forestofclarity

As you may see, we are considering establishing a private neidan subforum. Unlike most of the TDB, the contents on this forum would only be viewable by TDB members with 20 posts, would be limited to neidan discussion (based on well-recognized texts, established schools and lineages). In other words, it would be a semi-private place for neidan based discussion. The forum title would be visible to AI and general non-members, but posts and comments would not. Before proceeding down this path, I wanted to open up to community thoughts and feedback. Let us know your thoughts/concerns/issues.

Why not start a new thread?

I think a name, per DDJ 1, generally refers to something specific coalescing into existence. Nothing is truly fixed, but for a time it may be specific enough to warrant a name. Morality is an orientation or direction. If one's specific actions are aligned with the Dao, then this would be a more righteous action than specific actions that merely scatter energy into creation.

It's a good way to gauge where people are coming from. Also, I'm curious about your opinion because I have feeling you may have some good information. That's true, but I would think this applies broadly. Neidan practitioners have sort of done it themselves with the secrets and false information. And to some extent, I suppose sorting things out is a part of the process. But I think the better way to combat misinformation is to provide better public information. Whatever one thinks of ChiDragon's posts, they have at least stimulated some discussion.

Many people come on here, claim that all the public schools/teachings are wrong, and imply that they have access to the true teaching. This isn't a Daoist thing, but seems to be a part of all spiritual paths in one way or another. Of course, many of these claims are contradictory, so how does one discern the true and the false? For me, part of my personal criteria is 1) are the teachings consistent with the literature of the accepted traditions; 2) do the teachings lead to the results? Of course, there are additional criteria, but these are the ones I'm focusing on here. So with this in mind, I'd ask: do you have reason to believe he didn't have access to the oral tradition as he claimed? Or that his methods don't work as his students claimed? Or are they inconsistent with the classical literature? I suppose a similar set of questions can be asked about the implications around Hai Yang. What do you think he gets wrong and why is it wrong?

* Mod Note: This is a discussion forum primarily not an advertising forum. While members are free to share events and teachings they find helpful, posts or message primarily aimed at marketing are not allowed. Events can be shared here: https://www.thedaobums.com/forum/387-upcoming-events/*

Xing and Ming appear to be open terms with a broad spectrum of meanings with different nuances depending on the context. People seem to want to cling onto a single definition rather than seeking the underlying principle. Which is fine is people want to argue on the internet, I guess, but I don't see how it will forward practice. It seems to me that the spiritual arts of China are in fact arts as opposed to engineering manuals. But that's just my opinion. Here is an article with actual references to classical material talking about this. Anyone familiar with Chan or other literature may see the pattern rippling with different terms. https://fabriziopregadio.com/files/PREGADIO_Destiny_Vital_Force_or_Existence.pdf

I think the biggest problem is no one agrees on what is authoritative. Some think generative AI, some use internal school documents, and very few refer to anything common or verifiable. People say neidan, but they don't say which school, or commentary, or cite a source.

Welcome!

Great article, I appreciate it. I also like the larger, unsaid tension between how many of us perceive things (as discrete, enduring, often atomic units) and how things actually are (non-static, dynamic). Buddhism is an interesting bridge between what one may call the ancient Chinese and ancient Greek ways of looking at things since it basically picks apart the atomic model to reveal underlying emptiness. I think this article explains why I find it so weird that we often argue about things like whether the Dao De Jing is about government, or cultivation, or something else. Or that this is neidan but not that, or this school is right and this one is not. Such rigid fixation!

Interesting position given Liu Yiming's commentary on Zhang Boduan's poem 6 of Awakening to Reality as discussed in this thread! Do you have a classic source that backs this up, or is this a part of the oral tradition of your school?

I don't think there is necessarily a "school" of neidan. It seems to have numerous commentators, some of whom merged into religious tradition and some who did not. Given that it tends to be secretive, I would imagine there are many different interpretations, as noted by Li Dachun. It seems to me that modern neidan is a fusion of various Daoist elements (yangshen, dao yin, shamanic elements) for cultivating ming and Chan for xing. Some have said: https://www.cfolu.com/xiuxueyd/251zhenqiyunxingfa.html

Should be good, let me know if there are issues.

That's cool because... you know... everything is perfect!

Here is ho Mingyur Rinpoche puts it: What is perfect is the essence of every sentient being. The jiva is the relative deluded individual. The summation is usually "Brahma satyam, jagan mithya, jivo brahmaiva naparah." Brahman is real, the world is illusory, the essence of the jiva is the essence of Brahman. A more radical Vedantin along the lines of Gaudapada might say there is no issue because suffering is illusory, like a dream. The true self is safe and sound as always, so the solution is not to improve the dream, but to wake up the dreamer.