Why must the Dao De Jhing be translated right?

[flowing hands]

There have been many differing translations of the DDJ. Each has a different slant and meaning.

 

Why should it be translated completely right? We can look at various chapters and compare them and how they differ and what we comprehend from each variation and was this meaning intended by Lao Tzu for instance?

 

So put up some versions we could start off with verse one and analyse each verse and the various translations available. We can contribute to each lines meaning and see what we get from various members perspectives. It will be an interesting challenge, with some self understanding along the way perhaps!

 

Over to you, I'm sure MH will enjoy this one

[dawei]

I think this would be interesting but I also think we would be best to lay an understanding that folks are going to disagree and what is 'right' to one may be a different 'right' to another; it speaks in different ways to different people based on their path, destiny and awareness.  

 

If we can agree to disagree and listen to an opposing view, we may learn something... like acceptance of a different view but nonetheless it is 'right' or useful for another.    

 

I likely want to submit some of the more difficult ones based on differences in the chinese versions that have also lead to different interpretations...  but need to look some up.

[flowing hands]

That is exactly how it will be interesting and how it will show each contributor how different we view things even using and reading the same words. We don't have to disagree we merely have to state what we see or know about each line/s. I think it will be a useful exercise.

[dwai]

For me, right means from a practical practitioner perspective, rather than a literal translation perspective.

The DDJ is a practical guide to non-duality and conducive to first acquire the knowledge, meditate on the knowledge and then discard the knowledge once the Dao is known experientially.

[Marblehead]

I will participate in this as much as possible but I will not take the lead in guiding it.  that will be up to Flowing Hands.

 

The "right" and "useful" terms Dawei offered above will be important.  As open-minded as possible.

[Jeff]

So is the plan to redo what was done a few years ago like when MH led the effort? Work with three or four different versions? Go chapter by chapter and people give their personal meaning to the translation?

[Marblehead]

I will participate in this as much as possible but I will not take the lead in guiding it.  that will be up to Flowing Hands.

 

The "right" and "useful" terms Dawei offered above will be important.  As open-minded as possible.

 

BTW  My reasoning for not taking a leading role in this is because I am currently doing Mair's Chuang Tzu and I still want to do one that has been started a couple times but then died:  "365 Tao"

 

I may double up on the Mair study and do two sections per week.  At one per week I might die before we get the entire translation completed.

[awaken]

Good plan.

 

My English is poor, but my Chinese is good.

 

And I am a practical practitioner.

 

I hope I can provide a different view.

[dawei]

So is the plan to redo what was done a few years ago like when MH led the effort? Work with three or four different versions? Go chapter by chapter and people give their personal meaning to the translation?

 

I think this is an important decision only for organization... if it turns into one long running thread, they later it is rather impossible to know where to go to get a certain chapter comment... one would have to use search.

 

If we break it down to separate chapters it would be a second study but we're doing that with ZZ right now.   I'd rather find what we're doing differently this time.

 

Maybe as separate chapters we aim for the overall meaning of each one... might say something about a few characters but I don't see this time around as the focus on characters.

 

So, for example... I think my approach would be to find that one line in the chapter that likely sums up the entire thing and/or create a sentence or two at most that is the overall meaning.   Justification might come from certain words or supporting ideas in other chapters. 

[Jeff]

I think this is an important decision only for organization... if it turns into one long running thread, they later it is rather impossible to know where to go to get a certain chapter comment... one would have to use search.

 

If we break it down to separate chapters it would be a second study but we're doing that with ZZ right now.   I'd rather find what we're doing differently this time.

 

Maybe as separate chapters we aim for the overall meaning of each one... might say something about a few characters but I don't see this time around as the focus on characters.

 

So, for example... I think my approach would be to find that one line in the chapter that likely sums up the entire thing and/or create a sentence or two at most that is the overall meaning.   Justification might come from certain words or supporting ideas in other chapters. 

 

 

That seems like a good idea, but may become challenging as everyone comes from a unique view.  Like some see it as a purely philosophical treatise, while some see it describing becoming an "immortal" being.

 

Should we start from the first chapter and see how it goes?  Or is there a particular one that people think makes sense and then kind of bounce around?

[dwai]

That seems like a good idea, but may become challenging as everyone comes from a unique view.  Like some see it as a purely philosophical treatise, while some see it describing becoming an "immortal" being.

 

Should we start from the first chapter and see how it goes?  Or is there a particular one that people think makes sense and then kind of bounce around?

 

+1 for the first chapter.

[flowing hands]

What I would like to do is to look at the major translations on each verse, so we limit the amount of carnage. Take each part of it and then as many people as possible give what they think this part means to them. We will not use my version but only translations so please put now suggestions of say five translations that are well known and I think we can start from there.

 

We can bracket what we are trying to express about each part so the results are more analytical at the end. Suggestions for these points please. I think it will show us some interesting things if enough people participate.

[Jeff]

What about using the same 3 versions as with the last process?  We can just cut and paste from the directory and have a new discussion.

[dwai]

I suggest this version -- http://web.archive.org/web/20110106053646/http://home.pages.at/onkellotus/TTK/English_Chung-yuan_TTK.html

[dawei]

I'd rather see newer/other versions... folks can go back to the other study to see those other translations as they want.    And I tend away from 'popular' authors.

 

Here would be my five:

 

James Legge, 1891

 

Ch'u Ta-Kao, 1904

 

Wing-Tsit Chan, 1963 

 

Hua-Ching Ni. 1979

 

Lok Sang Ho, 2002

 

 

---

 

I'm guessing these would be considered 'popular' authors:

 

John C. H. Wu, 1961

 

D. C. Lau

 

Gia-fu Feng & Jane English, 1972, 1989

 

Stephen Mitchell, 1991

 

Red Pine (Bill Porter), 1996  ;  Second Link:   Red Pine

 

Jonathan Star, 2000

 

 

 

 

EDITS:  I have updated or added links:

[Jeff]

I'd rather see newer/other versions... folks can go back to the other study to see those other translations as they want.    And I tend away from 'popular' authors.

 

Here would be my five:

 

James Legge, 1891

 

Ch'u Ta-Kao, 1904

 

Wing-Tsit Chan, 1963 

 

Hua-Ching Ni. 1979

 

Lok Sang Ho, 2002

 

 

---

 

I'm guessing these would be considered 'popular' authors:

 

John C. H. Wu, 1961

 

D. C. Lau

 

Gia-fu Feng & Jane English, 1972, 1989

 

Red Pine (Bill Porter), 1996

 

Jonathan Star, 2000

 

 

I vote for English/Feng, D.C Lau and Red Pine.

Edited January 20, 2017 by Jeff

[cheya]

Dawei's Red Pine Link has been deleted at the request of the copyright owner.

Another link?

Edited January 20, 2017 by cheya

[silent thunder]

This is great Flowing Hands... a great idea.

 

Some years ago, I realized that really I needed to foster a deeper connection to the more elusive concepts of the DDJ.  It occurred to me that I should put it into my own words... So I set out to read as many different versions in english as I could find and then sift them all through my mind and out onto paper, in my own words. 

 

I had several months off at that time, so I gathered all of my hardcopies and as many digital versions as I could find, then cloistered myself away and spent as long as it took with each verse in succession to come to a point where I could return to paper, the essence of what I had encountered in the various forms.  Reading, rereading, sitting, walking pondering.  Reciting them aloud.  Over and over again.  Really synthesizing the essentials and letting them resonate in my body and mind.

 

That process was profound.  A deep resonance that resulted in a haiku version of the Dao that was sifted through my consciousness. 

 

It was very interesting how some translations would bring visceral dissonance to me as I read them, almost offensive to me they seemed.  This was the case with two particular translations, as I recall. 

[Marblehead]

I suggest this version -- http://web.archive.org/web/20110106053646/http://home.pages.at/onkellotus/TTK/English_Chung-yuan_TTK.html

 

I can't recall having read that translation.  It would be good for me.

 

Also, I do have Red Pine's translation so I could reference it whenever someone wants his POV.  Actually, I think that Red Pine and Flowing Hands are blood brothers regarding the translation.

Edited January 20, 2017 by Marblehead

[dawei]

Dawei's Red Pine Link has been deleted at the request of the copyright owner.

Another link?

 

They gave another external one:  http://zoraweb.com/lao-tzus-taoteching

 

I'll update my post to have it.

[flowing hands]

I think MH my transmission had been out in many copies around the world before Bill Porter did his bit.

[flowing hands]

Ok so shall we use

 

Feng/English

 

James legge

 

D C Lau

 

Bill Porter

 

Hendricks

 

Any objections or others people want then just say.

[dawei]

Ok so shall we use

 

Feng/English

 

James legge

 

D C Lau

 

Bill Porter

 

Hendricks

 

Any objections or others people want then just say.

 

Hendricks translates based on the older manuscripts so he is going to fundamentally differ in many chapters...  I think we found it was hard to explain that without knowing the chinese and that might side-track this attempt.

 

I'd consider replacing him with Jonathan Star.

[Jeff]

Hendricks translates based on the older manuscripts so he is going to fundamentally differ in many chapters...  I think we found it was hard to explain that without knowing the chinese and that might side-track this attempt.

 

I'd consider replacing him with Jonathan Star.

 

How about we just drop him then?  Four is probably enough.

[dawei]

How about we just drop him then?  Four is probably enough.

 

I think that is ok... as folks can be looking at others on their own as they want.