Forestgreen

I practice one system, and I d not have time to practice that to perfection. Doing two or three, I would either have to skip actually absorbing into the methods I know quite well, or skip work.

I'm curious, who has the time to delve deeply into two systems?

I would disagree with that. Yes. And that kind of qi is not what the MCO is about (see next comment). Again, not what the MCO within the context of neidan is about. My opinion (I might be biased and totally wrong here) is that the qigong/neigong varieties often are contrieved methods. My opinion is based on the method I practice, where most of the energetic movements and other sensations arise as a result of proper practice.

Yes, underlying. I googled substance, and two english dictionaries defined substance as matter (more or less). So what can be felt is not a substance, unless there is some kind of proof supporting that. It might be called energy, because that term has more meanings. I like "sensation", it cuts out the crap. It can be sensed. When Water is reversed, it can be sensed as if it was a substance. Are the subtle elements substances? I would say no. Forces is the closest term I can think of. Forces that lies behind appearances. Forces that can be sensed. I'm not sure how daoist traditions handle this, but buddhist tradition have struggled with dhammas, kalapas, the atomic theory, and the emptiness of substance. Just for the sake of communication, I would separate the meaning of "substance" from "substance of the energy body".

Well this is the Bums, so someone will add "spiritual " or "sub-atomic" to the term substance, and suddenly balance will be restored to the Force while missing the point of what ChiDragon and I posted entirely.

It feels like a substance, but most likely is not. Substances can be measured, so ... (and in neudan it is not the Du and Ren channels)

Commonly used as an access point for the MDT, and for MCO-related processes. Not a dantian in itself.

We use the maps in order to not get lost in the territory. And we adapt the symbols on the maps depending on what on the territory we decide to map out.

"What we've got here is failure to communicate. Some men, you just can't reach."

When I do that, it is for a process where the concept of "dantian" is no longer relevant. Do you have any text that show that these traditions calls it 'Dantian "? Three, or five? Most neidan traditions use more than one. But less than 400, and mostly aligned with the center line. Ming Men, or the entire spine? Yepp, the place the internal process is most active changes. The traditional three dantian and five centers on the central line models explicitly discuss this. But, to connect to where this discussion started, do you know of any models where a tradition use a space not on the central line or on the spine, and still call that a dantian?

I have repeatedly been surprised with how my experiences fit the model, especially when the experience is way off from my concept of it. Sometimes, facepalm is the rule not the exception. It is easy to forget that some of the classics are confirmatory, not manuals, in their structure.

A typical two truths situation. While they lack reality in an ultimate sense, the systems are still real in a conventional sense, including the distinctions. And jumping too soon to the ultimate truth might mean that one jump off ship before reaching the other shore.

And then meaningful communication breaks down.

Some would say that we implant these. But do you feel that we implant the potential of a dantian or a chakra as well? Or that the method shapes the function of the energy centers?

Can you name a school that call an area outside the body "dantien"? I am familiar with using the space outside of the body, and the western neidan school does use that. Taoist Texts linked to an article about that a year or two ago.

Reality is always the same, and very simple. When it cross over to manifest reality, it becomes layered and facetted. Tsk tsk tsk. People with knowledge know that function differs ( and that it is very practical in the beginning and intermediate stages) people with wisdom know that behind that is something else. Saying that things that have different functions are the same, muddles the path. But yes, some complicate systems in absurdum. I do not think that this discussion has gone in that direction (yet). On the other hand, some simplify systems in absurdum. According to Christopher Wallis, at least one of the three chakra systems saw them all as red. But what you are saying here is that the three chakra system and the three dantian system is good, and people using 5, 7 or 12 chakras, or 400, are ignoremuses with big egos. I guess that using one channel is good, and exploring the energy body and finding several , with different functions, is also in the ignoremuses camp. Cool.

Or, some of them are located in the same space. But feels different, have different functions.

I practice a chinese buddhist system. It differs between energy gates, chakras, and dantian. In my experience, they feel different and have different functions. Of course, opening an energy gate might lead to reduction of pain, among other things. That is not the point. The point is that you called all these different energetic spaces/functions dantians. The difference between us in this discussion seems to be that I believe that terms have value, while you seems to argue that any term will do if there is just some general connection to the thing it describes.

If I walked among people practicing neigong or neidan, and I said that I would now focus on my dantian in the distal joint of my right small toe, what do you think the reaction to that statement would be?

I think that you can find threads about it here, especially about the general difference between dantian and chakra. And do you not yourself find a dissonance between the common three dantian model and your model with like 400? There are numerous energy gates in the daoist models, they are not in name or in function equalled with the three dantians. If you have a view that differs so from the common model, it is more reasonable that you argue for your point. I'd be interested to hear. Why do you think that the common nomenclature is wrong and should be changed?

Seems like a confusion between dantian, chakras, and Qi Men (energy gates). For me, these are not the same.

How do you differentiate a martial artist from martial arts practitioners? And why not go from someone eho focus on Taoist energetic arts, since the term is wuji? I prefer Bruce Frantzis definition of the stance, it is more logical than Damo Mitchell's. Bruce names the stance you described, btw.

Why? Why would a definition by a martial artist take presedence over the definition made by someone else?

That would be a reference to what that specific hand position work with, as in different handposition = different internal work.

I started with that stance, and really didn't get that much out of it. A shoulder injury from sparring didn't help. Changed to another, things started to happen, and have moved through a system of standing positions since then.