First time here? Make sure to read my Disclaimer
The first thing I want to say about this book, or rather these books collected into a single tome, is that I don’t think it’s particularly fair to make a strong judgment about it having only read it once. I think that, like many ancient historical texts, this – or rather these – should be read multiple times and meditated upon carefully. They contain a lot of dense thoughts and ideas that seem simple on the surface but are surprisingly complex, especially for someone like me who isn’t all that well versed in Chinese/Eastern Philosophy. I’m absolutely positive that I missed a ton of things that would be clearer on a second readthrough, especially if I go ahead and read other similar works.
However, with all of those caveats out of the way, here’s what I thought of it.
Firstly, why did I even pick this book up? Well, the other day I was at Barnes and Noble, and I saw a hardcover book of “Chinese Philosophy”. Since I’m trying to make a point to read more ancient Chinese literature, I went over and took a look at it. While I wasn’t ready to pay $25 for the book, I took a picture of the texts included and made a point to start working my way through them over the next few months. The Tao Te Ching was up first.
Thankfully, my library had a copy, and a few days later I started reading. Like many “academic” books, this one came with an introduction from the scholar responsible for translating it.
I’m generally a huge fan of this type of thing. I always make a point to read author notes, because I want to connect with the person who wrote the thing I’m about to read/just finished reading. However, I couldn’t get through this one, and quit reading it after thirty or forty pages lest I drop the book entirely.
Admittedly, I think the issue here is one of intended reader mismatch. My impression of the book was that it was intended for/aimed at other scholars who are involved in studying these works as well as other historical Chinese texts. There appears to be a robust discussion and debate regarding the order of the parts, specific phrases, and other elements that were included in the Tao Te Ching. As a layperson who is not familiar with any of the people, movements, or context related to those discussions, I was extremely bored.
Similarly, there were a lot of footnotes throughout that were focused on differences in translation between versions, which I found mildly interesting and rather interrupting. Oftentimes I’d be getting into the flow of a given verse, only to see a little symbol next to a word in the middle and lose my place by going and reading it. That’s totally a me problem, but it was kind of annoying all the same.
Now, as far as content goes, this is where things got a bit more interesting. My first exposure to anything from the Tao Te Ching was in 9th grade, when my teacher gave us handouts with a few lines from it printed on them as part of some history unit we were doing at the time. These were super simple, intended to give us just a taste of Taoism, and the only one I remember is “He who knows, does not speak. He who speaks, does not know.”
The only reason I remember that, by the way, is because of my junior high school arch nemesis. During our class discussion on the importance of some other related passage, he raised his hand to answer the question my teacher asked, and when he got called on he smirked and said, “Actually, I’m just going to know and not speak.”
Man I hated that guy.
Anyway.
Oddly enough, that line did a pretty good job of anchoring my understanding of other parts of the text. The Tao Te Ching has a lot of things in it that kind of straddle a similar outlook, which was hard for me to follow. I often found myself thinking that the ideas presented were somewhat contradictory, or that it was impossible for a person to distinguish between a sage (who knows the proper flow of nature and acts in accordance with it, per the text) and someone who *genuinely* knows nothing.
The call to act in accordance with nature was interesting for sure, and I suspect that further readings would help me navigate some of my own quibbles with the text.
Additionally, I really enjoyed seeing some snippets here and there that brought to mind the elements of cultivation novels that I’ve liked. It’s impressive to me that so many authors have dug into this type of philosophy and used it to guide their works, crafting worlds, cultures, and characters that take these ideas and synthesize them.
Like I said before, I definitely know that I missed a bunch of stuff, and my thoughts on it are kind of a jumble, but I’m starting to think about going back to Barnes and Noble and grabbing that book after all.