Derek Lin's Tao Te Ching

[wandelaar]

What do we think of Derek Lin's translation of and commentary on the Tao Te Ching ? I hadn't heard of the book before but read about it here. It looks alright to me, but that is only my first impression.

[Marblehead]

It's a good translation.  I know he put a lot of honest work into it.  And he includes some nice comments.

 

[dawei]

I like his read of the DDJ.   But realize that his background is part of a religious order (I-Kuan Tao , see:  http://www.with.org/ikuantao.html ) and so when you read his notes, you can sometimes see the ethical application he holds in his interpretations.

 

You can read him here:

https://terebess.hu/english/tao/DerekLin.html

[wandelaar]

@ dawei

 

Thank you. I have read a lot of other translations already so I don't plan to use Derek Lin's as the one definitive translation if such a thing were possible.

 

My first impression is that Derek Lin has some nice practical explanations to offer as to what it means to follow Tao in daily life. And that is exactly what I am looking for.

Edited April 18, 2018 by wandelaar

[wandelaar]

 

Sorry - wrong button.
 

Edited April 18, 2018 by wandelaar

[Stosh]

Thanks for making me look at Lin's product. Ive seen parts before, but didnt notice the two tier stucture , Which, I think is really good. 

There are yet broader associations that can be made , but I respect the decision made to limit some of that, and consider it a solid rendering I need to get a better familiarity with.

[wandelaar]

I have bought Lin's translation and commentary, and already read some chapters. I think it's very good. So my question is no longer whether it's a good book - because it is. Nevertheless the book might still contain a few controversial interpretations of chapters from the TTC. So my new question is:

 

Are there any controversial interpretations of chapters from the TTC in Lin's book? And if so, what chapters?

Edited May 1, 2018 by wandelaar

[Marblehead]

I will generalize by saying that his translation is a good translation.  His notes are excellent.

 

Keep in mind that he is a Religious Taoist.  This will be reflected in how he translates certain characters and comments he makes in his notes.

 

 

Edited May 1, 2018 by Marblehead

[dawei]

4 hours ago, wandelaar said:

I have bought Lin's translation and commentary, and already read some chapters. I think it's very good. So my question is no longer whether it's a good book - because it is. Nevertheless the book might still contain a few controversial interpretations of chapters from the TTC. So my new question is:

 

Are there any controversial interpretations of chapters from the TTC in Lin's book? And if so, what chapters?

 

I think his translation is trying to stay faithful to the chinese characters and meaning (as he sees it).. so consider his DDJ 5:

 

Heaven and Earth are without bias...

 

What a great and simple translation.  

 

But his last line is:

 

Cannot compare to keeping quiet

 

 Very non-conventional but his notes explains why he translates Zhong (center) as quiet.   I might add that his religious convictions may want to see quietism (of meditation) more than the more conventional cultivation arts others seem to translate.

 

As long as you have the notes, it should reveal his approach and I think you'll continue to be pleased with his point of view.   I think it is healthy to sometimes read a point of view we might not otherwise consider.   It kind of reinforces in us what we like and don't like about translations but may also help us see the broader interpretation that exists and why it exists. 

[Mig]

On 4/18/2018 at 10:12 AM, dawei said:

I like his read of the DDJ.   But realize that his background is part of a religious order (I-Kuan Tao , see:  http://www.with.org/ikuantao.html ) and so when you read his notes, you can sometimes see the ethical application he holds in his interpretations.

 

You can read him here:

https://terebess.hu/english/tao/DerekLin.html

 

I wonder what makes you say about his background related to his translation of the DDJ. Can you give examples of his ethical application? Just curious.

[Mig]

5 hours ago, wandelaar said:

I have bought Lin's translation and commentary, and already read some chapters. I think it's very good. So my question is no longer whether it's a good book - because it is. Nevertheless the book might still contain a few controversial interpretations of chapters from the TTC. So my new question is:

 

Are there any controversial interpretations of chapters from the TTC in Lin's book? And if so, what chapters?

 

What makes you say is "very good translation" What are the few controversial interpretations of chapters from the DDJ?

[Mig]

56 minutes ago, dawei said:

 

I think his translation is trying to stay faithful to the chinese characters and meaning (as he sees it).. so consider his DDJ 5:

 

Heaven and Earth are without bias...

 

What a great and simple translation.  

 

But his last line is:

 

Cannot compare to keeping quiet

 

 Very non-conventional but his notes explains why he translates Zhong (center) as quiet.   I might add that his religious convictions may want to see quietism (of meditation) more than the more conventional cultivation arts others seem to translate.

 

As long as you have the notes, it should reveal his approach and I think you'll continue to be pleased with his point of view.   I think it is healthy to sometimes read a point of view we might not otherwise consider.   It kind of reinforces in us what we like and don't like about translations but may also help us see the broader interpretation that exists and why it exists. 

 

In my experience, after reading several different English translation from scholars or good translators, Lin is went beyond to render a close translation from the original. Granted he may follow interpretations from native scholars and understands what the text means or Chinese characters as he is a Mandarin-Min nan hua native speaker.  I don't understand what do you mean by "chinese characters and meaning (as he sees it)"

The way I understand of Lin's translation is a translation close to the original and its interpretation are from his Dao experience and from Chinese scholars or traditional interpretations. This work is not a philological project but hands on translation. There is no doubt that other translations or interpretations are necessary and good to compare. IMO the importance is to know what the book says and use it as a guideline for cultivation.

[wandelaar]

8 hours ago, Mig said:

What makes you say is "very good translation"

 

Compared to other translations he comes up with explanations that add to my understanding of the TTC. I can not personally verify whether his translation is also close to the original (for I can't read Chinese), but I guess if Lin made large mistakes there it would have been noticed by people who can read Chinese. I haven't found criticisms attacking Lin on that point.  

 

8 hours ago, Mig said:

What are the few controversial interpretations of chapters from the DDJ?

 

That is exactly the question I am asking...

[doc benway]

11 hours ago, dawei said:

I might add that his religious convictions may want to see quietism (of meditation) more than the more conventional cultivation arts others seem to translate.

 

I'm curious what you consider to be "more conventional cultivation arts" than meditation?

 

[Mig]

5 hours ago, wandelaar said:

 

Compared to other translations he comes up with explanations that add to my understanding of the TTC. I can not personally verify whether his translation is also close to the original (for I can't read Chinese), but I guess if Lin made large mistakes there it would have been noticed by people who can read Chinese. I haven't found criticisms attacking Lin on that point.  

 

 

That is exactly the question I am asking...

 

May be you don't need to know how to read Chinese and may be a good place to start here in this site is to check the Tao te ching study chapters as well as  DDJ meaning contributions. As an example for what I say close to the original here below:

Chapter 5 Derek Lin

Heaven and Earth are impartial
And regard myriad things as straw dogs
The sage is impartial
And regards people as straw dogs

 

That's very close to the original and if you compare to other translations you may find some differences. Of course, there are other chapter that may present some difficulties for the translators and Lin does well at least much clearer than many I have read where I didn't understand the message and too vague to understand the meaning.

[OldDog]

20 hours ago, dawei said:

 

Heaven and Earth are without bias...

 

What a great and simple translation.  

 

But his last line is:

 

Cannot compare to keeping quiet

 

 I like this translation, though it is not precisely what appears in his book or web site. I only found "without bias" on the Terebes site; the other two sources I checked have "impartial". The translation as "without bias" has a different impact on me than "impartial". Can't quite put my finger on it but "impartial" has a ring of decision to it, where "without bias" suggests a bias or even the concept of bias does not exist. Some translators use "ruthless" which suggests to me intent. Many use "not humane" which seems to suggest there might be other contexts other that humanity to consider. "Without bias" seems to be a quality more universal and fitting to Dao.

 

What does bother me about Lin's translation is his rendering of 

Quote

Too many words hasten failure

as refering to bureaucracy ant its rules and regulations. This seems right out of left field, totally unexpected. I don't read Chinese, so would have to ask: Is there something in the original text that suggests a governmental context?

 

[dawei]

23 hours ago, Mig said:

I wonder what makes you say about his background related to his translation of the DDJ. Can you give examples of his ethical application? Just curious.

 

I gave a link showing his relationship to a religious order.  I am simply suggesting that important part of his life may also lead him to comment/note in a more ethical application.  

 

23 hours ago, Mig said:

 

In my experience, after reading several different English translation from scholars or good translators, Lin is went beyond to render a close translation from the original. Granted he may follow interpretations from native scholars and understands what the text means or Chinese characters as he is a Mandarin-Min nan hua native speaker.  I don't understand what do you mean by "chinese characters and meaning (as he sees it)"

The way I understand of Lin's translation is a translation close to the original and its interpretation are from his Dao experience and from Chinese scholars or traditional interpretations. This work is not a philological project but hands on translation. There is no doubt that other translations or interpretations are necessary and good to compare. IMO the importance is to know what the book says and use it as a guideline for cultivation.

 

I said his translations are good and to the original... my comment about "and meaning (as he sees it) , is his notes.   I don't have his book to state whether he cites chinese scholars or not.

 

12 hours ago, steve said:

I'm curious what you consider to be "more conventional cultivation arts" than meditation?

 

I meant that group seems to like meditation and ethical applications more than energy art movement.  Just my brief encounters with them. 

 

 

3 hours ago, OldDog said:

 

 I like this translation, though it is not precisely what appears in his book or web site. I only found "without bias" on the Terebes site; the other two sources I checked have "impartial". The translation as "without bias" has a different impact on me than "impartial". Can't quite put my finger on it but "impartial" has a ring of decision to it, where "without bias" suggests a bias or even the concept of bias does not exist. Some translators use "ruthless" which suggests to me intent. Many use "not humane" which seems to suggest there might be other contexts other that humanity to consider. "Without bias" seems to be a quality more universal and fitting to Dao.

 

What does bother me about Lin's translation is his rendering of 

as refering to bureaucracy ant its rules and regulations. This seems right out of left field, totally unexpected. I don't read Chinese, so would have to ask: Is there something in the original text that suggests a governmental context?

 

 

That happens sometimes; what is online differs from a final publication.  Thanks for pointing that out.  In either case, bias and impartial are softer and seem better than 'not humane' and so why i still like his line.  

 

As to your last question... is there a specific chapter or are you still on chapter 5 ?

 

Ok... read the online notes and see you mean ch. 5.   It is historically very common to try and explore the application Laozi intended, whether social, family, political, cutivation, etc.    His notes are intended to provide such applications which is not surprising given his leadership role. 

 

[OldDog]

11 hours ago, dawei said:

It is historically very common to try and explore the application Laozi intended, whether social, family, political, cutivation, etc.

 

OK, I'll take that to mean that the original text holds no special connotation toward bureaucracy/government that you can see. That interpretation, though, was very off-putting for me. In our current political climate, it had the ring of someone that has an axe to grind over some political point of view. Maybe I am just being over-sensitive. Would not be the first time.

 

Passages in the DDJ having to do with governing in general are not uncommon. However, I have come to believe that what the DDJ has to say about governing can be equally applicable to the conduct of ordinary individuals ... and vice versa, for that matter. That the principles of Dao be scalable to all levels of worldly activity is not a hard leap to make. 

[dawei]

2 hours ago, OldDog said:

 

OK, I'll take that to mean that the original text holds no special connotation toward bureaucracy/government that you can see. That interpretation, though, was very off-putting for me. In our current political climate, it had the ring of someone that has an axe to grind over some political point of view. Maybe I am just being over-sensitive. Would not be the first time.

 

Passages in the DDJ having to do with governing in general are not uncommon. However, I have come to believe that what the DDJ has to say about governing can be equally applicable to the conduct of ordinary individuals ... and vice versa, for that matter. That the principles of Dao be scalable to all levels of worldly activity is not a hard leap to make. 

 

To be fair, let's explore such an application... 

 

The passage is directly about the ten thousand arising, they move and are never exhausting in their producing... 

 

The last two lines are literally :

 

多言数穷 - wordiness repeatedly pointless [exhausts]

不如守中 - Not as good as keeping the center

 

Many translate that last word was 'center' or something inside...  

 

A very seasoned scholar like Chan says "keep to the center".  He notes it can mean moderation but insists it means 'center'. 

Gu Zhengkun (bought his book in the famous Beijing shopping district) translates as moderation and void.   

Yutang suggest the 'core' as an important "Daoist tenant".

 

Hinton is interesting to suggest to remain in its midst;

Similarly Flowing Hands said to remain One with it.    So remain with it.

 

Ta-Kao who I really like says "It is better to keep what is within himself"   Sounds very similar to D. Lin's keep quiet idea.

 

Now, I'll add, Wang Bi mentions the government on this chapter...  so my feeling is, that translators look for meaning and application and it is no surprise that historically in china, they look towards the government... the "Sage-Kings" which pre-date Laozi by thousands of years were expected to be 'sagely within and kingly without'...  The first commentary to the Laozi was Hanfezi, a legalist with daoist undertones and it was about governing.   Those who comment on the earlier version of the Laozi, The Guodian with 33 chapters, say it favors governing ideas.

 

I think such desires to find the meaning and application will always be there for our enjoyment to discuss. 

 

 

[OldDog]

4 hours ago, dawei said:

...  so my feeling is, that translators look for meaning and application and it is no surprise that historically in china, they look towards the government...

 

Yes, it would seem so. 

 

I went back to Dan G Reid's The Thread of Dao , a comparative analysis of proto-daoist texts. The backdrop he suggests for DDJ5 comes from analysis of Guan zi, where he notes:

 

Ren, translated as “benevolence,” carried a meaning, especially in ancient times, of diligent consideration for courtesy, manners, and hierarchies, following the culture of those who served in the court. One of the most significant contrasts between Daoists and Confucians was that Daoists had little value for complex and prescribed manners and courtesies which they felt must flow as a natural expression from people’s sense of oneness with all things.

 

Against this backdrop, the last two lines may be saying the way of the sage is to maintain a center of natural (core) simplicity in light of all social and court conventions prevalent at the time, rather than a specific indictment of laws and regulations.

 

This makes more sense to me. My sensitivity over the words Derek Lin chose seems to have had the better of me. Still, I like his translation and, for the most part, his interpretation. This exercise has shed a lotnof light for me on DDJ5. 

 

Thanks for the engaging discussion. 

[Shidifen]

Derek Lin's Youtube channel is here - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCsPVNGGfoy7_vqhi_lT9eVA/videos

 

You can find videos of him going through the Dao De Jing chapter by chapter. He is now onto his second chapter by chapter explanation, which is great because a few of his videos from the first lot never got uploaded and now they're lost.

 

Here's the playlist for his chapter by chapter translations -

 

He also has a facebook page here - https://www.facebook.com/groups/tao.talks/

[Marblehead]

'Tis better to hold to the mean (center, core, without opinion).

 

For me, the word "void" is meaningless.  Keeping to "Absolute Nothingness"?  I consider that to be impossible.

 

But Awareness without opinion is easily possible.

 

 

[wandelaar]

4 hours ago, Marblehead said:

But Awareness without opinion is easily possible.

 

It's much more difficult than you think. Just noticing your thoughts and feelings is not yet without opinion, at least not as long as you name or recognize (and thereby categorize) those thoughts and feelings. I think absolute nothingness is meant in the Buddhist sense here, as no-thing-ness.

[Marblehead]

Keep in mind that I'm not suggesting that I have attained that state.  But I do go there sometimes.

 

[wandelaar]

18 minutes ago, Marblehead said:

Keep in mind that I'm not suggesting that I have attained that state.  But I do go there sometimes.

 

Does that mean that when you hear a sound you do not recognize it as "a sound"?

Edited May 4, 2018 by wandelaar