tao te ching translations; 81

[findley]

hi =)

 

The Tao Te Ching is considered an ancient philosophical text, generally associated to the (possibly mythic?) figure Lao Tzu. It is also considered to be a conglomeration of like-wisdom from many contributers, over periods of time.

Because many westerners do not read chinese, they rely on translators to relay the wisdom inherent in every passage. Due to the obviously vast differences between Chinese and English, the same words may be translated in numerous ways. Translators are thus given room to insert their biased understanding of the tao te ching's wisdom into their work, intentional or not.

The differences in translation may be gaping, (as I have seen in christian-slanted work,) or very subtle, (which is common,)-- but even a subtle difference can be a big deal for an enthusiast.

If you cannot read mandarin, it is best to read a number of translations repeatedly, as well as other bodies of taoist philosophy, to give you a bigger picture of the philosophy as a whole. In this way, you need not read the chinese directly to gain a valid understanding of taoist philosophy.

Also, readers may sympathize with specific translations based on their personal interpretation of Taoist. Of course, one reader may be more 'correct' than another, but I would hesitate to say that someone is wrong-- unless the interpretation is blatantly off-key. If you are going to challenge someone's interpretation, it is a good idea to present valid counter-arguments, and avoid being rude. This thread should provide that opportunity!

 

 

chapter 81:

 

 

Here is a previously mentioned translation:

 

Sincere words are are not sweet,

Sweet words are not sincere.

Good men are not argumentative,

The argumentative are not good.

The wise are not erudite,

The erudite are not wise.

The Sage does not take to hoarding,

The more he lives for others,

The fuller his life.

The more he gives,

The more he abounds.

The Way of Heaven is to benefit,

Not to harm.

The Way of the Sage is to do his duty,

Not to strive with anyone.

 

 

here is another by Legge, which I prefer, (but I will not say is the best, even in my opinion..)

 

Sincere words are not fine; fine words are not sincere. Those

who are skilled (in the Tao) do not dispute (about it); the

disputatious are not skilled in it. Those who know (the Tao) are not

extensively learned; the extensively learned do not know it.

 

The sage does not accumulate (for himself). The more that he

expends for others, the more does he possess of his own; the more that

he gives to others, the more does he have himself.

 

With all the sharpness of the Way of Heaven, it injures not; with

all the doing in the way of the sage he does not strive.

 

--

 

here is another by mcdonald:

 

81

 

True words do not sound beautiful;

beautiful sounding words are not true.

Wise men don't need to debate;

men who need to debate are not wise.

 

Wise men are not scholars,

and scholars are not wise.

The Master desires no possessions.

Since the things she does are for the people,

she has more than she needs.

The more she gives to others,

the more she has for herself.

 

The Tao of Heaven nourishes by not forcing.

The Tao of the Wise person acts by not competing.

 

 

 

-------------

I could keep going, (there's a list of translations on wikipedia, 'tao te ching'..) but I think these three versions should suffice to point out varying itnerpretations... we can discuss which ones may be more or less 'true'.

 

Notice the clearly 'buddhist' flavor of the first passage? 'good' .. 'bad'... dualistic language in general is highly present.

Now look at Legge's translation. That distinct 'buddhist flavor' is now completely gone. The passage reads much more objectively. Dualistic language is less hardly present. The essential wisdom even seems to be much different. what do you think? is there a difference in these two passages? which one do you think is better suited to serve taoist philosophy, genuine taoist philosophy, on the whole?

 

This question is mainly directed to mike. Would you care to discuss the matter? You seemed deeply enthused about defending the legitimacy of the first represented translation. Maybe you can explain to me why?

 

 

PS- please, no one even get me started on the irony of this thread being based on 81 LOL !!!!!

[mjjbecker]

that was one of the worst tao te ching translations I have ever seen

 

When YOU can provide a translation from your OWN efforts, then you MAY have a right to make such a statement. All be it, an ignorant and rude one, but at least you would be able to direct us in the subtle areas of distinction between the translators interpretation and the way that the text may otherwise be interpreted. To do that you would NEED to have an understanding of the original Chinese characters and their usage.

 

Regarding esoteric texts, an actual understanding of the matters being discussed is also VERY significant. Otherwise, the translator lacks the tools to correctly interpret what they see.

 

My comments were not at all about MY defending or preferring the particular translation I used-they ARE about you throwing out opinions based on nothing but your seemingly VERY limited education and experience in these matters.

 

You don't read or speak any Chinese language or dialect. You CERTAINLY therefore cannot read modern simplified, traditional or ancient Chinese script. Pray tell me what 'written Mandarin' is, BTW, because in over two years of living in China I have not encountered it...

 

You have not been directly instructed in any ancient tradition-Daoist or Buddhist.

 

And yet...

 

You happily dismiss things you don't know anything about.

 

Now please understand, I have no objections whatsoever to you having your opinions. I only object to your seeming inability to politely express them. You all too freely say how wrong or bad something is. If you feel that way, fine. Just spare the judgemental comments, because you don't have anything like the education or experience to be qualified enough to back up your opinions.

 

BTW, as Craig stated, there IS no difference in the essence of the two translations you compare. You see, it is all about the EXPERIENCE and UNDERSTANDING of the reader here that counts.

 

No, I am not going to enter into a discussion with you regarding this, because you haven't learned enough to offer any kind of significant or relevant observations-yet. If one day you get past your ego and decide to go out and learn, instead of imposing your own world view on things you have no understanding of, then I will be happy to.

 

Sincerely,

 

Mike

[Patrick Brown]

I like the Gia-fu Feng and Jane English version:

 

Truthful words are not beautiful.

Beautiful words are not truthful.

Good men do not argue.

Those who argue are not good.

Those who know are not learned.

The learned do not know.

The sage never tries to store things up.

The more he does for others, the more he has.

The more he gives to others, the greater his abundance.

The Tao of heaven is pointed but does no harm.

The Tao of the sage is work without effort.

 

Full translation here: http://www.terebess.hu/english/tao/gia.html

 

This post of mine may explain 'wu wei': http://www.thetaobums.com/Discourse-on-the...Work-t6299.html

[VCraigP]

hi =)

 

The Tao Te Ching is considered an ancient philosophical text, generally associated to the (possibly mythic?) figure Lao Tzu. It is also considered to be a conglomeration of like-wisdom from many contributers, over periods of time.

Because many westerners do not read chinese, they rely on translators to relay the wisdom inherent in every passage. Due to the obviously vast differences between Chinese and English, the same words may be translated in numerous ways. Translators are thus given room to insert their biased understanding of the tao te ching's wisdom into their work, intentional or not.

The differences in translation may be gaping, (as I have seen in christian-slanted work,) or very subtle, (which is common,)-- but even a subtle difference can be a big deal for an enthusiast.

If you cannot read mandarin, it is best to read a number of translations repeatedly, as well as other bodies of taoist philosophy, to give you a bigger picture of the philosophy as a whole. In this way, you need not read the chinese directly to gain a valid understanding of taoist philosophy.

Also, readers may sympathize with specific translations based on their personal interpretation of Taoist. Of course, one reader may be more 'correct' than another, but I would hesitate to say that someone is wrong-- unless the interpretation is blatantly off-key. If you are going to challenge someone's interpretation, it is a good idea to present valid counter-arguments, and avoid being rude. This thread should provide that opportunity!

chapter 81:

 

 

Thanks all for the various versions of this verse.

 

I think it is very true that for the non-english speaker a valuable approach is to review several different interpretations. This is perhaps a way to approach the multi layered meanings of the chinese symbols.

 

In the end this does seem like contention for no reason, as suggested in the verse in the first place.

 

Regardless of the quality of the original translation the real issue is that the essence of what was trying to be said was there to see. It came through with clarity. There is substantial variation between the verses posted but one can either pick at them to discover their flaws and biases, or one can compile them together to more deeply understand the essence.

 

Craig

[findley]

I think there is a vast difference between the first-presented translation and Legge's translation. To dismiss the absence of the dualistic language used in Legge's translation (such as we find in trhe first,) as unimportant, I believe, is a mistake.

If you are a new reader to the Tao Te Ching, I believe you will walk away with a significantly different understanding of the philosophy if you read from these different translators. You may think, for example, that taoism is very similiar to Buddhism. Which it is not. and, in my opinion, is a very unfortunate mistake. (because you would not discover the essence of genuine taoist philosophy.)

 

I also believe that that if you are earnest in your cultivation of taoist philosophy, you must find yourself picking at the flaws and biases of others, that may otherwise blind you from what you are seeking. 'compiling' multiple translations that lean in different directions is not an effective method of discovery, because synthesizing what is 'more correct' with what is 'less correct' does not produce something 'even more correct'. Maybe to use an analogy-- if I were to mix diamonds in with manure, would the final product be something desirable..?

 

Do not get carried away with the fact that we seem to discuss this matter in contrary to passage 81. We are not sages, so we should not blindly emulate. If we are to become a sage, our actions (or nonactions? ) will stem from a deep understanding (or not? ) of the philosophy-- not from our blind emulation of what we read in the book.

also, we should not allow even the verses of the tao te ching to become rigid dogma. This would be self-defeating, as a taoist philosopher. There is only a non-dogmatic, non-dualistic tao, and to extrapolate any sort of 'rules' from this is absolute folly. ..so do not be afraid to break 'rules', even if they seem to come from the tao te ching!!

mjjbecker, if THIS is the reason why you do not care to discuss taoist philosophy, please reconsider! I will not consider you a 'bad man' for 'arguing' with me! (or will I...?) I will not call you unwise for challenging my idea's! (or will I...?)

You are welcome!