Showing posts with label Tao Te Ching translation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Tao Te Ching translation. Show all posts

2022/05/17

There are so many version Tao Te Ching Q&A | Goodreads

There are so many version of this book!... — Tao Te Ching Q&A | Goodreads
Shoaib Rehman asked:

There are so many version of this book! Which one should I read first? https://www.bookdepository.com/search?searchTerm=+Tao+Te+Jing++Lao+Tsu&search=Find+book

flag
54355902. uy100 cr1,0,100,100
John An online search will pull up a pdf with 8 translations, the Bureau of Public Secrets archive links to many, and there is an Hungarian site (in English too) which has data on nearly a hundred. 
So far I found Ursula Le Guin's anarcho-eco-feminist "creative interpretation" congenial, if free. 
Jonathan Star achieves a balance of the literary and scholarly; his "definitive ed." has transliterations of each ideogram with multiple meanings so you can "assemble your own'!
 Gia-Fu Feng + Jane English convey the TTC in a popular version many like; 
I found as have others Stephen Mitchell's influenced by his Zen bent. Like ULG, SM as with many "translators" does not know classical (or modern) Chinese; they both worked from Paul Carus' 1898 transliteration. Red Pine's and David Hinton's renderings show a blend of scholarship and accessibility from two who truly know Chinese. 
Finally, the classical Chinese is different than the modern version, which makes me wonder if one needs to be a native speaker of modern Chinese to claim translation credibility, as some born-bilingual interpreters insist. 
P.S. Thomas Merton adapted Chuang Tzu's tales, unfortunately not the TTC.
flag
Gary Jaron The Jonathan Star text is an update on the Paul Carus 1898 Chinese to English lexicon. Though I don't like his translation. The translation of Red Pine and his collection of classic commentary is excellent. My favorite for insight and translation is the definitive work by Ellen Chen. Her commentary is deep and rich. She is a native Chinese reader and western graduated scholar. All her books on Taoism are brilliant and deeply rewarding. Though her own scholarly analysis text on Taoism is not an essay read but a excellent comparison and contrast of Western thinking to Lao Tzu text.
flag
Ellen I have read multiple translations of this work, and personally I believe that the best to understand the true meaning is: ISBN 9781585426188. I hope this helps!
flag
Ward Hammond The one by Ursula K. Le Guinn is great. I have many. I just picked this one up.
flag
Larry Campbell I experienced the same frustration with "which translation". As a result, I have just released a book "The Parallel Tao Te Ching: A Comparison of English Translations". I am NOT a "Taoist Scholar", but this is an anthology-type book, using 11 total translations. Each verse has 3 side/side translations from those 11, with some further comments and info. If you're interested, visit my website: larryncampbell.com, or e-mail me at larrycampbell@aftermathenterprises for further questions and ongoing discounts.
flag
David Howell The author Michael Finkel, in his book The Stranger in the Woods, suggested that the Red Pine translation should be read. That is the version I will seek to read as I enjoyed his book immensely.
flag
Wayne Leung The original Chinese
flag
Forked Radish John C. H. Wu's 1961 translation in very good. He was born in Ningbo, China and graduated from the University of Michigan Law School.
flag
David I have three translations in my library, translated by Stephen Mitchell, Gia-Fu Feng, or Derek Lin. They are pretty good.
I just have read a new one, Tao Te Ching: The New English Version That Makes Good Sense (ISBN-13: 978-1727252248). Unlike others who believe the Tao can not be told or explained, the TTC is full of paradoxes and you have to give up language to learn the Tao, the author of this book asserts that the Tao not only can be experienced, but also can be told or explained; and language and mind can be useful tools to learn the Tao if you have the know-how. Thus, if you want to know exactly what is the Tao, what are Being and Non-Being, how to experience the Tao, how to know your true nature and how to follow the Tao in your life, you can read this one.
flag
C.G. Masi Start with the one closest to your hand. Then read another. And, another ... .

Probably the least authoritative is Thomas Merton's. It may, however, be the most beautiful.
flag
Posted by at
Labels: ,

reference request - Recommend "best" (see description) English translation of Tao Te Ching - Philosophy Stack Exchange

reference request - Recommend "best" (see description) English translation of Tao Te Ching - Philosophy Stack Exchange



Recommend "best" (see description) English translation of Tao Te Ching
Ask Question
Asked 7 years, 7 months ago
Modified 1 year, 2 months ago
Viewed 20k times


12
3


Would someone who is vary familiar with Lao Tzu's philosophy please refer me to a translation of Tao Te Ching that preserves the spirit and eternal messages of Tao Te Ching.
 I don't like the translations I've read that try to modernize the text, and relate it back to modern life (such as Ron Hogan, Stephen Mitchell, etc.). I know that each person's translation says more about the translator than the work itself, and so I would like a translation that doesn't take liberties with ideas or turn general concepts into overly specific ones. 
I am also aware that I should read multiple translations, which I will do on my computer, but I'd like to pick up one hard copy that is reasonably true to the original work. An embedded analysis might be beneficial but it's not necessary.

Thanks in advance.
reference-requesttranslationtaoism
Share
Improve this question
Follow

edited Aug 12, 2019 at 16:02

curiousdannii
1,66533 gold badges1717 silver badges2424 bronze badges
asked Oct 8, 2014 at 23:31

mikeed_5
12111 gold badge11 silver badge55 bronze badges

I can see why you don' like the Hogans translation, but I thought the Mitchell one was good. At least the first verse was close to the original when I tried translating the first verse myself.
– Mozibur Ullah Oct 9, 2014 at 2:01

Yes I agree they're definitely not comparable. Stephen Mitchell's translation is not too bad but it's not really what I'm looking for based on the criteria I mentioned above.
– mikeed_5 Oct 9, 2014 at 3:19
2
Another dimension is that this text has had the equivalent of its 'Qumran moment' within our lifetime. So, as when looking at a Gospel, it might be important to consider whether you want what is traditionally accepted, or what might come from the earliest source. Victor Mair in the 80's did a translation that varies substantially from what has been handed down for centuries, based on the recovery of older manuscripts. So is that more honest, or less relevant to tradition?
– user9166 Oct 9, 2014 at 17:15

There's a good one by John C. H Wu. Trans. Another is by Gia-Fu Feng and Jane English for Wildwood House (1973). There are some terrible ones out there. .
– user20253 Dec 2, 2018 at 11:59
1
The translation that's the "best" is surely not the Tao. Right? Right.
– user4894 Dec 2, 2018 at 23:16
Show 1 more comment


8 Answers
Sorted by:


8


It would be helpful to know why you want to read the Daodejing in order to suggest a helpful translation. Are you reading it for (a) raw investigative purposes, (b) meditative / religious / ethical purposes, (c) academic purposes?

I would recommend looking at the translation by Roger Ames and David T. Hall. The text is translated by two scholars who are quite good with the languages, and it includes an extensive preface that explains why they translate several controversial terms the way that they do. 

I wouldn't say I agree on every front with that. I say this in large part, because their translation represents one of the best efforts in contemporary philosophy to render the text both philosophical and comprehensible -- and this is philosophy.se.

But the big problem here is that it's nearly impossible to translate the sort of fragmentary elements found in the Daodejing into English without commentary and interpretation. A large source of this is that Ancient Chinese does mark words by declension or conjugation and does not clearly specify word type -- the same word could be a noun or verb depending on sentence position. Moreover, it's not always clear whether a word is meant to have conceptual weight or just to be taken as having the common meaning. (one speculation is that the written form of ancient Chinese was never a spoken language).

For instance, Bao points this out with reference to the passage Analects 12.11 and the possibilities it presents:


孔子對曰：「君君，臣臣，父父，子子。」公曰：「善哉！信如君不君，臣不臣，父不父，子不子，雖有粟，吾得而食諸？」 (from ctext).

The question is whether the repeated characters are: 1. all to be seen as nouns 2. to be seen as verb-noun 3. to be seen as noun-verb (Bao 180).

Finally, it's worth remarking that the vast majority of contemporary scholars do not think Lao Tzu is a person. He's more a fictionalized advocate for Daoism set up to stand against Confucius et. al and give Daoism a more fixed historical standing.

On a certain level, all translation is interpretation but the interpretive distance can vary quite a bit: Snow is white -> Schnee ist weiß doesn't leave much room for wiggle, other things are not so easy.
References
Ames, Roger and Hall, David "Introduction" in Daodejing: A Philosophical Translation (2003).
Bao Zhiming "Subject, Predicate, and Eventful Language" in Polishing the Chinese Mirror: Essays in Honor of Henry Rosemont, Jr. (2007)

Share
Improve this answer
Follow

edited Aug 13, 2019 at 0:05


answered Oct 9, 2014 at 4:44

virmaior
24.3k33 gold badges4646 silver badges104104 bronze badges

I want to read it for personal development purposes. I believe the priorities of taoist philosophy are in the proper order, as it values individual peace of mind and tranquility over absolute truth. I will check out that translation. Thank you.
– mikeed_5 Oct 9, 2014 at 5:24

"A large source of this is that Ancient Chinese does not have much of a grammar -- the same word could be a noun or verb depending on sentence position (and they are not marked by declension or conjugation elements either)." Zero derivation is still grammar... syntax is still grammar... I don't even know what it would mean for a language to not have much grammar.
– curiousdannii Aug 12, 2019 at 15:32

I've added a few sentences and sources and tried to remove the sentence you found off. I don't think it was wrong but anything can be improved.
– virmaior Aug 13, 2019 at 0:06
Add a comment


3


My favourite translation is by Jonathan Star. Although it is not altogether true to the original Chinese I believe, after reading many different translations, that Star retains the essence of what is being said, but delivers it in a readable and poetic format.

Share
Improve this answer
Follow

answered May 13, 2015 at 10:45

anonymous
3111 bronze badge

+1 didn't know Jonathan Star, and in amazon.com preview it looks a very good translation. Maybe when he absorb a little more of the teachings of the book, he will be giving the pdf in his site for free... "The Sage... He gives but not to receive, He works but not for reward..." DDJ 2 ;)
– Rodrigo Nov 6, 2015 at 19:25
Add a comment

3


Based on the provided criteria, I think you'd better get this one:

"Tao Te Ching: The New English Version That Makes Good Sense" https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1727252241/

I've read about thirty translations, and found that this is the most comprehensible one. This book stands out of the crowd because it is based on the author's research breakthroughs and is a new translation from the original Chinese text, so it can try to be true to the intent of Lao Tzu and has introduced Lao Tzu's teaching in form of a system of philosophy. It tells exactly what the Tao is, how to experience the Tao, what your true nature is and how to know it, and how to work with the Tao, unlike others which keep convincing you that the Tao can not be told or explained, and leave you in dark and helpless.

Share
Improve this answer
Follow

answered Dec 2, 2018 at 6:41

Frank-H
3111 bronze badge
Add a comment


2


I would recommend the James Legge translation which can be found with notes here:-

http://www.sacred-texts.com/tao/sbe39/index.htm

and all on one page without notes here:-

http://www.sacred-texts.com/tao/taote.htm

Also on Sacred Books of The East, vol 39 (sbe39) is The Writings of Chuang Tzu, which in many places elucidates the Tâo Te Ching.

There are various editions:-ISBN 8120801407 ISBN 140218591X ISBN 1498073743


Share
Improve this answer
Follow

answered Oct 9, 2014 at 8:10

Chris Degnen
3,49611 gold badge1313 silver badges1919 bronze badges
1
The main problem for Legge is that it's woefully outdated. If memory serves there's also a few places where butchers the translation. Main advantage is that it's roughly complete and free.
– virmaior Oct 9, 2014 at 8:28

I came to it via the Chuang Tzu which elaborates on themes which are then found cryptically epitomised in the Tâo Te Ching. Read this way round the translation worked well, and the Chuang Tzu is a nice read. (The notes and references are all interlinked.)
– Chris Degnen Oct 9, 2014 at 10:11

I would not recommend Legge's translation. I gained the impression he did not understand the text.
– user20253 Dec 3, 2018 at 13:23
1
@PeterJ Can you give an example?
– Chris Degnen Dec 3, 2018 at 13:36

@ChrisDegnen - Sorry but I cannot. I disposed of this translation immediately on reading it. I remember I found it unpoetic and somewhat incomprehending. On this I would agree with virmajor. There are much better translations.
– user20253 Dec 4, 2018 at 11:10
Show 2 more comments

2


I've done a translation of the Dao De Jing myself, from the chinese version available here, and the aid of several different translations, in english and portuguese, and some slight different versions of the original (noted in some of the english/portuguese translations).

Most translations seem too "mystic" to me. Many (like James Legge's) were made by christian scholars, so they may have altered some passages to promote their own religion, or just by ignorance (writing "eternal life" when the original says "longevity", for instance, or translating Dao as "God").

I'm not such a profound student of chinese culture yet, but I studied some of the things Dao De Jing is about: nature and ancient peoples. As a biologist, I see more sense in translating 常 (cháng) as "usual", "most of the times" than most philosophers do, translating it as "eternal", "fixed", "immutable".

Also living 3 years in a indigenous small city in Amazon forest (São Gabriel da Cachoeira) taught me a lot about the way they think. They say, for instance, "we study nature not to rule over it, but to follow its way". That's a daoist idea that indigenous peoples usually follow. Considering their asiatic ancestry, and the points in common between chinese and Yanomami language (at least 3 points not present in european languages), I think they have more in common than most scholars have ever thought. That's why I think my translation is in some aspects better than many scholars'.

Two main differences: I translate Dao as Nature, since they are the same to me. And I translate De as Harmony (previously I used Spontaneity, now I think Harmony has a wider meaning, though Spontaneity also makes sense), since this makes perfect sense in the overall text (and also in the Zhuang Zi), and is not so vague or full of other meanings as "Virtue".

I haven't translated it to english yet, but I think Google Translate can do a decent job at that. And you can ask me if you have any doubts. The pdf is here.

EDIT: Explaining better my point about 常 cháng:


“Always without desire we must be found, if its deep mystery we would sound” (James Legge, 1891)

“Hence always rid yourself of desires in order to observe its secrets” (D.C. Lau, 1963)

“Ever desireless, one can see the mystery” (Gia-Fu Feng, 1972)

“always be dispassionate in order to see the mysteries” (Bradford Hatcher, 2007)

People insist in translate 常 cháng as “always” (when it also means “usual”, “regular”, “common”, “normally”, “frequently”, etc). To live “always without desires” is not the same thing as “usually without desires”, and the latter fits not only into the original text (in chapter 1 itself, and in “the flexible wins over the rigid” (chapter 36, 43, 78...), “the movement of Dao is the return” (chapter 40), etc), but fits also into a very basic knowledge of biology and psychology. To expect a rigid, complete, eternal absence of desires is something that only a Christian and members of a few other religions could think of as a “virtue”. The referred passage makes much more sense as “the longest you crave for nothing, the deep you get into the essence of things”. That is, why be hyperbolic, when we can be natural?

Share
Improve this answer
Follow

edited Dec 4, 2018 at 13:18


answered Oct 10, 2014 at 16:19

Rodrigo
1,4321212 silver badges2424 bronze badges
2
I don't believe a translation should be attempted by anyone who does not understand the philosophy. To translate Dao as Nature is to destroy the meaning of the text. To complain the text is too 'mystical' is like complaining a cookery book is too much about food. This text comes from a shamanic background and is a prime example of 'mysticism'.or 'non-dualism'. If we do not know what 'non-dualism' means we do not know what Lao Tsu's text means. . . .
– user20253 Dec 3, 2018 at 13:20

@PeterJ I'm a biologist. To me, mind is a consequence of matter, so there is no dualism, and this is from a scientific perspective, not a "mystical" one, and that's the perspective I applied to my translation. Probably your definition of Nature is different from mine, and that's probably why you think I "destroyed the meaning of the text". Maybe you could read my translation (Google Translate?) and tell us the parts you disagree.
– Rodrigo Dec 3, 2018 at 14:54
1
I feel strongly about this. Can you imagine what we'd think of the Tao Teh Ching if yours was the only translation? The translators scepticism and incomprehension is not supposed to find it's way into the translation. The original text does not suggest that mind is a consequence of matter and the translators view is irrelevant. Your view is not scientific but is a metaphysical conjecture. You're welcome to hold it but it is a philosophical position not a scientific theory. A translator must understand the original text or end up bowdlerising it.
– user20253 Dec 4, 2018 at 11:07

@PeterJ What we’d think if ANY translation was the only one? Anyone’s worldview gets into a translation, mostly with Ancient Chinese, which lacks our grammatical clarity. The original text also doesn’t suggest that mind is apart from matter (THIS is a dualistic idea). Yes, it’s a metaphysical conjecture, but coherent with what we know about Nature today, and what Amerindian peoples know about Nature. And these peoples live much closer to Laozi's world than scholars inside libraries. I don’t think shamanism is different than medicine+psychology. If you do, you are the dualist here, not me.
– Rodrigo Dec 4, 2018 at 12:59
2
You do not understand the text and so are not able to translate it and retain its meaning. We do not need to argue. If you tell me that you understand what Lao Tsu means by the statement 'True words seem paradoxical' then I'll back off. If you do not know then I rest my case. Your comment that the text seems too 'mystical' to you is a dead giveaway. How are you going to retain this 'mystical' flavour in your translation if you don't understand it? As for Google translate, I'm surprised you mention it.
– user20253 Dec 5, 2018 at 11:28
Show 3 more comments

1


@Rodrigo

I would suggest that anyone who is sincere about fathoming Tao, studies Taoism (or even something like Zen) with a master/school.

I have also spent time in the Amazon with Shipibo, Yanomami amongst others. It's true, that their manifestations in many ways echo Taoist principles. But not because they have read it - or have the definitive translation - but because they embody it.

As with any path, it is futile to attempt any understanding or learning by academic study alone.

You don't learn to drive by reading the manual. It may be of some supplementary help, but you need to get into the drivers seat to really understand experientially.

The Tao Te Ching is not The Tao.

The Tao exists before the Tao Te Ching.

The "book" is an attempt to convey something of Tao.

The first line says it all. It is exquisitely self-defeated in advance. It could be argued that the best people to translate The Tao Te Ching are those who try to embody Tao.

"Knowing the exact meaning" of any word can be misleading. For example, it may seem strange to translate from Tao to God (a very loaded word) - But that opens a huge question about what God means. The origin of all things? - Nature? - Goodness? - The essence behind all manifestations? - An old guy with a white beard sitting on a cloud?

If I believe that God means Nature, perhaps it's a useful attempt for me. Being a Biologist, or a Bank Clerk, or a Bus Driver, will neither help nor hinder anyone on their journey.

Share
Improve this answer
Follow

edited Aug 12, 2019 at 17:37

Mark Andrews
4,58744 gold badges1818 silver badges3535 bronze badges
answered Aug 12, 2019 at 15:22

Giancarlo
1111 bronze badge
Add a comment

0


My favorite Tao Te Ching translation is the extremely poetic and ancient sounding one translated by Gia-fu Feng, Jane English.

https://www.audible.com/pd/Tao-Te-Ching-Audiobook/B002V8DJSO

Share
Improve this answer
Follow

answered Jun 24, 2020 at 8:07

Lance
18555 bronze badges
Add a comment

0


I enjoy 'Tao Te Ching: Annotated & Explained', a translation by Derek Lin. http://www.skylightpaths.com/page/product/978-1-59473-204-1

Share
Improve this answer
Follow
Posted by at
Labels:

The Tao Te Ching by Laozi: ancient wisdom for modern times | Chinese literature | The Guardian

The Tao Te Ching by Laozi: ancient wisdom for modern times | Chinese literature | The Guardian


The Tao Te Ching by Laozi: ancient wisdom for modern times

The mysterious Laozi's ancient wisdom may be hard to translate, but the meaning is clear – learning to be self-aware could improve modern life
David Foster Wallace
A natural mirror of taoist thought … David Foster Wallace. Photograph: Gary Hannabarger/Corbis

Two thousand four hundred years after it was composed, we need the Tao Te Ching's lessons in self-awareness more than ever. Little can be said with absolute certainty about the origins of the Tao Te Ching. Consensus suggests it was written around 400BC by one Laozi. Laozi translates simply as "old master" – a hint that the author's (or authors') true name has been lost for ever.

Tao Te Ching translates very roughly as "the way of integrity". In its 81 verses it delivers a treatise on how to live in the world with goodness and integrity: an important kind of wisdom in a world where many people believe such a thing to be impossible.

Texts as old as the Tao Te Ching are subject to the problems of both translation and interpretation. Take this collection of more than 100 versions of the famous opening verse:

The Tao that can be trodden is not the enduring and unchanging Tao.
Translated by James Legge (1891)

The Tao-Path is not the All-Tao. The Name is not the Thing named.
Translated by Aleister Crowley (1918)

The tao that can be told, is not the eternal Tao.
Translated by Stephen Mitchell (1988)

If you can talk about it,
it ain't Tao.
Translated by Ron Hogan (1994)

The way you can go
isn't the real way.
Translated by Ursula Le Guin (1998)

The third is from the most popular modern translation by Stephen Mitchell. Mitchell does a remarkable job of interpreting the more abstruse metaphors of the fourth-century mind for modern audiences - although, this does of course leave the possibility that it is actually the wisdom of Mitchell, not Laozi, shining through these words.

Many readers derive more anger than comfort from the philosophy of the Tao Te Ching. If that first line resembles the famous zen koan "what is the sound of one hand clapping?", it is because it's derived from a parallel philosophical tradition, and exists to fulfil the same purpose. It's the compulsive need to answer unanswerable questions that is, in Taoist philosophy, the mind's great dysfunction.

"The unnameable is the eternally real. Naming is the origin of all particular things." The second line of Mitchell's translation opens up the nature of the dysfunction. We're accustomed to perceiving our world and all the objects in it by naming them. But what if we stop obsessively naming everything and instead just - pardon me while I slip in to full on hippy mode for a moment - rest in awareness?

What the Tao Te Ching does, time and time again, is attempt to show us how we might see things if we could spend more time in awareness, and less in naming. "Practice not-doing, and everything will fall into place." This, from the third verse, sounds positively heretical to the work- and productivity-obsessed modern mind. Perhaps if we were more aware, we would worry less, and could see better what actually needs doing.

But the central thing the Tao Te Ching asks us to be aware of is not the world, but our self. Self-awareness. We all know the term, but do we really know what it means? "Love the world as your self; then you can care for all things," closes verse 13 of the Tao Te Ching. What would it be like to care for all things as much as we cared for our self?

In the words of David Foster Wallace, whose literary philosophy is a natural mirror of Taoist thought, the default setting for people is to be "uniquely, completely, imperially alone day in and day out". Not because we are physically alone, as we know loneliness hits heaviest in crowds. But because we are mired in a deep-seated and near-universal delusion. Despite knowing that we are part of a vast universe, on a massively complex planet shared with seven billion other human lives, we continue with the truly insane perception that we are the centre of the world.

"When the Master governs, the people are hardly aware that he exists. Next best is a leader who is loved. Next, one who is feared. The worst is one who is despised. If you don't trust the people, you make them untrustworthy. The Master doesn't talk, he acts. When his work is done, the people say, 'Amazing: we did it, all by ourselves!'"

Verse 17 of the Tao Te Ching reflects on one of the text's consistent themes, how to lead others with integrity. Today we seem to actively select against leaders who demonstrate self-awareness. Instead, in political figures such as Tony Blair and Boris Johnson, the mass-media landscape favours survival of the biggest and most monstrously deformed egos.

"If you over-esteem great men, people become powerless." Perhaps what we need to learn from phone-hacking scandals and other modern corruptions is that the Bullingdon Club and Chipping Norton set are over-esteemed as leaders. They're an unavoidable by-product of power, a scum of pure ego that forms on the surface of society and imitates the appearance of leadership.

The Tao Te Ching is a 2,400-year-old reminder that today, as then, every one of us has a choice to practise self-awareness and exercise our own power in and over the world. That might come as more of a nasty wakeup call than a comfort to some of us. As Wallace said: "It is unimaginably hard to do this, to stay conscious and alive in the adult world day in and day out." As hard as it is, for the moments we read it, the Tao Te Ching makes it seem at least possible.

Posted by at
Labels:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)