Scholastic Study of the Received Version of the Tao Te Ching.

[dawei]

I am not interested... and that might be one viable reason we see.

 

I don't mind hearing what they said about the chapters but it's still unclear when they are actually talking vs your interpreting for them on stuff they didn't really explain in detail.

[ChiDragon]

your interpreting for them on stuff they didn't really explain in detail.

 

Did you read or didn't understand their explained details.......????

Edited February 2, 2013 by ChiDragon

[ChiDragon]

I am not interested... and that might be one viable reason we see.

 

I don't mind hearing what they said about the chapters but it's still unclear when they are actually talking vs your interpreting for them on stuff they didn't really explain in detail.

 

To be honest with you. Your reasoning are lack of substance. It is monotonous that your presentation only goes back and forth between the first and third party without any of your own ideas. I have given you my legitimate reasons but you were just not able to digest. Anyway, this is only my most humble opinion. No malice was intended.

Edited February 3, 2013 by ChiDragon

[dawei]

 

To be honest with you. Your reasoning are lack of substance. It is monotonous that your presentation only goes back and forth between the first and third party without any of your own ideas. I have given you my legitimate reasons but you were just not able to digest. Anyway, this is only my most humble opinion. No malice was intended.

 

Evidently, you needed to get that off your chest... good... it may be therapeutic. How about moving on to something of substance.

[takaaki]

 

To be honest with you. Your reasoning are lack of substance. It is monotonous that your presentation only goes back and forth between the first and third party without any of your own ideas. I have given you my legitimate reasons but you were just not able to digest. Anyway, this is only my most humble opinion. No malice was intended.

 

My guess as to why the book is question was not translated was a lack of interest to do so by westerners who, I feel, can translate anything from Chinese regardless of the accuracy of the final product. Academic studies of the Dao De Jing by Chinese scholar are pretty involved and technically complex. Only the Chinese would find such classical Chinese studies of interest at the linguistic level. Westerners have got what they want - the captivating English translation of the Dao De Jing in poetic form. They would much prefer to study the profusion of possible meanings behind the English version.

[ChiDragon]

My guess as to why the book is question was not translated was a lack of interest to do so by westerners who, I feel, can translate anything from Chinese regardless of the accuracy of the final product. Academic studies of the Dao De Jing by Chinese scholar are pretty involved and technically complex. Only the Chinese would find such classical Chinese studies of interest at the linguistic level. Westerners have got what they want - the captivating English translation of the Dao De Jing in poetic form. They would much prefer to study the profusion of possible meanings behind the English version.

 

That is a nice way to put it. I can't argue with that......

 

Thanks.

[ChiDragon]

The natives scholars do aware that there are many errors made by the ancient scholars from copy-to-copy. In order to make the correction, the native knowledgeable scholars have attempted to put their greatest scholastic effort to come up with a Received Version.

In the event, they studied each copy by comparison to see what characters were missing in one copy and replace with what they thought was logical from another copy. In the contrary, there are extra characters were added but removed in the Received Version. Sometimes, some characters are in reverse order based on the improper arrangement made by the ancient scholars and was corrected also. However, the worse errors ever made by the ancient scholars were using illogical homonym characters in some phrases. These errors were causing the phrases to be out of context. As a result, the idea of the whole chapter was out of whack. The worse of it, it looses the continuity of thoughts within the Tao Te Ching.

IMMHO It is not wise for someone who just pick up any copy of the Tao Te Ching and starting doing translation without considered all the errors were made by the ancient scholars. The accuracy of the translation is very questionable. Unless otherwise, accuracy was considered not a serious matter. Therefore, further mistakes and errors are multiplied causing the real meaning of the Tao Te Ching to be jeopardized.

Edited February 8, 2013 by ChiDragon

[kaaazuo]

IMMHO It is not wise for someone who just pick up any copy of the Tao Te Ching and starting doing translation without considered all the errors were made by the ancient scholars. The accuracy of the translation is very questionable. Unless otherwise, accuracy was considered not a serious matter. Therefore, further mistakes and errors are multiplied causing the real meaning of the Tao Te Ching to be jeopardized.

 

I would think it is jeopardized from the Chinese scholar's point of view. The western-translated form is a totally different Tao Te Ching based on western values. The western world is happy with their version. I am one of those western-educated, English-speaking Chinese who is interested in the Chinese version preserved by the native scholars. It is so different - as different as eating with chopsticks compared to eating with knives and forks; as different as being Chinese compared to being....??

[dawei]

I would think it is jeopardized from the Chinese scholar's point of view. The western-translated form is a totally different Tao Te Ching based on western values. The western world is happy with their version.

 

I might agree to some degree. But I am not sure I would go as far as to make western sinology, research, and scholars as purely acting off western values. That would seem to jeopardize research methodologies.

 

But I think this raises a very interesting point (ie: based on western values) and this may not be the thread to pursue it but I think if you gave examples then this would be an interesting line to discuss.

[takaaki]

I might agree to some degree. But I am not sure I would go as far as to make western sinology, research, and scholars as purely acting off western values. That would seem to jeopardize research methodologies.

 

I don't think any human being can avoid acting off values. Even machines, which are programmed by humans, act off values of the human programmers. There is no such thing as objectivity. All viewpoints are subjective and conditioned by the observer unless he is a wooden chair.

 

But I think this raises a very interesting point (ie: based on western values) and this may not be the thread to pursue it but I think if you gave examples then this would be an interesting line to discuss.

 

If he gave examples, he would be nailed to the cross for saying what he truly feels. Let's stick to words of those who kneel.

[三江源]

I would think it is jeopardized from the Chinese scholar's point of view. The western-translated form is a totally different Tao Te Ching based on western values. The western world is happy with their version. I am one of those western-educated, English-speaking Chinese who is interested in the Chinese version preserved by the native scholars. It is so different - as different as eating with chopsticks compared to eating with knives and forks; as different as being Chinese compared to being....??

are you able to explain the difference in general terms?

.. do you have a sense of there being a significantly different meaning construed?

[dawei]

I don't think any human being can avoid acting off values. Even machines, which are programmed by humans, act off values of the human programmers. There is no such thing as objectivity. All viewpoints are subjective and conditioned by the observer unless he is a wooden chair.

 

 

If he gave examples, he would be nailed to the cross for saying what he truly feels. Let's stick to words of those who kneel.

 

By your own admission.. those that kneel are interpreting based on values... IF we're talking about Dao, then kneel or not, one can talk about it. But I accept this thread is more for the kneeling inclined values.

[ChiDragon]

There is no such thing as objectivity. All viewpoints are subjective and conditioned by the observer unless he is a wooden chair.

 

太武斷了。　Ｉ can be as objective as I can and as I want to. However, I do admit that I'm being subjective, only one time, to be objective. It is analogous to 有為 for being 無為.

Edited February 6, 2013 by ChiDragon

[takaaki]

are you able to explain the difference in general terms?

.. do you have a sense of there being a significantly different meaning construed?

 

Although your question is not meant for me, I would like to answer it.

 

As someone who can read the Chinese text of the Dao De Jing, I can categorically say that the Chinese version is fundamentally different in meaning from the English version. Mind you, this doesn't imply that all Chinamen who can read Chinese agree with each other on the meaning in the Chinese version. Some of them are western-educated, live in the west among westerners, assimilated into western cultures and have western values. These are the Chinese, like Gia Fu Feng, John Wu, and Lin Yutang, who played a part in creating the English version.

 

For me, the Chinese version has a different message to the English one. And one has to be thoroughly Chinese to understand this viewpoint of mine. A western professor, regardless of his scholarship, has no idea what the world is to the Chinese mind that could compose the Dao De Jing. Gia Fu Feng and John Wu, if they are alive, would disagree with me.

[dawei]

unfortunately, this still avoids the question that Cat and I asked... for examples.

 

I know that there are times when ChiDragon does not agree with the English words choosen and then it comes down to it appears to hold an English meaning to him which most westerners would say is not how they are understanding that English in the context it is used.

 

Maybe it is a matter of the chinese mind not understanding the English used in the same way you keep repeating that no westerner can understand the chinese?

 

I am not sure of the reluctance to discuss this as we keep hearing over and over (probably from 4-5 members over the last year or two) how westerners will never understand the meaning and have no ability to do so... but nobody is willing to actually get beyond the accusation and simply give examples.

[ChiDragon]

Although your question is not meant for me, I would like to answer it.

 

As someone who can read the Chinese text of the Dao De Jing, I can categorically say that the Chinese version is fundamentally different in meaning from the English version. Mind you, this doesn't imply that all Chinamen who can read Chinese agree with each other on the meaning in the Chinese version. Some of them are western-educated, live in the west among westerners, assimilated into western cultures and have western values. These are the Chinese, like Gia Fu Feng, John Wu, and Lin Yutang, who played a part in creating the English version.

 

For me, the Chinese version has a different message to the English one. And one has to be thoroughly Chinese to understand this viewpoint of mine. A western professor, regardless of his scholarship, has no idea what the world is to the Chinese mind that could compose the Dao De Jing. Gia Fu Feng and John Wu, if they are alive, would disagree with me.

 

Very nicely said. I agree that there are different Chinese versions of the Tao Te Ching but actually there are merely just copies. The original version written by Lao Tze was never found. However, I wouldn't consider that there was a single English version because any English message about the TTC is just a translation which has no bearing to the authenticity of the Tao Te Ching.

 

The Chinese only have to deal with interpretation of the Tao Te Ching classic. The non Chinese have two problems. They have to deal with the language and the interpretation of Chinese classic. Knowing how to speak the modern language and the meanings of the characters has no merits in doing the interpretations without the cultural heritage, history and the native philosophy. Lots of people including the Chinese cannot keep in mind that the Tao Te Ching is a piece of stand alone document. The most common mistake they had made was interpreting it in their flavor with what they had leaned in the past. They tend to interpret it with a mixture of philosophies such as Confucian, Buddhism, and western influence. Especially, the westerners, each translator tend to interpret it as one pleases. That is why there are thousands of different translations.

 

The Chinese interpretations are sharing a common language and there is a great advantage for improvement of understanding the Tao Te Ching. Scholars always come up with different ideas to get closer and closer the original intended meanings of the Tao Te Ching. In the west, there was no update in their translations and just become stagnate. Besides, there were many copy cats by just revising the wordings of others' translations and called their understanding of the Tao Te Ching.

 

Edited February 7, 2013 by ChiDragon

[takaaki]

I am not sure of the reluctance to discuss this as we keep hearing over and over (probably from 4-5 members over the last year or two) how westerners will never understand the meaning and have no ability to do so... but nobody is willing to actually get beyond the accusation and simply give examples.

 

You really want me to say what I truly feel and not the words of one who kneel? The Dao De Jing is the creation of astounding human clarity about the truth - what one truly feels. It speaks out not only about life but more importantly about ourselves, and meant for true action to bring about a better world. Not even Genghis Khan or Emperor Qin would be up to the task.

 

The English translations are just lovely poems. Are you a man of action, Dawei? I don't mean playing soccer or drinking wine.

Edited February 7, 2013 by takaaki

[dawei]

The most common mistake they had made was interpreting it in their flavor with what they had leaned in the past. They tend to interpret it with a mixture of philosophies such as Confucian, Buddhism, and western influence. Especially, the westerners, each translator tend to interpret it as one pleases. That is why there are thousands of different translations.

 

Except this is a perfect description of the Neo-Confucian Wang An Shi(王安石)... He advocated cross discipline study of philosophies.

[dawei]

You really want me to say what I truly feel and not the words of one who kneel? The Dao De Jing is the creation of astounding human clarity about the truth - what one truly feels. It speaks out not only about life but more importantly about ourselves, and meant for true action to bring about a better world. Not even Genghis Khan or Emperor Qin would be up to the task.

 

The English translations are just lovely poems. Are you a man of action, Dawei? I don't mean playing soccer or drinking wine.

 

I am not interested in your word games. Obviously you don't want to talk about it.

[ChiDragon]

Lots of people including the Chinese cannot keep in mind that the Tao Te Ching is a piece of stand alone document. The most common mistake they had made was interpreting it in their flavor with what they had leaned in the past. They tend to interpret the Tao Te Ching with a mixture of philosophies such as Confucian, Buddhism, and western influence.

Edited February 7, 2013 by ChiDragon

[dawei]

Lots of people including the Chinese cannot keep in mind that the Tao Te Ching is a piece of stand alone document. The most common mistake they had made was interpreting it in their flavor with what they had leaned in the past. They tend to interpret the Tao Te Ching with a mixture of philosophies such as Confucian, Buddhism, and western influence.

 

I don't see where you proof is for this repetitive accusation. Where do we decide which document is stand alone and which is not? Otherwise, every document may be considered stand alone but the illogic of that is obvious.

 

It cannot be stand alone for the simple reason that Lao Zi references the past; past people, past events, etc. There are others who share this philosophy before and after him. It is part of an understanding from primitive time. Lao Zi did not invent Dao... we might be more correct to hold that Dao invented Lao Zi.

[ChiDragon]

So far there is no one has the wisdom and philosophy which is comparable to Lao Tze.

[dawei]

There is certainly some truth to that... and that is what lead to his being known as 太上老君... To stand alone is to stand above.

[Mark Saltveit]

ChiDragon, you seem to be saying that Western scholars can't read Chinese, and so don't know about this book, which is obviously not true. (How would they translate?)

 

There are at least one or two new translations each year, most based on the two very old texts of the Daodejing discovered in recent decades, the Mawangdui and Guiodian texts. As far as I know, these are older than any other known texts, and most people presume that this makes them more reliable and "closer to the source."

 

You seem to disagree with this, and feel that there is a more accurate or more reliable version available only in Chinese. Of course, the Mawangdui and Guodian texts are in (classical) Chinese, and some of these translations show actual pictures of the old texts, and/or reproduce the Chinese.

 

Also, this website claims to be showing the actual bamboo strips from Guodian, alongside traditional and simplified Chinese characters, pinyin and Wade Giles versions of the Chinese, and English too. http://www.daoisopen.com/A1toA2Chapters1966.html

 

Can you please explain how the "Received Version" is different?

[ChiDragon]

ChiDragon, you seem to be saying that Western scholars can't read Chinese, and so don't know about this book, which is obviously not true. (How would they translate?)

 

I didn't say that they can't read. Perhaps they can translate from character-to-character but they do not have the full capability to interpret thought-to-thought. Anybody can translate the characters by looking up in a dictionary. The problem with their ability was to select the right meaning for the interpretation. However, sometimes the definitions in dictionary do not include the classic definitions. Thus they will mistranslate the classic with modern definitions.

 

There are at least one or two new translations each year, most based on the two very old texts of the Daodejing discovered in recent decades, the Mawangdui and Guiodian texts. As far as I know, these are older than any other known texts, and most people presume that this makes them more reliable and "closer to the source."

 

You seem to disagree with this, and feel that there is a more accurate or more reliable version available only in Chinese. Of course, the Mawangdui and Guodian texts are in (classical) Chinese, and some of these translations show actual pictures of the old texts, and/or reproduce the Chinese.

 

Also, this website claims to be showing the actual bamboo strips from Guodian, alongside traditional and simplified Chinese characters, pinyin and Wade Giles versions of the Chinese, and English too. http://www.daoisopen.com/A1toA2Chapters1966.html

I'm familiar with the website and the bamboo strips.

 

Can you please explain how the "Received Version" is different?

Please read my #32 post in the thread.