[mbivert]

> but the opening bit has always seemed straightforward to me

the a/symmetry of the opening bits in Chinese, visually echoes a taiji:

> 道可道，

> 非恆道；

> 名可名，

> 非恆名。

given the diversity of translations available for those bits, I think it's fair to say that there's room for debate regarding their exact meaning − dare I say

amusingly, by being certain one understand what it means, somehow one really does not. Lao-Tseu may have been way, way wiser than average.

[sifar]

Exactly. It subrly hints at the limitations of language in capturing true understanding.

This is something I was impressed with. Almost every other ancient text starts of being full of certainty or being the authoratitve truth.

[mbivert]

> It subtly hints at the limitations of language in capturing true understanding

and that's still one interpretation ^_^

> Almost every other ancient text starts of being full of certainty

I can't say for sure about ancient texts, but famous wise men certainly (always?) encouraged a fair amount of humility (e.g. Shakyamuni, Socrates, Jesus, Confucius). But few actually wrote.

however, in general, their followers − and popular interpretations − embarrass themselves much less with humility.

in case this isn't known to you − I find this delightful − note that the (respectful) "子" suffix used in names (e.g. Lao-tseu is 老子, Confucius is 孔夫子) means "small thing", "seed", "child".