So this one points to intelligence as being a big root of a lot of problems. When humans became sentient, meaning that we realized that we were alive, our big brains made it harder for us to be one with the flow of the Tao. Seems like there are real parallels here with the Judeo-Christian story of "Adam, Eve, and the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil." Click here to see what differences and similarities you can find.

Hold on, now. All throughout, the TTC is telling us how awesome the sages are, but here it's telling us to end sagacity, which means being all sage-y and stuff. What gives? Our take is that the TTC is saying it's a bad idea to put sages on a pedestal. The simple wisdom of the Tao is out there for everybody to find. You don't have to go get a degree in sage-iness to find oneness.

An overly simple reading of this one might lead somebody to think that we should only look inward to find enlightenment. But in other sections, the TTC encourages us to learn from others and to not be super full of ourselves. What's your take? How can we find a balance between the two?

Wait... don't scrap those plans for studying abroad just yet. Yeah, it looks like the TTC is saying that traveling makes us dumber, but we probably don't have to read it quite that literally. We prefer to interpret these lines as a warning that we shouldn't expect to be suddenly enlightened just because we traveled thousands of miles to hang out with some sage on a mountaintop. Traveling is awesome. Go for it. But know that the simple wisdom of the Tao is everywhere; you don't have to hop on a plane to find it.

Um, so why would we want to pursue the Tao if it's going to make us lose stuff? If the Taoists put a recruitment commercial on TV (which they'd never do), they'd probably have a hard time selling their philosophy with a promise of personal loss for all. What these lines seem to be getting at, though, is that only by emptying our minds can we truly find oneness with the Tao.

Some people might say this makes the sages totally wishy-washy, to which a sage would probably smile, kindly listen to the critic's opinion, learn from it, and then move on without arguing. The TTC thinks we can learn a lot more by going into every situation without preconceptions of what we'll learn from it. How hard is that, though? Being totally open-minded 24/7 sounds like a real challenge if you ask us.

What could these side paths be? Seems like they're sort of deviations from the way of the Tao. Could it be the lure of getting wrapped up in intellectual concepts that complicate our minds and put a wall between us and the Tao? How can a Taoist know which paths are worth pursuing and which are going to lead them into dangerous territory?

In general, the TTC is a big fan of silence and is super-suspicious of blabbermouths. There are lots of other places where the book talks about the wisdom of silence. To the TTC, even if a person gives a long and well-informed lecture on any topic, that person still might be missing the most important thing of all: the simple wisdom of the Tao that's flowing all around them. How can a person listen and learn from what's around them if they're always busy talking about what they think they know?

The TTC is also not a fan of know-it-alls. You know the type. They go around acting like they know everything about everything, but really they're all talk. What's much more impressive to the TTC is a person who can admit what they don't know and start from there. It can be kinda hard to figure out what we don't know though, can't it? How can we know what we don't know if we don't know it?

What do you figure this one means? Could it be another reminder that intellectualism is just going get in the way of enlightenment? Also, it could be saying it's better to know a lot about one thing than it is to know a little about a lot. What's your opinion? Which idea fits best with the overall message of the Tao Te Ching?