視之而弗見 名之曰微 聽之而弗聞 名之曰希 捪之而弗得 名之曰夷
[shi4] [zhi1] [er2] [fu2] [jian4] [ming2] [zhi1] [yue1] [wei1] [ting1] [zhi1] [er2] [fu2] [wen2] [ming2] [zhi1] [yue1] [xi1] [min2] [zhi1] [er2] [fu2] [de2] [ming2] [zhi1] [yue1] [yi2]
Looked at but not seen, its name is [called] “mysterious”, listened to but not heard, [its] name is [called] “rare”, felt but not obtained, [its] name is [called] “foreign”
視之不見，名曰「夷」﹔聽之不聞，名曰「希」﹔搏之不得，名曰「微」。
[shi4] [zhi1] [bu4] [jian4]， [ming2] [yue1] 「[yi2]」﹔ [ting1] [zhi1] [bu4] [wen2]， [ming2] [yue1] 「[xi1]」﹔ [bo2] [zhi1] [bu4] [de2]， [ming2] [yue1] 「[wei1]」。
Looked at but not seen, [its] name is [called] “foreign”, listened to but not heard, [its] name is [called] “rare”, held but not obtained, [its] name is [called] “mysterious”
The words in this section traditionally have a contextual translation in most translations of the DaoDeJing rather than the more literal translations I have gone with. This section sets up a series of contradictions and then defines them as specific term. The term shifts between the versions, but ultimately is more a suggestion than a literal term. I would argue pretty much any of the other translations is equally correct on this front as these terms really seem to be abstract to the point of absurdity almost for describing these contradictions.
“Looked at but not seen,” this is a contradiction aiming to say that the Dao is an incomprehensible sight. It is “foreign” to our understanding of our vision and is something blurred and dull because it is so sharp, or even sharp because it is so dull. This means but the Dao is so intense it blinds to the point you can look at it like the sun, but not actually see it because the light is too intense for your brain to even hope to comprehend.
We continue this series of comparisons with multiple comparisons of the senses of hearing and touch. The Dao is like intense silence or chaotic noise, you listen but you cannot hear anything distinguishable. There is nothing to hear, but there is also a deafening silence or a deafening roar. The lack of sound becomes noise to the point the senses are dulled or else the chaos in the noise deafens you to any actual signal. It can be held, but not obtained, like trying to pick up sand with a sieve. You can get it on the sieve, but as soon as you pull it up, it falls away. It is like grabbing the wind. You feel it, but as soon as you clutch you are left holding nothing.
The more you look at it, the less you see, but if you stop looking, you’ll never see it. The more you listen for it, the less you hear, but if you stop listening, you’ll never hear it. The more you reach for it, the further it gets from your possession, but if you never reach for it, you’ll never possess it. Balance is key, knowledge is key, understanding is key.
三者不可至計 故混而爲一 一者 其上不攸 其下不忽 尋尋呵 不可名也 復歸於无物
[san1] [zhe3] [bu4] [ke3] [zhi4] [ji4] [gu4] [hun2] [er2] [wei2] [yi1] [yi1] [zhe3] [qi2] [shang4] [bu4] [you1] [qi2] [xia4] [bu4] [hu1] [xun2] [xun2] [a1] [bu4] [ke3] [ming2] [ye3] [fu4] [gui1] [yu2] [wu2] [wu4]
[These] three cannot be counted, thus all [are combined] for One, the One, its high is not remote, its low is not hidden, look [seek] [for it], it cannot be named, [it] returns into non-existence
此三者不可致詰，故混而為一。其上不皦，其下不昧。繩繩不可名，復歸於無物。
[ci3] [san1] [zhe3] [bu4] [ke3] [zhi4] [jie2]， [gu4] [hun2] [er2] [wei2] [yi1]。 [qi2] [shang4] [bu4] [jiao3]， [qi2] [xia4] [bu4] [mei4]。 [sheng2] [sheng2] [bu4] [ke3] [ming2]， [fu4] [gui1] [yu2] [wu2] [wu4]。
These three cannot be interrogated, thus all [are combined] for One, its high is not bright, its low is not obscure, endless, it cannot be named, [it] returns into non-existence
The previous three examples were just showing how the Dao is ethereal and beyond comprehension. These two version use a bit of different terminology but still aim for the same goal. The three examples are one in the same, they are just different facets of the same idea. The high and the low are different but the same as the Dao is endless. Yin leads into Yang, and Yang back into Yin, flowing and changing backwards and forwards. It is nameless because it is beyond naming like we mentioned in Chapter 1.
混~浑
攸~悠
忽~惚
是謂无狀之狀 无物之象 是謂忽望 隨而不見其後 迎而不見其首
[shi4] [wei4] [wu2] [zhuang4] [zhi1] [zhuang4] [wu2] [wu4] [zhi1] [xiang4] [shi4] [wei4] [hu1] [wang4] [sui2] [er2] [bu4] [jian4] [qi2] [hou4] [ying2] [er2] [bu4] [jian4] [qi2] [shou3]
This is called the shapeless form, the appearance of nothingness, [it] is called inconspicuous, [when] followed [one] cannot see its end, [when] welcomed [faced] one cannot see its origin
是謂無狀之狀，無物之象，是謂惚恍。迎之不見其首，隨之不見其後。
[shi4] [wei4] [wu2] [zhuang4] [zhi1] [zhuang4]， [wu2] [wu4] [zhi1] [xiang4]， [shi4] [wei4] [hu1] [huang3]。 [ying2] [zhi1] [bu4] [jian4] [qi2] [shou3]， [sui2] [zhi1] [bu4] [jian4] [qi2] [hou4]。
This is called the shapeless form, the appearance of nothingness, [it] is called unclear, [when] welcomed [faced] one cannot see its origin, [when] followed [one] cannot see its end
The Dao is shapeless and indescribable as it represents “the appearance of nothingness”. This is just a continuation of the previous sections trying to really drive home the ethereal and ephemeral nature of the Dao. It is both unclear and inconspicuous. It hides in plain sight yet is camouflaged in every encounter. The Dao is sharp and dull in appearance, bright and listless, loud and silent. It is a contradiction without contradicting. It is beyond understanding without understanding.
When you face the Dao, you lose sight of where it came from. When you follow the Dao, you lose sight of where it is going. The Dao is cryptic and counter-intuitive. The implication is that you must look to the future to see the past, and vice versa. Its state is one that if you look where it has come or gone, you are unable to see where it has come from or where it may go. When you accept it for what it is and understand it, then you are able to accept it and understand it.
忽~惚
執今之道 以御今之有 以知古始 是謂道紀
[zhi2] [jin1] [zhi1] [dao4] [yi3] [yu4] [jin1] [zhi1] [you3] [yi3] [zhi1] [gu3] [shi3] [shi4] [wei4] [dao4] [ji4]
Hold to the Dao of today, in order to control today, with knowledge of [where] the past began, this is called the source [principle] of the Dao
執古之道，以御今之有。能知古始，是謂道紀。
[zhi2] [gu3] [zhi1] [dao4]， [yi3] [yu4] [jin1] [zhi1] [you3]。[neng2] [zhi1] [gu3] [shi3]， [shi4] [wei4] [dao4] [ji4]。
Hold to the Dao of the ancients, in order to control today, with knowledge of [where] the past began, this is called the source [principle] of the Dao
The two translations have a bit of a difference for the first two clauses which sounds almost opposite, but I took these to actually be different focuses of the same idea. “Hold to the Dao of today, in order to control today,” and “Hold to the Dao of the ancients, in order to control today,” both ultimately involve holding to the Dao. An argument to make is, “Does the Dao actually change?” The difference is that the first focuses on “the Dao of today” in the sense of where the Dao is today. What path has it taken? How does it interact with society and the world in general now? How to interpret it is going to be contextual, so take note of what is happening now to see what is the natural path to take in the context of the here and now.
The second seems to say almost the opposite, but in reality, the second is saying to hold to the Dao, the Dao of the ancients which the ancients followed rather than only follow the ancient way. Traditional Chinese philosophy and religion has a reverence for the ancients and ancestors. There are also deified Emperors and rulers attributed with basically creating everything that lead to China advancing in the ancient world and arguably creating the context for “China” as a cultural whole. This section reads to me as if saying to follow the venerated ancestors of society and advance beyond the times. The ancestors were closer to the source, so they moved further and faster than the people of the day.
Both end in roughly the same way which helps reign in the first translation from just riding trends, and leads more credence to the theory that the goal is to reconnect with the source in the context of the present, and the second is a bit arguable as it can be taken as either doubling down on going an “older route” and trying to “wind back the clock”, or else it can be taken as saying the way the older path was followed for the Dao was correct. Look to the ancients for how they sought to follow the Dao and follow them in a more abstract sense. I used “source” and “principle” in one area to show how these can be split on either translation to either harden or soften the interpretation depending on how you choose to read it.