Daodeiing 《道德经》, along with Bible, is among the most translated books in the world. Its author, Laozi, is regarded as an original and most influential thinker from China. Ironically, his loftily acclaimed book, Daodeiing, is badly misunderstood, misinterpreted and mistranslated. Since Laozi spoke about Dao in Daodejing some 2,500 years ago, there have been hundreds of books written on Daodejing. Many of the notable ones are collected in a voluminous Chinese book called "Dao Cang 《道藏》" and its monumental and remarkable English companion called "The Taoist Cannon" [Schipper, K. and F. Verellen (ed.), 2004, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.] Why one more book on Daodajing? The simple answer is that, in Laozi’s humble opinion, there has not been a correct one - yet. One does not have to look too far beyond Daodajing’s opening line, “Dao ke dao, fei Chang dao,” to understand why. The conventional interpretation and translation of this most profound line of Daodajing by several prominent Western Daoist scholars is listed as follows. (1) The Way that can be told of is not an Unvarying Way. (2) The Tao (Way) that can be told of is not the eternal Tao. (3) The way that can be spoken of is not the constant way. (4) Way-making that can be put into words is not really way-making. (5) If it can be specified as a Dao, it is not a permanent Dao. The simplest argument against such interpretations and translations is that if Dao cannot be told of, be spoken of, be put into words or be specified, how did Laozi write Daodejing and explain Dao, Dao ke dao and Chang Dao in such a simple and poetic line, i.e. “Dao ke dao, fei Chang dao”? The logical conclusion has to be that people have failed terribly in understanding what this line and, therefore, Daodejing really mean. One can hardly expect these Daoist scholars/translators, having failed in interpreting and translating the opening line correctly, understand what Laozi means to say in the rest of Daodejing’s Chapter 1 and, for that matter, the rest of the book. How about Chinese Daoist scholars? They should know better, shouldn't they? Chen Gu Ying 陈鼓应 is a professor at the prestigious Beijing University and the author of one of the most authoritative, revered and popular modern day Chinese books on Daodejing, Lao Zi Jin Zhu Jin Yi 《老子今注今译》, 2003, Beijing: The Commercial Press. The following is Chen’s commentary on the first chapter of Daodejing, (1) the entire chapter is talking about one word, Dao, (2) this metaphysical Dao cannot be spoken of, (3) no characters from any language can be used to express it, and (4) no concepts can be used to refer to and call upon it. An even more outlandish and ludicrous example is offered by another Chinese scholar, Yuan Zhiming, a modern-day Daoist/Christian with a Princeton pageantry. Yuan says, “Why is there such difficulty in interpreting Laozi? The answer is that Laozi himself did not totally understand Dao and thus was unable to express Dao with great clarity. Moreover, Laozi did not believe that human rationality could comprehend Dao or that Dao could be explained by human language.” Laozi must be turning in his grave. Laozi is, therefore, compelled to get out of his grave and speak again - by way of this video - to define and explain what (1) Dao, Dao ke dao, Chang Dao, (2) Ming, Ming ke ming, Chang Ming, (3) Wu Ming, You Ming, (4) Wu, Wu ke wu, Chang Wu, (5) You, You ke you, Chang You and (6) Tian, Di and Wan Wu really mean in clear and simple words - and consistent with our current knowledge in physics and philosophy. Using clear and clean tables, Laozi will show that, with his Daodeiing understood and translated correctly and presented succinctly, he is actually a forebear of modern philosophy, including ontology, epistemology and phenomenology, and physics including quantum mechanics and cosmology. It is time for people to read or re-read Daodejing with explanations and commentaries - in unmistakable and unambiguous words - from none other than Laozi himself. [Keywords: Laozi, Daodejing, Tao Te Ching, Dao, Tao, Chang Dao, Ming, Chang Ming, the Non-being, the Being, Tian, Di, One, Two, Three, Wan Wu, everything, nothingness, nothing, something-ness, something, Da, Da Dao, nameless, formless, emotion-less, indolent, ignorant, anarchy, change, no change, cattle, immortal, bodhisattva, Buddha, cometh such, truth such, Nirvana, God, holy father, ghost, holy spirit, Heaven, symmetry, non-dual, non-duality, duality, substance, space, universe, particle, boson, force field, knowledge, consciousness, wisdom.]

свернуть