It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
I was reading through a few things and I thought this translation of the Tao Te Ching by Archie Bahm was quite good. The whole text can be found online here. It’s interesting because it unfolds the text of the original by thinking of the Tao as nature. It gives a different slant on the ideas, and gives a few interesting hints for practice.
Nature can never be completely described, for such a description of Nature would have to duplicate Nature. No name can fully express what it represents.
It is Nature itself, and not any part (or name or description) abstracted from Nature, which is the ultimate source of all that happens, all that comes and goes, begins and ends, is and is not. But to describe Nature as "the ultimate source of all" is still only a description, and such a description is not Nature itself. Yet since, in order to speak of it, we must use words, we shall have to describe it as "the ultimate source of all."
If Nature is inexpressible, he who desires to know Nature as it is in itself will not try to express it in words
Although the existence of Nature and a description of that existence are two different things, yet they are also the same.
For both are ways of existing. That is, a description of existence must have its own existence, which is different from the existence of that which it describes; and so again we have to recognize an existence which cannot be described.
It is because we single out something and treat it as distinct from other things that we get the idea of its opposite. Beauty, for example, once distinguished, suggests its opposite, ugliness.
And goodness, when we think of it, is naturally opposed to badness.
In face, all distinctions naturally appear as opposites. And opposites get their meaning from each other and find their completion only through each other. The meaning of "is" and "is not" arise from our distinguishing between them.
Likewise "difficult and easy," "long and short," "high and low," "loud and soft," "before and after" - all derive their meanings from each other.
Therefore the intelligent man accepts what is as it is. In seeking to grasp what is, he does not devote himself to the making of distinctions which are then mistaken to be separate existences. In teaching, he teaches, not by describing and pointing out differences, but by example. Whatever is exists, and he sees that nothing is gained by representing what fully exists by a description - another lesser, diluted kind of existence. If something exists which cannot be wholly revealed to him with his viewpoint, he does not demand of it that it be nothing but what it seems to him.
If some one else interprets him, he does not trust that interpretation as being equal to his own existence. If some part of him stands out as if a superior representative of his nature, he will not surrender the rest of his nature to it.
And in not surrendering the whole of his nature to any part of it, he keeps himself intact. This is how the intelligent man preserves his nature.