OldDog

So, it appears that we arrive close to the same point through different approaches. This has been an enlightening discussion.

Taking the lead from Flowing Hands ... To follow the Dao, everyday we must stop thinking, and give up how we have been taught to think, until the mind is open and yielding. And so, the heart will also be. Only then can we learn to be in accord with Dao and our actions will be appropriate.

I have long thought that the purpose of an education was not to teach you facts but to teach you how to think. But the manner in which we are typically taught to think may not be applicable to all ends. It did not occur to me until much later in life that there may be other kinds of learning that are just as useful ... perhaps more so ... as what we are taught in our institutionalized education system. Perhaps this is what this chapter is trying to convey. Its not what we know that needs to be undone but way we are taught to think.

OK, so I went back and read the piece again trying to more precisely determine why I reacted to it the way I did first time around. Yes, reacted is the proper word because my response was more visceral than reasoned. Moeller's discussion was a highly detailed and lengthy analysis of the Butterfly dream passage. The crux of his analysis appears to be that Giles translation mapped western concepts of philosophy onto the story and that mapping constrained how the story should be interpreted. In doing so he missed the real meaning of the passage. He speaks of this process as if it were a conscious intentional one on the part of Giles. But this is only one side of the discussion. Moeller points to an alternative translation of the passage to support the notion that Giles interpretation misses the true meaning of the story. This alternative translation has its own conclusion in an alternative meaning of the story. I felt like Moeller's analysis read more like an indictment of Giles for having intentionally twisted the story to make it align with western philosophy. While, no doubt, Giles point of view as a translator steeped in western philosophy affected his translation, I cannot imagine Giles going to such extreme, as evidenced in Moeller's analysis, to force a particular interpretation. As I read the analysis I began to feel like the point was the analysis itself rather that elucidating any particular meaning. And so, I reacted to the tedium of the analysis. Was it worth my time to read and re-read Moeller's analysis. Yes, it was. It challenged my thinking and demonstrated the extreme to which western style analysis has to go sometimes to make a point. It confirmed for me the value of such literary devices as metaphor, paradox and allegory to convey complex concepts.

I took the time to read the analysis that you had posted ... lengthy as it was. I cannot really disagree with it ... but also find it really unnecessary to go into that level of detail to make its point. Sure the likes of Giles and Legge and Wilhelm performed their translations with western philosophical bias. Its the only frame of reference thst they had for expressing themselves. No doubt Guo Xiang approached his revision with a set of biases, albeit by fewer centuries of philosophical accretion. If the idea, as posed in Daoist thinking, is that there is ultimately one unified reality, then all discussions equally seek to describe that reality, however it might be percieved. How close they come to the mark is a matter of endless debate. The task that each of us undertakes is to find enough pieces of the truth that we can inform our own particular world view and in it find some sense of meaning and satisfaction with it. What makes the Daoist approach so appealing ... at least to me ... is that it does its thing by attempting to use fewer words rather than more and it utilizes metaphor and allegory to point to that which cannot be directly described by words. The benefit is that the mind does not become overwhelmed with the shear volume of words. In this way the concepts are accessible to even to the less educated of us ... perhaps even more so. OP's original query was regarding the value of the old translations ... not about their correctness or incorrectness based on a particular point of view. There is a little bit of the truth in all of these translations. The lesson in all of this is that one has to understand something of the background of the translator to begin to make sense of the translation.

When you drink water, think of its source. - Chinese proverb

Before we leave cajun music altogether, here's my favorite version of Jambalaya.

You know, actually I think not ... at least Amazon was not carrying a physical copy at the time I purchased the Kindle version. As a confession ... this morning I was scrambling around the house upset that I could not find my copy of The Thread of Dao, my mind fixed on looking up a qoute I had recalled. Even got my wife involved in the search. Then .... realized it was actually on my Kindle. I know how you feel about a physical copy.

Purchsed and read Reid's Ho-Shang Kung Commentary On Lao Tzu's Tao Te Ching. I was a bit disappointed. It seemed kind of a half-hearted effort and not particularly revealing of any new insights into TTC and its neidan connections. Reid's The Thread of Dao is much more satisfying in terms of understanding broader implications of the DDJ. Imho

I am always a bit suspicious or any title that carries the appelation ... Definitive. Definitive is a appelation confered ... not claimed.

re: The Alley Boys That's interesting. Cajun meets Bob Wills!

This statement gave me pause. Coincidentally, in have just begun to read Lin Yutang's book From Pagan to Christian. This in an effort to get inside of my favorite translators head ... wanting to understand why and how he wrote his translations and what caused him to first abandon his Christian upbringing to embrace his native Chinese beliefs and then ultimately return to Christianity. Much of Lin's writings are from the point of view of an inquirer and observer rather than from the point of view of a sinologue academic. Most of his writings date to the mid twentieth century. What gave me pause was the word sinologist which is a term that came into usage at the end of the 19th century and continues in use. In seems to be used most often to refer to the likes of Legge, Giles, Wilhelm and other from late 19th into the early twentieth century. Lin struggled with the work of these translators. Chinese classics have never been well translated. The sinologues did a poor job of it, and the Chinese themselves had neglected it. The translation from Chinese to English was so difficult. The ideas were so different and, what was worse, the modes of thought were so different, and what was still worse, grammatical relations were expressed solely by syntax in Chinese, without inflections and without the usual connectives and articles and sometimes without the subject of a predicate. The very "sources" of Chinese philosophy were, and still are very much today, clothed in a twilight of hazy likenesses. (Lin, pp51) He goes on to point out examples from Giles and Legge. I think this is what you find in these "old translations". These translations were made through a lens of Euro-centric pre-modern view of philosophy and religion. Whether there is value in these translations is a matter of personal preference. Caveat emptor.

Its not that they are old just now really great translations, imho. Not familiar with all of the translators represented but I have read some of Legge, Borel and Giles. Found them to be rather stiff. So, I would not run right out and snap up a copy. There is one translator ... old ... that I wish they would republish ... Lin Yutang. His book, The Wisdom of Laotse, is a great introductory book for someone new to Daoism. Each chapter of Laotse is accompanied by excerpts from Chuangtse, which he feels expands on the content of the Laotse chapter. That, plus his brief commentary, put the reader in a good place for further study. While academic in quality his translations are not stiff but have a comfortable poetic flow. Highly recommended ... if you can find it.

Joe El Sonnier is one of my favorites

Could be, though I've not heard of it ... may be more tounge in cheek ... like the Czhilispiel ... chili festival ... in Flatonia, a Czech-German community east of San Antonio. There are also Polish communities south of San Antonio. But by far the greatest concentration of immigrants in south texas are of German descent. Believe it or not at one point in time German was the predominant language in SA. German and eastern Europeans brough the button accordion and the waltz to south central texas in 1840s. Multiple styles of Conjunto evovled from that influence. You can definitely hear the Oompah sound. Here's one.

It's a human condition.

Technically, probably right ...but I can tell you they exist side by side down here. Ranchera, Norteno, Canciones, Corridos, Conjunto, Tejano, Tex Mex .... it's all good.

Genre is called Ranchera ... traditional Mexican. Gives you a chance to practice your grito.

Oftentimes, one strips oneself of passion In order to see the Secret of Life; Oftentimes, one regards life with passion, In order to see its manifest forms. - Laotse

Not exactly Tex Mex but this ine comes to mind ...

At least one Texan in the bunch.

Started reading the pdf of Mair's notes on his Chuang Tzu translation referred by Wandelaar ... fairly interesting ... providing perspective on Mair's work ... methods, ideas, point of view. He makes a point of referring to the "Old Masters (LaoTzu)" influence on the writings in Chuang Tzu ... this in light of setting context of the various schools of thought stirring at the time. The way he turned the phrase "Old Masters (Lao Tzu)" called to mind the discussions about who were the writers of the TTC ... an argument for multiple authors ... without regard to the legendary journey to the west. So, the question that came to mind was ... What exactly does Lao Tzu mean? I get that Lao typically translates as old ...but I believe it can also imply honored. And, that Tzu is typically understood to be an honorific suffix (if you will) to denote master. But the thought that crossed my mind is ... Is Lao Tzu singular or could it be plural? ... referring to the many Old Masters. It would need someone with experience in chinese language to shed light on the question. Anything to this ... or am I off in the weeds.

I know you have preference for the feel of paper and bindings ... but take a look here ... see if it calls you. https://disciplemag.wordpress.com/tag/tao-te-ching-translation-by-jonathan-star/ I took a quick look at some of the better known and key chapters. I would not call it a translation as much as an interpretation into modern language. I think in this effort he misses some fundamental points. Seems like a pop culture interpretation. Under the idea of "Know thy author" ... also took a quick look around to learn about the Star. Could not find much that describes his background, education, training, etc. There is suggestion that the claim to "definitive" lies with supplemental notes, dictionary ... maybe even a concordance. Would have to look at the hardcopy publication to tell. Would be interested to hear what you find.

Something different this morning ... https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yH7gXFnaeuI

Fair enough. Perhaps what I have been arguing is a case for Virtue outside of the bounds of philosophy ... as a process ... not simply as a label.