Helle follow some quotes about the Tao, from a debate I suggested in sci.math one year ago (archived in http://mathforum.org/discuss/sci.math/t/385291 if you want to check it). Tell me if it rings any bell :-) > Oh, it is intangible and elusive, and yet within is image. > Oh, it is elusive and intangible, and yet within is form. > Oh, it is dim and dark, and yet within is essence. >When fash-ioning some thing >one might begin with nothing >and make use of space >in order to take shape >that which they wish >their form to be. >The space between things >waxes and wanes, depending upon the things. >Does the space itself actually change? >Does emptiness really exist, on its own? >"two different names > for one and the same > the one we call dark > the dark beyond dark > the door to all beginnings" >[...TTC 1, ibid] >Wang P'ang comments, "When the Tao becomes small, >it doesn't stop being great. When it becomes great, it >doesn't stop being small. > RP says 'Wang Pi says, "From the infinitesimal all things develop. > From nothing all things are born. >Huang Yuan-chi says, "Emptiness and the Tao >are indivisible. Those who seek the Tao cannot find it >except through emptiness. But formless emptiness >is of no use to those who cultivate the Tao." >"We look for it, but we do not see it: we name it the Equable. >We listen for it, but we do not hear it: we name it the Rarefied. >We feel for it, but we do not get hold of it: we name it the Subtle [wei]. >These three we cannot examine. Thus they are One, indistinguishable.