by daniel-p 9 Replies latest jw friends
What is up with the ridiculous number of Tao te Ching translations? I picked up about 20 versions at the book store and everyone of them had a completely different meaning. If there's that much variation, what's the point?
So what translation do you recommend, and what do you think of it overall? I'm simply curious, not looking to convert to something, not that I see much to convert to, per se.
I've only read two: Stephen Mitchell's and the one at www.taoteching.org (Peter Merel's version). So I really have too small a sample to base an educated opinion on. I like Mitchell's version out of the two, but I still need to read more.
I'd like to see a completely literal transliteration and interpret it myself. Any recommendations on a version like that?
I don't consider it a religion that one can convert to. The Way is, whether we know it or not. One can aspire to be a sage or a master, or one can go through life knowing nothing about it at all; both people may live lives of fulfillment.
Does anyone know if the variations we see in English versions also exist in the original Chinese? Or is there just ONE Chinese version and the ones we see are all different Western takes on the book.
By the way, I have come to believe that the Jesus of the Bible (or those who wrote about him) had either read or spoken in depth to a Taoist at some point before his ministry.
From Wikipedia:
The Tao Te Ching has been translated into Western languages over 250 times, mostly to English, German, and French. [ 4 ] According to Holmes Welch, "It is a famous puzzle which everyone would like to feel he had solved." [ 5 ]
Many translations are written by people with a foundation in Chinese language and philosophy who are trying to render the original meaning of the text as faithfully as possible into English. Some of the more popular translations are written from a less scholarly perspective, giving an individual author's interpretation. Critics of these versions, such as Taoism scholar Eugene Eoyang, claim that translators like Stephen Mitchell produce readings of the Tao Te Ching that deviate from the text and are incompatible with the history of Chinese thought. [ 6 ] Russell Kirkland goes further to argue that these versions are based on Western Orientalist fantasies, and represent the colonial appropriation of Chinese culture. [ 7 ] [ 8 ] In contrast, Huston Smith, scholar of world religions, said of the Mitchell version, "This translation comes as close to being definitive for our time as any I can imagine. It embodies the virtues its translator credits to the Chinese original: a gemlike lucidity that is radiant with humor, grace, largeheartedness, and deep wisdom." —Other Taoism scholars, such as Michael LaFargue [ 9 ] and Johnathan Herman, [ 10 ] argue that while they are poor scholarship they meet a real spiritual need in the West.
i even came across one by Ursula K. LeGuin
The LeGuin one is probably excellent. She's never produced anything bad or worthless to my knowledge.
Interesting info about Mitchell's version. I didn't know any of that. Thanks for posting it. I wonder what it means that I prefer his version. . . I'll have to find that literal transliteration and see how that strikes me. Maybe my American mind is only ready to grasp the Tao with a western slant?
Cool thread here. I hope others with more experience will comment, too.
I'm reading Wayne Dyer's version of the Tao and his thoughts on it and here is what he says in the preface of his book:
"Legend tells us that the Tao Te Ching was authored by Lao-tzu, a prophet who was also the keeper of the imperial archives in the ancient capital of Luoyang. Seeing the continual decay during a period of warring states, Lao-tzu decided to ride westward into the desert. At the Hanku Pass, a gatekeeper named Yin Hsi, knowing of Lao-tzu's reputation for being a man of wisdom, begged him to record the essence of his teaching. Thus, the Tao Te Ching was born out of 5,000 Chinese characters.
In all my reading on the origins of the Tao Te Ching, I never found a definitive historical record of its writing...yet today it survives in thousands of versions in virtually every language.........Since neither Lao-tzu nor the origins of his verses are historically certain, I was fascinated by the different ways the 5000 characters were interpreted by scholars in the editions I studied-especially when you consider that many of these ancient Chinese symbols are no longer in use and invite differing translations themselves."
I read this version because it's modern and his after thoughts really resonate with me. But I think the key is how does it speak to YOU, no matter what version you pick up. I love mine and I think it's a valuable read. It's like most ancient writings, your probably not ever going to get to an original. Well worth finding one you like though and reading it. And it's definitely NOT something to "join" or make a "religion" out of although some people have, but it ruins it if you do that.
By the way, I have come to believe that the Jesus of the Bible (or those who wrote about him) had either read or spoken in depth to a Taoist at some point before his ministry.
I think Jesus just had "it", the way. I feel like he was an enlightened person for sure. If you already have it, you wouldn't need to search it, but maybe he learned "it" from these writings that are far older than the Bible. Interesting.
Just came across this page of explanation of some of the more popular translations: http://www.crispinsartwell.com/ttcreviews.htm
From everything I've read it sounds like the "Red Pine" version might be good.
I've been reading Wayne Dyers, eddition. I try to read a vs a day as part of my routine.
The bible says to seek wisdom. So, I figure the Tao is a book of wisdom.
I read Mitchell's translation. I don't view the book as 'holy', but as powerful verse to motivate control of the inner person.
I am no expert of translation, but I like Mitchell's version as well as this one: http://www.thebigview.com/tao-te-ching/index.html
Namaste
Jeff
