Favorite translations

[Inner Alchemy]

What are your favorite translations of the I Ching?  I like the Wilhelm/Baynes version a lot and own a hard copy, but have found Stephen Karcher's Mothering Change I Ching to be helpful as well.  I recently found the Eclectic Energies I Ching online, and I enjoyed it.  I have also read a few of the other I Ching sites online, including Cafe Au Soul.  I feel I get something a little different from each one, and I learn new things about the I Ching and various hexagrams.  It seems that each different translation provides a little piece of the puzzle, as long as the translation is in line with the original intended voice.   

[rocala]

One of my new year projects is to gain an understanding of the I Ching. The Richard Wilhelm translation was recommended so I bought that and Carol K Anthony's 'A Guide to the I Ching' as well.

I am a complete novice but I feel quite excited at the prospect. Several people that I had great respect for, valued the subject highly.

[Inner Alchemy]

I recently found two translations of the I Ching that I really like.  One is "The Complete I Ching" by Alfred Huang.  This one stays very faithful to the original Chinese I Ching.  This version of the I Ching is available for free (pdf) here: http://www.labirintoermetico.com/09IChing/Huang_A_The_complete_I_Ching.pdf.

 

The second version I found is called "The Tao of I Ching", by Jou, Tsang Hwa.  I really like this version but I think I prefer Huang's version overall.  However, the Tsang Hwa Jou text offers several elements that are not offered in the Huang text.  I really like having both of these books to consult.  

[snowymountains]

bumping this one, between Wilhelm and Huang which one is the most accurate translation?

 

Also, Wilhelm had written a commentary text on the I CHING, which is a separate volume to his translation of the text. Is that a good quality commentary ?

[Harmen]

On 24-4-2024 at 10:41 PM, snowymountains said:

bumping this one, between Wilhelm and Huang which one is the most accurate translation?

 

Also, Wilhelm had written a commentary text on the I CHING, which is a separate volume to his translation of the text. Is that a good quality commentary ?

 

How would you define 'accuracy'? What do you consider 'accurate'?

 

Wilhelm's Third Book is a translation of parts from the Ten Wings, accompanied by his own explanation of that text. The translation in itself is okay, Wilhelm's commentary might steer you in certain direction that does not necessarily match your own understanding. I would advise to read the text on its own, which goes for the whole Yijing as far as I'm concerned. 

[Taoist Texts]

3 hours ago, Harmen said:

The translation in itself is okay,

 

3 hours ago, Harmen said:

How would you define 'accuracy'? What do you consider 'accurate'?

i guess the same way you define OK;)

Anyway in  the first chapter, there be dragons. Dragons this, dragons that, headless dragons... etc. But why dragons? Nor the chinese author of the wings, nor the later chinese commenters, nor the western translators and readers had no clue what these dragons were in the original yaos. They thought the dragons symbolize either other men or the divinator himself.

 

Except in the original yao's the dragons are 1) the constellation of the Dragon 2) a clay figurine of a dragon set up in the field to ensure a plentiful harvest. Absolutely not what the translator and the reader thinks those dragons are.

 

So i would say the accuracy of the translation is not important given that no one even understands what the original is talking about.   You could substitute dragons with cabbage, would make even more sense hehe

[Harmen]

20 hours ago, Taoist Texts said:

i guess the same way you define OK;)

 

Subjective, yes.

 

20 hours ago, Taoist Texts said:

Except in the original yao's the dragons are 1) the constellation of the Dragon 2) a clay figurine of a dragon set up in the field to ensure a plentiful harvest. Absolutely not what the translator and the reader thinks those dragons are.

 

I'm familiar with Shaughnessy's and Pankenier's hypotheses about 1), but I would like to read up on 2), which is new to me - do you have sources for me?

 

20 hours ago, Taoist Texts said:

So i would say the accuracy of the translation is not important given that no one even understands what the original is talking about.

 

Be that as it may, we still have a Chinese text that is worthy of being translated, regardless of all the translations that are already outthere. Considering the many developments in the field of sinology, etymology and linguistics the matter of accuracy is still relevant, as far as I'm concerned. What is concidered 'accurate' is a never ending process.

[Taoist Texts]

1 hour ago, Harmen said:

2), which is new to me - do you have sources for me?

sure,  unfortunately not academic ones

Quote

 

 During the Han dynasty (202 B.C.–220 A.D.), people made clay dragons to use in rituals to pray for rainfall.

https://www.sixthtone.com/news/1014617

 

or you can consider the connection to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longtaitou_Festival  

 

but its not just the dragons, the Yijing is choke full of references unknown to the reader and thus making the translation moot. E. g when the yao says 'observe the jaw' and we make a footnote 'the jaw refers to a pattern on the scapula' what is a reader supposed to do with it;)

3 hours ago, Harmen said:

Chinese text that is worthy of being translated

for an expert or an aficionado - certainly

[snowymountains]

Thanks both, to rephrase, what's a good translation for someone who will read I Ching for the first time ?

[Apech]

36 minutes ago, snowymountains said:

Thanks both, to rephrase, what's a good translation for someone who will read I Ching for the first time ?

Wilhelm is standard still. I like Richard John Lynn - classic of Changes and also Alfred Huang (though it has its detractors).

Edited April 30 by Apech

[Geof Nanto]

4 hours ago, snowymountains said:

Thanks both, to rephrase, what's a good translation for someone who will read I Ching for the first time ?

 

The essence of the Yijing as a book of wisdom and oracle is its ability to give an avenue for the Shenming (gods; or in Jungian terms, the unconscious) to communicate with us. Hence, finding an interpretation written in language which speaks to our heart is essential. In this regard my favourite is Cleary’s translation of Liu Yiming’s Daoist alchemical interpretation, titled The Taoist I Ching. Wilhelm’s is also a must have and I use it in conjunction with Cleary’s. 

 

However, for someone new to the Yijing I’d highly recommend starting with the relatively recent translation by John Minford titled, “I Ching: The Essential Translation of the Ancient Chinese Oracle and Book of Wisdom.” (You can preview it on Kindle.)  It is excellent, both for the quality of his translation and selected commentary, and also for gaining an overview of what the Yijing represents.

 

(Minford also includes a translation of the Bronze Age text from the Zhou dynasty in the second half of the book which @Harmen and @Taoist Texts are referring to above. TT may care to read it for its comprehensive exploration of the Western scholarship over the last few decades which explores in great depth exactly those issues which he raises. For me personally though, this stuff has little relevance for how I use the book. I agree with Minford when he writes, “Modern attempts to divest the original Bronze Age Oracle of all its traditional clutter, despite their brilliance, somehow seemed dry and futile. In short, I missed the essential spiritual quality of the I Ching.” In other words, it is exactly the layers of interpretation which the original oracle has gained over the ensuing centuries which give the book its wisdom. )  
 

[Barnaby]

Even though it’s often disparaged, I have a lot of time for James Legge’s translation. Used in conjunction with some of the above, and others. 

I think it’s good to make your own sense of the different slants.

But Wilhelm/Baynes is the gold standard in English for me.

[Apoostrophe]

A couple weeks ago I picked up Benebell Wen's I Ching from my library. I'm still making my way through reading it, and I enjoy some of her takes but not all (I have heard not all of her historical knowledge is accurate, but idk). What I REALLY like is her breakdown of each trigram and their correspondence to each hexagram. She notes how often these interpretations can be very personal, and I believe studying AND knowing that can help round out your knowledge. Knowing how the different trigrams interplay with one another is a big part of understanding the I Ching. I'm still making my way through her version! But it really enlightened me on just how different and vast these interpretations of the 64 Hexagrams can be.

Otherwise, I find Huang's to be the best and most informative for me. These different versions are less translations and more interpretations. So, my liking of Huang's I Ching is purely subjective. I really like why and how he went about writing it given his history, his take on the Ten Wings, and his diagrams

Edited October 11 by Apoostrophe
Added a comma.