Cobie

.

.

Period.

.

okidoki

也 was used as a grammatical particle in the time of Laozi. It changes the meaning of the sentence. See Kroll.

MWD A : 道可道也，非恆道也

.

Exactly. That’s why I wrote:

If this was so, there would be no point in reading the DDJ. So by inductive reasoning I conclude these are mistranslations.

How do “desirelessness” and “desirefullness” “together produce all differently named things”?

Thanks for the update.

Welcome to the forum.

(Just joking, it’s clear what you mean) What type of “fringe”?

(my highlight) … what/who are “these two”? Are they “desirelessness” and “desirefullness”?

Provided it fits the characters, it’s imo ok to make a new interpretation.

I think this thread does not comply with the spirit of the ruling. Personally I’d like it closed. I have reported it.

So the whole thing is a red herring.

That’s another author.

... Possibly impressive (I so haven’t got a clue about these things ) P.S. pls don’t explain for me, my brain got cracked (by trying to understand the DDJ). I will now need to rest the rest of my life.

All scripts on DIO use 異名 http://www.daoisopen.com/downloads/CC1.pdf And so do you:

What’s the “normal one”?

No. https://ctext.org/dao-de-jing?searchu=異名

This site has the origin of the character https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/異

Thanks, so no connection really. Righto, no need to explain further; I think Van Praag was doing a bit of wishful thinking. To do him justice, I just saw he does say in the book it’s only a ‘hypothesis’. Righto.