Dao De Jing. I read then Ursula Le Guin's rendition. since then i have also read Waley's translation and fragments of some others. i would say that reading widely and thoughtfully a variety of interpretations is worthwhile. The only 'layman' interpretation i find satisfactory is Le Guin's, but perhaps that is nostalgiac bias? I find other unscholarly attempts to be a bit vague and artificially 'mystical'. Scholarly translations are great because they really try to put the work in context and preserve its delicate meanings. That's rather important considering that the text, like many ancient writings has been corrupted through transmission and interpolation, and translation is fundamentally lossy.
