xuanying

Welcome. This topic continues part of the discussion that had begun under the topic "Three critical issues in Taoist alchemy". For the earlier part of the discussion, see here.

In defense of Wang Mu (and of your explanation) I can say that this is more or less the same proportion you find in the original Neidan texts in the Taoist Canon.

As far as I know, "breathing like a turtle" denotes a quality of breathing rather than a particular practice. It is equivalent to the "breathing of the spirit" (shenxi 神息) and is said to occur in the "crane's womb" (hetai 鶴胎). It is a very deep and thorough type of breathing, and in this sense is equivalent to "breathing through the heels". There is a short entry entitled "Breathing Like a Turtle in the Crane's Womb" in Liu Yiming's Wudao lu (translated by Cleary as Awakening to the Dao, which I don't have with me right now). Essentially, he says that this expression means the harmonization of breath and spirit. This expression seems to have been used first by Ma Danyang. Later, it was also used by Chen Zhixu, who adds: "Breathing like a turtle, breathing through the heels, and breathing of the spirit have different names, but function in the same way" (Jindan dayao). Anyway, you should expect differences of terminology among different authors/masters/traditions of Neidan. FP

Just wanted to add that my translation of the Cantong qi has finally been published: Fabrizio Pregadio The Seal of the Unity of the Three: A Study and Translation of the Cantong qi, the Source of the Taoist Way of the Golden Elixir Golden Elixir Press, 2011 http://www.goldenelixir.com/press/trl_02_ctq.html

Ah sure.

???

1. Jindan jinbi qiantong jue 金丹金碧潛通訣 (Instructions on Gold and Jade for Piercing the Unseen by the Golden Elixir), in Yunji qiqian 雲笈七籤, chapter 73. You can find it here and in many other websites. 2. Longhu jing 龍虎經 (Book of the Dragon and Tiger). There are two editions of this text in the Taoist Canon, with two different commentaries. You can read them here and here.

Well, in Neidan there is a lot talk about 愚 "foolishness", but the "fools" in general are those who devote themselves to other practices, not just those who do not have 证 "proof". Anyway, more importantly, it seems to me that the issue is not only, as you say, "scholastic talk vs practical, proven results". If you look carefully, most Neidan texts are "scholastic talk", including (for example, and with no criticism) those of your "ancestral masters" Wu Shouyang and Liu Huayang, who obviously had "proven results". Certainly the main points are not found in texts, and everybody knows this. But it seems to me that you should allow for broader definition of "talk" and of "results". I mean, results essentially affect the same core point of one's being, but manifest themselves in different ways, according to one's individuality. Once results are attained, some people may like to "talk", but then their "talk" is not necessarily scholastic in the negative sense of the term. If they choose to "talk", it essentially has to do with their Ming 命. How many Zhuangzi's have existed in China? Really many, for sure. But we will never know them, only because they didn't write a book. We know Zhuangzi just because he liked to write, he mastered writing, and he "talked" through his writing on the basis of his "results". That was his Ming 命.

I agree that the difference is subtle, but I understand zheng 证 as "attest, witness" rather than "prove". Let me give you a stupid example of what I mean. Someone practices Neidan (or anything else) according to the teachings of Master XYZ. At some point, he/she experiences something that XYZ had taught. Proof: "Ah, what Master XYZ said was true!" Attestation: "Ah, this is what Master XYZ said!" There is no question of proving that XYZ's "theory" was correct. It's only a matter of personally verifying XYZ's "teaching". This is what I meant when I said that in Neidan (and Taoism, and other traditional doctrines) there is no place for "theory".

Little1, thanks for raising this issue. I always found it curious that in the West we have this idea of theory vs. practice. As if in Taoism, or in Neidan, there is a "theory" that should be proved, and the "practice" is the proof. The theory/practice issue is a thoroughly Western idea. A theory needs to be proved, and if the practice does not prove the theory, then the theory is changed. This is, very roughly, how Western sciences function. This idea of "theory" is not a concern at all in Taoism -- in fact, the concept of "theory" does not even seem to exist. Now that it's possible to search almost the whole Taoist Canon (at www.ctcwri.idv.tw), I tried some time ago to search for lilun 理論, the Chinese word for "theory". I was surprised to see that this word appears only 15 times or so in the Canon. And when it does appear, it does not mean "theory", but "discourse (or essay) on the principles". The closest word to "theory" in Taoism seems to be jiao 教, "teaching" or "doctrine". And certainly there can't be any "teaching/doctrine vs. practice" issue. In fact, the Taoist perspective is the opposite of the Western perspective: what is subject to change is not the doctrine, but the "practice". Is there anyone who can comment on this, and help me clarify my views?

Could you please clarify what is your issue with these words? Just in order to understand whether this discussion is useful.

Everything clear now.

The Cantong qi sentence is fangyuan jing cun 方圓徑寸. Yours is a translation of jing cun 徑寸 only. I really don't understand why you don't want to translate fangyuan 方圓 (which here of course cannot mean "circumference"). Well, it doesn't matter. What is interesting is that this sentence derives from the Book of the Yellow Court (Huangting jing, a meditation text), where the similar sentence "square and round, one inch is its size" (方圓一寸) refers to the upper Cinnabar Field. In the Cantong qi, instead, it refers to the Elixir. "Square and round" (fangyuan) are said to refer to Earth and Heaven, respectively, and the "one inch" of its size to their being joined as one. (This, again, is not my invention.)

The only Cantong qi sentence that uses 方圓 is this: 方圓徑寸. There is no "measure of distance". How would you translate it? Please let us not lose track of the title of this topic, "Critical issues in Taoist alchemy". I am asking the question above only because, although of course I cannot guarantee that Liu Yiming did not have "preconceived assumptions", I would wait a few seconds before speaking in that way.

Fangyuan 方圆 means "circumference" in the modern language, but fang 方 "square" and yuan 圆 "round" are two attributes of Earth and Heaven, respectively, mentioned in innumerable texts.

I don't have this book, and I was unable to find the quotation in Liu Yiming's commentary to the Book of Changes. If you happen to know the Chinese title of Liu Yiming's work (i.e., if Cleary mentions it -- usually he doesn't care) please post it here. Thanks!

tccii, once more I entirely agree with you. Just a few remarks: I completely agree with this as well. For me, reading (and maybe translating) a text is pure pleasure. At the same time, I find it helps to stick with what a tradition (in this case, Taoism or more particularly, Neidan) teaches, instead of fantasizing for one or another reason. (Note that by that "tradition" I mean the Chinese tradition, not its "interpreters" in the West.) It also helps to understand that, while the gist of a doctrine "has no history", its forms and formulations do have a history, because they happen in the so-called real world. Aren't we saying the same thing in different words? The perfection of doing. So perfect and absolute that it has nothing to do with "doing" in the common sense of the word, and therefore does not even appear to be "doing". Yet it does everything that needs to be done. PS. On one minor point actually I do disagree with you -- when you say "we are talking about the Virgin Body (Tong Zi)". What is the point of translating tongzi as "virgin body"? You may, if you find it useful, explain that tongzi connotes the "virgin body", but then you should explain what you mean by this expression, because this is not what tongzi means in Chinese. In other words, you should not give the impression that "virgin body" is a translation of tongzi. Tongzi just means "child" or "lad".

One of the most common explanations of the title of the Cantong qi is that can 參 means san 三, "three". These "three" are defined in slightly different ways, but correspond (in English) to: Cosmology (including, first of all, the relation of the cosmos to the Dao, and then its functioning); Taoism (the ideal of "wuwei", non-doing); Alchemy (no problem now whether it's Waidan or Neidan). Commentators who give this explanation include those who interpret the Cantong qi as a text entirely concerned with Neidan. The first one was Yu Yan, who wrote his commentary in 1284. Please wait until my book is published. It's almost finished. It's not "just 2 enigmatic texts" (if by this you mean the Daode jing and the Cantong qi). As the passages I have quoted in my previous posts show, for some Neidan masters this is an essential point. Others (including Wu Shouyang and Liu Huayang, whom you seem to follow) do not use this notion. This doesn't mean that Wu and Liu are worse, or the others are better. It's just a matter of using one or another "formulation". I find this one especially clarifying, but for many others it could be irrelevant. Everything is fine.

Daode, everything is possible with regard to the Daode jing, and its explanations and interpretations will never end. This said, here is what the Daode jing itself says about the requirement that the ruler follows "wuwei" (non-doing, non-action): The Dao constantly does nothing, yet there is nothing that is not done. If marquises and kings can keep to this, the ten thousand things transform themselves of their own. (Section 37)

Discussions of the Daode jing will never end... I always thought that in this passage there is a break after the sixth sentence (上德不德，是以有德；下德不失德，是以無德。上德無為而無以為；下德為之而有以為。) This first part says, more or less: "Superior virtue is not virtuous, therefore it has virtue. Inferior virtue does not stray from virtue, therefore it has no virtue. Superior virtue has no doing: there is nothing whereby it does. Inferior virtue does: there is something whereby it does." Then it continues with a description of inferior virtue. It's an ongoing fall after the initial loss of the Dao: humanity, righteousness, and rites -- three cardinal Confucian "virtues", but one worse of the other, according to the Daode jing, because that are based on "doing". I agree with you when you say that this is "very clearly a description of a disintegration of the state when the Dao is lost". Here I cannot follow you (if I understand correctly what you say). How is it possible that the Daode jing, where non-doing is the only true "virtue", can say that the ruler's non-doing "is not automatically a good thing"? The art of rulership is the main application of its own doctrines described in the Daode jing! New topic for discussion! For the Cantong qi any form of alchemy is "inferior virtue", because it is a form of "doing". However, alchemy is the only form of practice that the Cantong qi accepts, as it is the only one that can realize the unity of Qian and Kun. "Superior virtue" is just what it is in the Daode jing: "non-doing". In fact, the sections of the Cantong qi that discuss "superior virtue" contain several sentences and terms quoted from the Daode jing and the Zhuangzi. -- Addition: "how that squares with Ge Hong statements that laboratory alchemy (WD) is the Highest Way?" -- Because laboratory alchemy was the only form of alchemy that Ge Hong knew. He did not know the Cantong qi, and he did not know Neidan. -- In fact, he said that there are two "highest ways": Waidan, and meditation on the inner gods.

allan, were you actually quoting Liu Yiming? If so, which work?

You are right, I listed them in this order just because I thought it was easier to follow the sequence. The correct order (in the Cantong qi passage) is "the 9 reverts, the 7 returns, the 8 goes back, the 6 remains". This passage uses the "generation" and "accomplishment" numbers of the five agents (of four of the five agents, actually). The "accomplishment" numbers are obtained by adding 5 to the "generation" numbers": 1 and 6 for Water, 2 and 7 for Fire, 3 and 8 for Wood, and 4 and 9 for Metal The birth of life (of each individual life) happens through a return to Water, the first agent in the "cosmogonic sequence". Therefore each agent, as it is, must return to the Unity of Water (1). So, Fire (7), Wood (8), and Metal (9) respectively "revert" "return" and "go back" to 1. Water (6), however, possesses 1 as its own "generation number". Therefore it "remains". (This explanation is not my own invention.)