wandelaar

The TTC like many other texts from the time (also) addressed the ruler, and in that context there clearly is a legalist element. That you prefer to ignore it is your own choice. However because the TTC has many meanings your interpretation is also correct. What isn't correct is elevating your interpretation to the status of the only correct interpretation. The clause "as I see it" doesn't help here because if it were sincere you wouldn't claim that that there is no legalist element but only that you don't see it.

(...)

Hoff is into western Taoism. Or rather he was when he wrote The Tao of Pooh and The Te of Piglet. I'm not so sure where he stands now.

Yes - that's a strange thing to do, if you are interested in the meanings of the old characters then you should work with manuscripts that contain those old characters. Apparently he thinks the Wang Bi version is somehow superior. Also the very term "pre writing-brush characters" is vague and imprecise.

I'm not convinced.

It proves that a brush was in existence way before Meng Tian. And how do you know that the Guodian TTC was not written with a brush?

The facts were mentioned immediately after your quoted legend. I posted the complete passage earlier in this topic where it says after mentioning the legend:

Yes - legends... Why not go by the facts?

Hoff is talking about the pre-writing brush characters, so to what characters is he referring?

https://www.cuhk.edu.hk/ics/journal/articles/v59p253.pdf

Expanded quote.

Now this brings up two further questions: 1. Were those characters indeed not written with a brush. 2. If they were not written with a brush, is there a dictionary or something were one can look up the meaning of those characters.

What do you mean? It would be nice to know where we can read about the controversy you mentioned before.

That proves that Hoff is right and wrong at the same time.

I have seen no characters in the preview, and I'm wondering what sources Hoff used to determine their (differences in) meaning.

Something that is radically different from other translations is that Hoff has deleted some chapters. He'd better come up with some very convincing arguments for that...

Still - I'm curious whether or not Hoff is correct.

Yes - that sure is what it looks like. But is Hoff correct in his claim that the pre-writing brush characters often had a different meaning than the traditional characters in which they are transcribed in the common scholarly translations? And further that those old meanings have been ignored by all scholars prior to Hoff?

Why would it be our purpose in life to define things? The way of Lao tzu and Chuang tzu would rather have us stop learning sooner than later because there is no end to the acquisition of (useless) knowledge and this can easily become an obsession. I have to admit that I'm having a hard time putting this advise into practice as I'm curious about all sorts of things...

The Tao Te Ching indeed contains some parts that could be called 'legalist' (the ancient Chinese doctrine of authoritarian government). So not everything in the Tao Te Ching fits in well with modern democratic principles. Further as a result of technological developments people no longer live in natural circumstances while their natural instinctual reactions are mostly the same as they were in prehistoric times, hence the misfit. Following ones natural impulses without some form of self-restrain no longer works out well in our technological world (and this problem already manifested way back in Lao tzu's own time). See also chapter 80 that suggests rolling back unnecessary technological developments.

This also depends on how you define TCM. If you take any form of medicine practiced in ancient China as an early form of TCM then obviously it's extremely old...

In the Chuang tzu it's not very clear what a Taoist way of life would be, but in the Tao Te Ching many rules of thumb are given. However most people clearly ignore Lao tzu's rules or just laugh about it. Then there are also the different religious and esoteric forms of Taoism that have their own Taoist paths. So it depends on the kind of Taoism your talking about whether we do or do not follow that particular Tao. As absolute Tao is the foundation of all, one cannot not follow absolute Tao. But that's kind of an empty tautology that doesn't bring one any further. Following Tao in the relative (human) sense can only mean not being stubborn and taking the way the world works (absolute Tao) in account with everything one does. Different forms of Taoism attempt to do the latter in different ways. At least that's my current understanding.

Tried to read it, but I didn't succeed to finish the article as it read like a royal story from a tabloid magazine. Nothing illustrious or Taoist about it. Anyway - Taoism cannot (and should not) be forced on the people in the form of a state religion.

The most realistic case to consider would be a commune or small village of Taoists. See chapter 80.

Strange question indeed! I also thought the question was meant as Michael Sternbach above described. But is that what the OP meant?