[Note: I italicize phrases I borrow from the chapter, and link to phrases I borrow from other chapters to help tie chapters together. While making it more tedious to read, the Tao Te Ching is best pondered in the context of the whole.]

The literal translation (below) may put 'How can this be considered perfect?' in a slightly different light. Sure, some enmity is bound to remain un-dispelled after any dispute. That's natural. To see it so, and not expect a perfect resolution allows the empire will be at peace of its own accord. Indeed, it is enough to have peace, even if some enmity remains un-dispelled, or as the literal Chinese puts it, peace can satisfactory (feel free to insert 'be' between can and satisfactory ).

It is difficult to use our discernment to take a tally of short comings, debts, faults, and yet give up the discernment so as to not pass judgment. What is the difference? Taking a tally can be an impartial awareness of 'balance in process'. Passing judgment is loaded with an emotion that craves to assign responsibility – blame. Having the former without the later is difficult, given the primal social instincts that drive us to exact payment and revenge. What to do?

The literal translation hits closer to home for me here as well, e.g., ... hold contract, but not responsibility at man. I accomplish this quite well (given that I'm an animal) by recognizing that there is no evidence to support the widely held belief that humans have free will. Without free will, 'hold not responsible at man' is unavoidable. We are, in fact, like all the other animals on earth, except for our brain's mind which excels at conjuring up an endless stream of ideal notions too numerous to count. Although they all boil down to pigeon holing things in life as either good, bad, beautiful or ugly (not that that's a 'bad' thing mind you :wink.

Finally, the literal Chinese leans a bit more to the view that the good man, similar to heaven, shows no favoritism. Otherwise it sounds as if the way is on the side of the good man, which never rang true to me. I mean if Heaven shows no favoritism, how can it be forever on the side of the good man? It feels less contradictory to say heaven, together with the kind man, is not intimate (i.e., show favoritism). But, perhaps that's just me splitting hairs.

Here is the chapter as literal as I could make it:

together with big blame must have surplus blame.
peace can satisfactory.
accordingly holy man hold left contract, but not responsibility at man.
have integrity manage contract, no integrity manage penetrating.
heaven way not intimate, always together with kind man.