Curious about the word ‘ruler’ in 17 and the whole Laozi. Modern translations make 17 seem like it could be about a sage, 'working with action.’ But is that new age gloss like Barks scrubbing the Koran out of Rumi? Is the original writer a true authoritarian or applying realpolitik to temper whatever warrior has assumed the throne? Or was an imperial gloss added in transmission, as with Rome and Jesus? What’s your sense of Laozi’s real feelings about kings?

A record is what was published and who pointed at it. The text of the post is not held here: read it at the source, or at its Wayback capture.

First cited

—

Most recent

—

Rank this month

not ranked

External links

0

Words captured

216