Reexamining the Different Paths to the Dao of the Daodejing

Abstract

The Daodejing has inconsistent editions and versions. There are controversial issues that lie in the theme, the intention, the significance, and the semantic meaning of the Daodejing. This article takes “Dao ke dao fei chang Dao” as an anchor to reexamine the different paths to the Dao of the Daodejing. We regard all of the editions and versions as an enrichment of the Daodejing. Drawing on the Chinese exegetics, we obtain two basic meanings of the verb dao (“to speak” and “to follow”), and two basic meanings of the adjective chang (“eternal” and “common”). Based on a philosophical analysis and review of the sinological interpretations, we discriminate three ways of speaking (conceptual way, metaphorical way, and transcendental way), two modes of following (to imitate the Dao and to merge identically with the Dao), and three types of eternal (immutable eternal, constantly changing as eternal, and eternal in the core). By examining different paths to the Dao, we conclude that Laozi’s Dao cannot be expressed conceptually or metaphorically. We must comprehend the Dao in a transcendental way. The Dao constantly changes with a stable core or law but differs from physical law, dialectical logic, and logos in the Western context. People can follow the Dao and become identical to it.

Reflecting on the Distinction between Philosophical Daoism and Religious Daoism Based on the Transmission and Transformation of the Concept of “Philosophy”

“…That is, it is not metaphysical; it is formless (floating) but this-worldly (phenomenological) and functions everywhere (Chen 2017;Wang 2000;Michael 2022, pp. 65-116;Tan and Bao 2022;Wang 2022). Similarly, under the illumination of modern Western philosophy, cosmology and ethics no longer have clear boundaries.…”

“…Given that the Laozi Daodejing is more original and focuses on bodily cultivation rather than metaphysics, distinguishing the Daoist philosophy from the Daoist religion becomes less important. Michael's distinction between the different versions of the Daodejing not only unites various fragmentations within early Daoism but also can stimulate readers to divert their attention from the controversial differences between philosophical and religious Daoism to the activities of interpretation, acceptance, and practice under respective versions (Tan and Bao 2023).…”