Cobie

I agree.

Yes Wang Bi (c.3rd century AD). Being a Confucian, his interpretation was rather skewed. But his commentaries have ever since underpinned almost all translations of the DDJ.

Sinologist Robert Henricks thinks the division has little relevance, likely not part of the original but added later (in a commentary).

One must never “manipulate” qi.

Now you are just bragging.

I object. I think you can stand proud. Also it’s a human right to change your mind. I do it all the time.

Always happy to disagree with you. That’s great, I am very happy for you.

These three are not the same: 古文 (gu3 wen2) Classical Chinese ; 文言文 (wen2 yan2 wen2) Literary Chinese ; 普通话 (pu3 tong1 hua4) Mandarin. Most sinologists use the words Classical and Literary for different periods (pre/post Han).

Yes, Laozi thought so too.

These are all dictionaries for the use of the characters in modern Chinese. You need a dictionary for the meanings as used in transcripts of Classical Chinese. There often is some difference in the meanings. I use: A Student's Dictionary of Classical and Medieval Chinese, Author: Paul W. Kroll

Which dictionary did you use?

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Quote \/ doesn’t say “twice in one line”, and I haven’t read the article. Still, I thought you might find it interesting. “A thorough study of polysemy is an important prerequisite for the translation of Tao Te Ching to convey its essence well. Therefore, the article screened the polysemy in Tao Te Ching and found many words and phrases have more than one meaning.” (A Study of Polysemy and Multi-translation in Tao Te Ching, by Yan Wang, https://www.atlantis-press.com/proceedings/iccessh-19/125912010 )