What constitutes Taoist alchemy?

[Michael Sternbach]

Alchemy, both Occidental and Oriental (Chinese), revolves around the creation of the Philosopher's Stone. This, in simplest terms, is matter evolved to its highest possible state, in which it actually transcends its original physicality. It then becomes a carrier and agent of hyperdimensional or subtle forces, expressed on the level of physical existence.

 

Now the Philosopher's Stone has certain analogies, in keeping with  the Principle of Correspondence. One Alchemist of yore advised his followers: "Turn yourselves into living Philosopher's Stones!" Arguably that's the real aim of all Alchemy: The transformation of its practitioner. And that transformation goes beyond the psyche and includes the physical body that, imbued by spirit, now takes on  various extraordinary traits and abilities. These can include levitation, teleportation, invisibility, instant self-healing, rejuvenation, longevity, immortality etc.

 

In the West as well as in the East, there have always been both Alchemists that performed the Great Work in the external environment of their laboratory, and others that, while adopting the same terminology, used the latter to refer to the internal processes which they - primarily or exclusively - laid their focus on. While this is quite evident if we look at Chinese Alchemy with its division into Waidan and Neidan, it holds true for Western Alchemy as well.

 

There is indeed also an Occidental tradition of spiritual or 'speculative' Alchemy. Contrary to an opinion popular with a certain type of contemporary Alchemy aficionado, the latter is NOT a pipe dream of 19th century occultists or even Jungian psychologists! Long before them, there were e.g. Zosimos of Panopolis (Hellenistic Egypt), Ibn Umail (Arabic Middle Ages), as well as Jakob Boehme, Michael Maier and Thomas Vaughn (European Renaissance), all of whom need to be regarded as representing the internal branch of the Royal Art.

 

Nor is the opposite view sustainable that all Alchemists were just talking symbolically when they were describing physical substances and processes. In many cases, the Great Work was seen as something taking place in both the external and the internal world simultaneously, interlinked by what C.G. Jung calls synchronicity.

 

It should also be understood that all Alchemists - ancient and modern - work within a cosmological framework that can be described as Hermetic in the Occident and as Daoist in the Orient.

 

This provides the foundation for all alchemical labour, even where the latter isn't aiming at the Philosopher's Stone or universal medicine, but at 'particulars' or Spagyric remedies with a more limited scope of healing power on physical and psychological levels, but manufactured and working in analogous ways.

 

Now the aforesaid essentially also applies to less known forms of Alchemy, e.g. to its Indian variation, but the foregoing should be sufficient to illustrate my view.

 

So, to answer the OP's question, while 'energy work' plays a significant role in Alchemy, the reverse is not true: Not all 'energy work' is aptly called 'alchemical' - unless, of course, you broaden the original meaning of the term so much that you deprive it of essentially all its original meaning.

 

Hope this helps.

[Rocky Lionmouth]

Yo, not to be all up in Michaels grille about stuff because his recount of alchemy above here is valid and important, but as far as my humble knowledge of Daoist practices i’d argue that the Principle of Correspondance is relevant as illustration but only partially so, unless my understanding of it is skewed.

 

I speak as officially uninitiated into any Nei Dan tradition afaik, bear this in mind, i’ve just kept DDJ, Chuangs classic and Sifus teachings close to heart to my best ability. I’m pretty much uninterested in the allure of occultism and esoterics for their own sake and i have more than a few bones to pick with perennialism, Plato, Aristotle ans Descartes just to name a few... i say this as a caveat against stepping on toes primarily, i might be misconstruing the whole thing! Hermetics are hermetic because they require initiation, but what survives of the active traditions seems to spring from self-initiation.

 

Here goes:

”As above, so below” is a matter of importance for pointing towards observing the great principle of say, interplay and transformation (5 phases or taiji), but as i understand European alchemical traditions they spring from hard metaphysical ideals, whereas Daoism and Daoist alchemy seems to be less mentalist in relating to the Arts and Sciences. I think there are dangerous pitfalls in equating too much between different alchemical traditions besides their focus on research and transformative action and interpretation.

 

Daoist method seems to place a lot of aimed focus in the specific situation, interrelationship of agents and the operator together. Hermetic, Cerimonial Magic etc texts keep, imho, a hard line of detachment between the operator and their work, even though the operator is a noble scholar and transformational adept. It’s vertical where Daoist thinking seems to be more 3D, high principles are such because of depth and not because of increasing simplification or closeness to divinity.

 

The Art and the Artifacts have objective value in European traditions afaiu, there is a primary focus on implementing the principles from abstracts to the lab environment, making correspondences depend on objective essentials or qualities that derive from an unadulterated source. A priori knowledge is seeking corroboration and reproductibility(?).

Daoist texts seem to advocate a more mnemonic oriented organization of correspondances to distinguish characteristics depending on their role in a given context. The principles derive from relational and observational interplay, not the x-ness of an x-thing if you catch my drift?

 

It should also be noted that i often feel the unease i immagine Frege felt around logic and mathematical formulae because of the absurd lack of stringent use and interpretation. That guy got it so bad he went and properly defined the fundamental axioms of mathematics to fix a problem with degrading discipline in previous operators.

 

I dare not compare myself to that level of dedication or discipline, but i just feel the need to say ”hold on, are sure we’re not relying too heavily on habit and interchangeability, the cultural aspect and origins must still matter somehow right?”

 

2 cents worth of speculation, peace!

 

[voidisyinyang]

So it turns out the text "Taoist Yoga: Alchemy and Immortality" is largely based on a 1615 text.

 

http://elixirfield.blogspot.com/2018/03/the-secret-of-dragon-tiger-copulation.html

 

Which is a much clearer explanation!! Finally found the original text to explain alchemy.

 

Xingming Gui Zhi

Indeed - if you combine that text with the 1933 book Taoist Yoga: Alchemy and Immortality then you can finally start understanding things. haha.