While most might read the Daodejing from beginning to end, perhaps focusing on interests might reduce cognitive load.
… there is a greater degree of coherence to the Daodejing than a first reading might suggest. Chapters are sometimes grouped around specific themes and subjects. For example,
Ames and Hall (2003), p. 8, editorial paragraphin added
* chapters 1 and 2 are centered on the theme of correlativity,
* chapters 18 and 19 contrast natural and conventional morality,
* 57 through 61 all begin with recommendations on proper governing of the state,
* 67 through 69 are about prosecuting war,
* chapters 74 and 75 deal with political oppression and the common people,
and so on. We have appended a thematic index that reveals at least some of such editorial organization.
Those looking to the Daodejing for answers may be disappointed, because it only presents more questions to be considered, perhaps like listening to a song.
… when we turn to reflect on how the selected wisdom sayings of the Daodejing function, we can assume that they, like the repertoire of songs, have a kind of unquestioned veracity that comes from belonging to the people and their tradition. We can further observe that this veracity is made corporate by a reading strategy that co-opts the reader.
Ames and Hall (2003), p. 8, editorial paragraphin added
Two often remarked characteristics of the Daodejing are palpable absences:
* it contains no historical detail of any kind, and
* it offers its readers no doctrines in the sense of general precepts or universalistic laws.
The required “framing” of the aphorism by the reader is itself an exercise in nondogmatic philosophizing where the relationship between the text and its student is one of noncoercive collaboration. That is, instead of “the text” providing the reader with a specific historical context or philosophical system, its listeners are required to supply always unique, concrete, and often dramatic scenarios drawn from their own experience to generate the meaning for themselves.
This inescapable process in which students through many readings of the text acquire their own unique understanding of its insights informed by their own life experiences is one important element in a kind of constantly evolving coherence. The changing coherence of the text is brought into a sharpening focus as its readers in different times and places continue to make it their own.
There are a variety of translations and commentaries on the Daodejing. Ames and Hall rely on the 1982 version by D.C. Lau, that is based on the Wang Bi text.
The Daodejing comes down to us today in several different versions. How do we decide which text to take as a master for our translation? [1]
[1] In this discussion of the text, we have relied heavily upon the research and sometimes speculative insights and conclusions of D. C. Lau (1982) and Robert Henricks (1989, 2000), and would refer the reader to their fuller accounts.
Ames and Hall (2003), p. 73
- Lau, D. C. (1982). Chinese Classics: Tao Te Ching. Hong Kong: Chinese University of Hong Kong Press.
- Henricks, Robert (2000). Lao Tzu’s Tao Te Ching. New York: Columbia University Press.
- Henricks, Robert (1989)). Lao-tzu Te-Tao Ching. New York: Ballantine.
In the Glossary of Key Terms, there is a major insight that the Daodejing should be read a processual, i.e. think verbs, not nouns!
There is one general point that we would make in our interpretation of this classical Chinese language. Above we have argued for a processual understanding of classical Daoist cosmology. If this account is persuasive, it means that the vocabulary that expresses the worldview and the common sense in which the Daodejing is to be located is first and foremost gerundive. Because “things” in the Daodejing are in fact active “processes” and ongoing “events,” nouns that would “objectify” this world are derived from and revert to a verbal sensibility. The ontological language of substance and essence that is sedimented into the English language tends to defy this linguistic priority, insisting upon the primacy of “the world” rather than the process of the world “worlding” and the myriad things “happening.” It is a fair observation that a careful reading of the introduction and this glossary are made necessary by the fact that our European languages can only most imperfectly “speak” the world being referenced in the Daodejing.
Ames and Hall (2003), p. 57
Reference
Ames, Roger T., and David L. Hall. 2003. Dao de Jing: A Philosophical Translation. Ballantine Books. https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/3170/dao-de-jing-by-roger-t-ames-and-david-l-hall/.
In brief. David Ing. 