XPost: alt.philosophy.taoism, alt.buddha.short.fat.guy, alt.philosophy.zen   
   From: wudao@wuji.net   
      
   Tang wrote, of himself:   
      
   > ... what I have repeatedly harped on, the unsupported   
   >consciousness, the baseless thought/mind. It does not mean   
   >that one blocks out all sensation, affect and thought, but it   
   >means that one does not carve what comes to one (including   
   >sensation, affect and thought and all else) into bits and does   
   >not go on jags on the basis of the results of such carvings,   
   >however abstract (like justice or beauty) or concrete (like   
   >this chair, that cat). One simply gives assent to it (accepts it),   
   >such as it is (at this stage there is no "is not", or even "is"),   
   >and that is it, without further ado.   
   >   
   >Unless I am wrong, which is most probable, that is all there is   
   >to mental culture.   
      
   As a couple of words, I'd imagine all there is   
   to mental culture is whatever anyone cares to imagine   
   all there is   
   to it.   
      
   I call that, semantics.   
      
   If you define words and the way in which you are using them,   
   to mean whatever it is you care for them to mean,   
   as being all there is to it, then that's that.   
      
   TTC 56, in the middle of its passing through a stream   
   of thought could be said to switch horses.   
      
   http://www.mobilewords.pro/Tao/chap56.htm#top   
      
   Sentence number 2, translated into English, carries meaning.   
      
   What people mean by such words as, mystical unity, varies.   
      
   Whether there is only one Self, or no-selves at all,   
   to whom would a mystic be speaking when in such a state?   
      
   Quite the fix, one might not-say.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)