I intend no disrespect to those with Eastern predispositions, but I find it incredible that anyone believes eastern literature can contribute anything of importance to the canon of western alchemical literature. It shows an ignorance of the breadth and meaning of this collective body of work and I personally find it disrespectful to those great adepts who spent their lives perfecting their Art. I suppose that won't mean much to the "everything means anything" crowd but I will continue on with my Sisyphean task.
Needless to say, neither of these are practical western alchemical texts.
And yet, Julius Evola wrote an interesting treatise on the parallels between The Secret of the Golden Flower and Hermetic spiritual alchemy. I don't subscribe to "everything means anything" at all, but there are sometimes parallels between the systems of different cultures that only come as a surprise as long as we don't appreciate that they are describing the same facts of metaphysical nature, only perhaps from slightly different perspectives.
We likely won't agree on this, and this is not the place to discuss this further. This thread is about practical alchemy by which I mean laboratory alchemy (which indeed likely limits the topic to western alchemy, as there are not many books on eastern lab alchemy available in western languages), and you are right that it has been taken OT, although with the best of intentions.
So let's get back to Lully, Flamel and Fulcanelli then.