence of the lamas." N. Basilov: Chosen by the spirits If you are interested look in to it.

Buddhist monks used to hunt down and kill shamans in Mongolia and Siberia. No 'war' or warriorship, it was about control, power and politics. The "peaceful" image of Buddhists we have today is a modern construction, given the history I've read over the years

It is correct and incorrect information at the same time. The simple answer, which some may not like is; The yijinjing and xi suijing are Daoist derived methods of cultivation they are not Buddhist. Although they have been adopted. The statement is due to two primary facts; One: The Buddhist texts do not use or dicuss the term or idea of yijin (changing tendons), nor what it means or refers to. Texts in the Daozang (Daoist canon) do discuss this concept. Two: The oldest text we have of the yijinjing, was written, and disseminated, by a Daoist.The earliest known extent version is from the 17th century. Which has an undated postscript by an author using the penname Zining Daoren 紫凝道人 (Concentrated Purple Daoist) Zining Daoren attributed the text to Damo (Bodhidharma), however despite it becoming a very popular text and seeping its way into Chinese thought, novels, and so on. Even at the time it was not considered authentic, in the sense that various claims regarding certain historical people were not accurate. The idea of Damo teaching the monks at Shaolin etc stems from this document and is largely dis-credited. But the myth outshines history. That is not to say however that the method of "yijin" is not older than the text, whether it had that name or not. But it means that what most regard relating to the practice, which does come from this text, is not as true as some would have you believe. I am sure there is information that can be used to debate and argue this point. However my bringing this up is not to change anyone's thinking. It is simply to highlight that there is no simple answer and there is often more to these things when you scratch below the surface. At the very least it means that these myths should be taken as such, stories and myths and not facts about the practice or methods. Clearing blockages, packing qi, strengthening dantian and so on. These are often very mis-understood things, and there are a variety of ways that both "Daoists" and "Buddhists" approach them in practice or how much value they put on them. There is no "Daoists do this- Buddhists do this" as such regarding these things. Both of them have methods that exercise the physcial body to maintain it, both of them have qigong methods and meditation methods. Finally, there is no simple-complex "energy-anatomy" dichtomy as far as I am aware. It is what it is, the apparent difference, when there is one, is more about what they feel the need to go on about, not what they acknowledge as existing or what they experience. Just because some do not go on about something, does not mean they are not aware of it or do not beleive it exists. Usually they do not want you to be distracted. Just because some make things very complex, does not mean that it is all so important and that it cannot be ignored. Usually it means they want to confuse and distract you. The reality is somewhere inbetween. TCM is a whole different story, and has nothing to do with Daoism or Buddhism. Why? Because it was invented with the intent of stripping all such "superstitious" and "backward" things out of medicine. As such the remnant aspects that do appear to have correlation are usually so distorted as to be pointless exploring. Best,

Don't delete it. The tone of this thread feels different. You can approach this as anapana with the understanding of anapana as 'breath-work', but then the withdrawl of the senses and returning the spirit can be understood to be an inherent first step with any meditation practice. There is also approaching this as anapana from the understanding of anapana being purely about the movement of 'energy' and not having anything to do with breathing. Drawing the light of the shen into one line and bringing it back to the zuqiao (sorry pinyin makes more sense to me) is an interesting phenomenon that affects the whole of the qi in the head not simply the 'upper' dantian. In the Daoist practice there is a simultaneous expansion and narrowing, unlike the Buddhist methods I was taught which utilised a narrow focal concentration. The Daoism I learned also critiques the Buddhist method of fixatation at the nose, saying that this can lead to problems by drawing things upwards too much. This is actually inline with several independant studies regarding meditation and brain activity. I want to stress that the movement of the qi and the eyes is a very real and fairly easily felt phenomenon. Simply closing the eyes is not the same as shifting the movement to an absorpative one with the energy that was being sent outwards now actually coming in. I have been taught variations of this in many diferent qigong schools, as well as in shamanism and schools of magic. And while it is not exactly the same thing as returning the shen to zuqiao within alchemy there is, in my experience at least, a relationship. Meditating without capping this off, is like boiling a pan and not putting a lid on it, the steam/energy generated just goes straight out rather than being contained. There is also a very real difference between trying to 'charge' the abdominal dantian through 'bellows' breathing, which moves a lot of blood, and filling the dantian with shen and light. The former is not so tied to returning the shen to zuqiao. Best,

Contradictory or complimentary? I agree with JB that the breath is a way of working with the attention or mind ultimately. It is considered that when there is no breath, thoughts stop. Hence the apparent 'pause' is viewed as a way to gain insight into this still state. With say square breathing you then have four points of observation between the state of breathing and that of mind. In circular breathing, which is related by some to fetal breathing, certainly to newborn baby breathing, as well as the breath patterns that occur within deep sleep states. Here the four points are merged to the point of being indistiguishable, you lose the 'pause'. The square breathing for me, leads to a deeply relaxed but awake/aware state. The circular breathing leads into a deep state that often falls into other things, and I'll leave that at that. Either way you want to learn to feel the inner and outer breath and then drop that distinction. I personally feel that the 'pause' is an illusion anyway. Breathing patterns like the above do different things if you follow them. In Daoism and Buddhism you start from natural breathing, the patterns that arise whether square, triangle ,or circular are simply allowed to arise and shift. As for "anapana" Master Nan Huai-Jin "anapana meditation. Strictly speaking, anapana refers to contraction and expansion, rather than just breathing…Let’s review the terms again. “Ana” means breathing in and “apana” means breathing out. As I have said in the last session, a fetus does not breathe through its nose. It therefore does not have the in-and-out breath. Yet, the fetus has a “momentum” that continues to power life through a movement of expansion and contraction. This is the phenomenon of birth-and-death… At birth, as the baby’s umbilical cord is cut and its mouth cleaned, it will first exhale with a crying outburst and then it inhales. From that moment on, the in-and-out breathing continues until the final moment of death and then the person breathes out their last breath. What the Buddhist sutras didn’t elaborate clearly… is this: the fetus does not breathe through the nose or pores; its life is sustained by a continuous movement of expansion and contraction, or how energy functions. The goal of anapana meditation is to cultivate that “movement,” not to cultivate the in-and-out of the respiratory breathing. This has to be clear from the outset." Namgyal Rinpoche "the meditation on breathing, on the basic dharma of prana or energy flow. Anapanasati is not, in fact, a meditation on breath, but on in/out prana. That is what this meditation is for – awareness of energy flow. And if you were to examine the word anapana quite closely, taking it back to it’s Sanskrit roots, you really end up with “yes/no energy”. Actually, it could be “no/no energy,” because literally the word could be understood as follows: a + na and a + pana, which makes two negations. This meditation is enumerated as the way to develop awareness of the energy feeds. You start with the breath because it is the most crude, the most obvious energy flow. The meditation naturally unfolds from there. Maybe the awareness of breathing might cease, but the awareness of energy flows, of the ana-pana-sati, should not." It has nothing to do with breathing patterns, IME and according to well regarding cultivators whose opinions I trust. Are there people teaching it as such, of course, but so what. Anapana is the process of becoming more directly aware of something else. And some teach that directly and without teaching breath practice at all! And this process idea or concept is found in Daoism as much as it is Buddhism. In Daoism the main polarity is pre-heavn and post-heaven breathing and everything else comes from that.

It no longer appears on the energyarts.com website. It used to be part of the 'archive' collection. You could try e-mailing them and asking if they have any copies. [edit: WOW! http://www.amazon.com/Chi-Gung-Opening-Energy-Gates/dp/B002C22CKA/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1368537760&sr=8-5&keywords=energy+gates+dvd didn't know it was going for so much! Maybe I'll sell my copy ] It is old, low production quality and so on. I don't think it was ever shot as a big market seller, same with most of the rest of the old dvds on his qigong. From memory, all the information presented is in the book. The version of cloud hands Bruce demo's is in fact not the version of cloud hands from the book but a later 'more advanced' version (I think his student demos the one you start with). There are many great free resources regarding this practice now, with senior students demoing the set on youtube etc. If it is simply seeing the exercises done that you want. Dan Kleiman even has posts out and about on his approach to getting the most from the book. Bar that, years ago someone had uploaded the whole EG dvd to a videoplayer site. I think it was Russian? Hope this helps.

"the code [theory] is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules" Sometimes Pirate logic makes sense http://m.guardian.co.uk/science/life-and-physics/2011/sep/04/1 Great picture too! "one recurring theme amongst some commenters is a perception that fundamental physics is too theory-led, that we are obsessed with proving beautiful, reductionist theories and really we should just explore. And that we spend too much time arguing about untestable things." There is lifa, lianfa, and yongfa, these are theory, practice, and application. Or as I usually say 'why', 'what' and 'how'. I wanted to clarify that my point in my previous post is not about a 'better' or 'worse' or 'incorrect' or 'correct' theory. The following is also simply a commentary on a wider issue relating to E-B work. The thing about the "energy-body" or "E-B", is that many times people start with 'theory' and then proceed into 'what' and 'how' from there. Unforunately the "E-B" is highly plastic in nature and has a great many 'layers' that are woven together. The reason we have so many theories on it's nature today, is simply because of that. If you take expectations in, you will usually find what you are expecting. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Not always, but usually. So how do you start without expectations? That is a key IMHO. I have also and continue to see practitioners of Chinese medicine or qigong shape their experiences to fit the theories as they understand them. And I did this too years ago, when I was taught in such a way that ultimately encouraged that process. The problem is, instead of engaging with what is actually there, ie the 'person' in front of you (be that a patient, or yourself), you simply see the theories and project them instead. It is a conundrum and not one easy solved. Take a look at 'Body of Light'; http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=5CEUOQAACAAJ&dq=body+of+light+book&hl=en&sa=X&ei=AhuSUe7YGsPiOpbngJgO&ved=0CFAQ6AEwBA For a review and comparison of several 'maps' of the "E-B". There are problems and mis-representations in this book too, it isn't perfect nor complete. But it is a good exploration of the similarities and differences amongst the views of the E-B held by different traditions. I mention this because today many 'institutions' within China are catering to a tourist interest in Chinese cultural arts. As such the teaching more often than not leans towards the expectations of those paying to visit. Which tends to be lots of theory, and information. Sometimes it is better, even preferable to start simply and move from the broad to the specific over time. What can you feel, of you? What is feeling or sensation? Are you TRYING to feel something in particular? Will this affect what you listen to and what you ignore? Do you feel what you expected? Or what you were told to feel? To quote Roger Jahnke "how can 1 of a 1,000 truths be more true". I think Robert Bruce's method is one of the 'cleanest' to work with, not the theories, I mean the method of engaging with the E-B and beginning to work with it. It is also close to how I have been taught in a couple of lineages. Best, edit: I also recommend reading Hundun's post; http://thetaobums.com/topic/22213-connecting-with-qi-no-system-required/?hl=hundun#entry316246

Nice idea for a thread. I love Robert Bruce's work. Scott's book is very interesting. IMO it is NOT about taiji, it is about Daoist neigong, using a form of taiji to strengthen that neigong. This is what Zheng passed on and why his taiji form became the way it did. My feeling is that you do not really need anything more than the above, and then time to explore and experiment. Why complicate things? My addition: Ralston's most accessible work, thank god for his Wife http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=PKMdETf0CeIC&printsec=frontcover&dq=zen+body&hl=en&sa=X&ei=2fWRUb7TDsXcOez1gagJ&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false Damien Mitchell. Sorry, not personally a fan of his published works. I have spoken with Damien (sorry I cannot call him 'Day-mo'), as well as a student of his, this was years ago, and he appears to be a very intelligent and astute chap. I'm sure the 'qigong' in this book is helpful, most of his stuff is in that sense. I am just not a fan of his presentation of things being something they are not. Most if not all of the meridian theory in this book is TCM, ie a fairly recent perspective way of looking at it. The theory I have read in this book is not congruent with Classical Chinese medicine nor Daoist thoughts on the subjects. This view is based on direct experience in lineages of both as well as reading and translating key classical texts regarding the information that exists on the channels both in Daoism and medicine. Yes I know he states in the book that TCM may find some of the theory 'different', but it is only by degree and the actual view of the channels is that of TCM. Please note, my point is not simply about 'information'. It is about a perspective that underpins the view and theory. If you are finding the practical information helpful great, that is only a good thing. But I personally would take much of the presented information with a grain of salt as to its supposed ancient origins. That said, it seems that even within China these lines are becoming more and more blurred. As TCM is the state sponsored perspective of Chinese medicine, it IS Chinese medicine as far as the Chinese government is concerned. It seems that more and more this view of meridian theory is being adopted, even amongst those teaching "Daoist arts" especially publically. As I said practically speaking I'm sure the book has a great many exercises that truly help with learning to feel aspects of the energy body. I personally, would simply ignore most of the actual 'theory' though, certainly as pertaining it to allegedly being 'Ancient Daoist'. I'm not trying to be antagonistic, just trying to pass on comments from what I see based on my experience. Flame me if you want For a bit of balance, some of the practical side Damien's wuxing gong [Edit: I lament often when discussing this topic with people, that there is no book available that truly reflects the view of Classical Chinese channel theory as pertaining to genuine Classical medicine or Daoist practice. I truly wish there was.You get fragments but that is all. Actually sometimes books on Feng Shui (the actual thing, not the 'pop' versions) are better.]