damdao

Introduction of aconcept is not the same as its spreading or even its popularization. So, providing a link with a statement about the introduction does not show if the concept was widespread or not. Besides, you sould demonstrate if the presence of that concept excludes or not another and their hierarchical relation. You can find sudden awaken in two traditions but with different level of importance. And, we must define from where Daoism adopted this term, from Daosehng or from Chan? the quote you provided is clear: Are you trying to say that chan is not a later form of buddhism? Or is not later in relation to daoism (earlier than daoism perhaps?!)? Besides, self-identification is important (not only introduction):

Thanks Taoist Texts! The quotations show that they agree, it is indeed a later (a chan term and not jingtu, tientai, huayan o theravada) buddhist term.

I was thinking about what Patañjali said in the third chapter of the sutras: It refers to the perfection of the body attained by means of bhutashuddhi and other sadhanas. Adamantine hardness is intepreted as tha capability to ramain indestructible and unaffected by external agents. Of course this is not daoism, but it has some relation.

Perhaps you embody the crazy wisdom.

Well, not all mummifications of course. That of the japanese monks in which they prepare themselves during a couple of years is not the same. Of course, it is impossible for me to say if this mummy is a product of ming practice and the other one of another practice. Is a theoretical explanation. But you already know that. About the process... is described in stages in different books, with its corresponding signs. It is related to the different kind of elixirs, differents water wheels and immortality levels. With soul I assume you mean the yangshen. I supoose that even if the yangshen goes away (it cannot take with it ming because there is no more ming) what is left is a alchemically transformed (regenerated) body, that is alchemy after all.

(I left the picture because is cool) The important thing from a daoist point of view is if there are practices that one should not do if one wants to follow the path named Da Dao. In this context saying that all buddhists ends as guixian is hyperbolic in two senses: 1. not all end as (gui)xian, 2. not all ends as gui. It means that not all people doing a wrong practice perfects it to the point of becoming an immortal. Most of them follow the samsara. On the other hand Daoists respect Buddhism. And the presence of a ming method in buddhism is evident when you see many natural mummies, being one of the most famous that of Hui Neng (besides, Shenxiu who is regarded as a chan patriarch lived one hundred of years). [This kind of discussion had its precedent in yoga where some say that a naked cittavrittinirodha (cessation of mind-modifications) only leds to a laya state and no more.] Zhong-Lü critique is against quietistic and yin methods and the buddhism (and daoism, because the critique began at home) aimed is of that kind but it is not the whole buddhism.

Interestingly, this is how the lineage Harada-Yasutani calls the experience. They read it in japanese as kenshou, while reserve the term satori (equivalent of 悟 wù) for a more complete experience.

I think this statement should be contextualized. In fact, there was a meeting between Hyonggak Sunim and the Dalai Lama and the later, while not opposing the idea of sudden enlightenment, spoke about the several layers of the mind and the need of constant cultivation. In fact, most tibetan buddhists school are gradualists. The expulsion of the "sudden" teachings is studied by Namkhai Norbu in an article "Zen and Dzogchen" because dzogchen has a "sudden" point of view (among others things). What is the key objective of tibetan buddhism as a whole is awakening, the same as in buddhism in general but with some nuances.

The OP was about "sudden elightenment" in neidan. What I said was a side note, I don't want to derail more the thread.

Leaving aside the personal references to what I know (that abstract, irrelevant and you cannot prove), your belittling statements are not a way to attack someone? "bark" is not an insult, comes from the idiom "barking up to the wrong tree", so it is not an insulting comparison with a dog. So I did not allude to your human condition and you did attack me. And of course, you are belittling to a school of which you know nothing. For the record, I am writing from my personal perspective not in representation of the school, I am a student but not a disciple, and I am the only responsible for chinese wrong translations, for my references to neoplatonism that come from college, to islamism, sufism and buddhism that come from later research in college, etc. So it will be difficult to state the origin of every thing I say. So, again, qing wen, stop putting the your innuendo "your school" that you aims against many of us as this were something wrong. Some of us are studying in Dao De Centre and it is a great school with great teachers, some are initiated disciples and some are teachers. So have arguments instead of saying always "your school teach that" "your true teacher teaches that" etc.

From the original words of Buddha in English? 悟 is a good translation for budh, to awake, to realize, budh in sanskrit does not means enlightenment. Ming is closer to the ideo of "light" than wu. Here from Buddhist Chinese Sanskrit Dictionary by Hirakawa, and for check Sanskrit English http://www.sanskrit-lexicon.uni-koeln.de/monier/

And what is it supposed to mean?

Ok, here we go again... Ok, let's finish with shorter way, otherwise it wil be the never ending story... First, read the link I provided. Second, 悟 does not meaning enlightenment. And buddha is not an enlightened being. In western countries "light" is the light of God bestowed upon the soul. See Saint Agustin. The story is larger than that and we need to consider neoplatonism, for instance. But, the indian concept is different Buddha from root budh means to realize, to awake. The same as 悟. I daere to say that the most similar thing to the western enlightment is found in confucianism with the concept of 明。And I know that it is present in Daodejing. But wù is not enlightenment. So, qing wen, stop your barking against a school you know nothing.

I was about to say: there is no enlightenment in daoism. Here one of the best reflections ever about this subject: http://www.thedaobums.com/topic/20620-kunlun4-years-later/?p=297898

We must not assume that buddhism has one and only one characterization for elightenment. So enlightenment is not something objective. And as AAK said, a lot buddhists are waiting for it, and in some cases they can project some experience and call it enlightenment (we have to remember that buddha means awakened not enlightened, this is more a christian, islamic thing). If we follow the dialogs between the Dalai Lama and different buddhist masters, be it chan or seon, we can see that they are speaking of different things. If we read mahayana sutras with its description of the bodhisattvas of the tenth bhumi, for instance, it is difficult to see its relation with the chan wù 悟。 Why, then, we need to speak of sudden enlightenment in a science so complex as neidan?

I was thinking about dates too. Because of that I provided a quote from Sun Simiao. In different periods different classifications experience changes, so perhaps this one follow that pattern. But lineage explanation seems ok.

I know, but I need a little time in order to scan the book, select the pertinent paragraphs, and provide the chinese text included in Pregadio translation. Perhaps after this work is done the text quoted by Wells stands ok, so I will need a little time in order to peruse the source. Tomorrow, if it fits the thread I will be able to post something. But if someone can do it before, it's ok.

I was thinking something like that. The lineages that recomend concentration in dantian (I think Longmen) does not recommend a fixed concentration yoga-like but a soft awareness. I think it is nearly impossible to fix the mind to a point and not provoke an inbalance.

It seems that text quoted is Pregadio's comment and that Wang Jie does not say it directly. He seems to opose belly and head and not belly and heart so to say.

No problem at all. Yes, there are many traditional daoisms. But I think that the timeframe for alchemy is longer.

Perhaps this is related to it, perhaps not. Sun Simiao (581-682) said: https://www.kanripo.org/text/KR5c0231/000 And Livia Kohn translates it as: Taoist experience, p. 320

Real years or unreal years?

Has that statement any foundation or is only a emotinal discharge?

This is one point of view and we need to clarify from which point of view are we speaking. But, can we deny the existence of a traditional chinese daoism? I think that this is not possible at all. Some want to speak from a perennialist point of view and some others from a traditional chinese one. The OP is from the chinese one and that was well remarked by dawei, but it is not a trade mark of wuliu or yuxian, in fact you will find many others that agree with the schedule of the OP. On the other hand, the problem with the times is that they are not literal in a strict sense, but indicates some rhythm needed.

This paper by Russel Kirkland is worth of reading: THE TAOISM OF THE WESTERN IMAGINATION https://faculty.franklin.uga.edu/kirkland/sites/faculty.franklin.uga.edu.kirkland/files/TENN97.pdf