29Gathering

His interpretation of chapter 1.

A direct translation, in context of academicians that focus their capability in thinking philosophy only, means that a text is taken out of context and interpreted as if a text exists in a void by itself. That makes it easier to make into whatever the translator wants, right? So you're going to have to agree with a new context, provided by the modern writer instead. Is it even possible to have a direct translation of the Wang Bi version of the Laozi? No. You can see author interpretation starting from the first line of the first chapter or even before. Technically you could have a translation that explains in detail each character and how the sentences work in classical Chinese. Maybe even explain semantic changes for those who know modern Chinese instead.

FWIW, I can see several posts just by clicking posts on OP's profile.

There's no disagreement between you and me as far as I understood. Unless you're saying that misinformation about Laozi is also a good thing, but I don't think that's what you're saying. The bait thrown about it was what I commented on. It was just the most obvious bait in this thread.

I agree that age does not impact validity, but if someone is trying to teach people that Laozi made up the Dao(like a scam) 1,000 years ago, throwing garbage on the whole thing is it really worth smiling about? Ok, unless someone responds to me directly I'm out.

Saying Daodejing is older than 1,000 years feel like an attack on you? I think you would know the age of Daodejing, you have 9000+ posts on a site where Daoism is discussed. This is most basic information. If you weren't throwing baits, then I don't know what to tell you.

Throwing so many baits. Final comment: I will disagree with Daodejing being 1,000 years old because I know better and bow out of this thread.