-
- Information on this archive. See IIDB.org
-
-
Please join us on IIDB (iidb.org)
This is the archived FRDB and IIDB forum from prior to about March 2014. It is read only. If you would like to respond or otherwise revive a post or topic, please join us on the active forum: IIDB.
-
Tao Te Ching Translations
Basically I consider Taoism, Vedanta, Advaita, some of Buddhism, Logos and some of Existentialism to point at the same ineffable quality (these could be termed perennial philosophy). It is probably similar to ancient mystery religions. The point is to emphasize what one does not know or the ineffable underpinning of nature, being, bliss etc.
-
SecularFuture
- Posts: 2197
- Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 6:00 am
- Basic Beliefs:
- Out Campaign: Real Name:
Alrighty folks...
How about this?
Addiss & Lombardo (or via: amazon.co.uk) (preview) best literal translation.
Sanderson Beck best readable translation that doesn't stray too far from the literal.
:huh:
How about this?
Addiss & Lombardo (or via: amazon.co.uk) (preview) best literal translation.
Sanderson Beck best readable translation that doesn't stray too far from the literal.
:huh:
I like Stephen Michell's translation personally of the ones I've looked at.
-
SecularFuture
- Posts: 2197
- Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 6:00 am
- Basic Beliefs:
- Out Campaign: Real Name:
[quote=""Elijah""]I like Stephen Michell's translation personally of the ones I've looked at.[/quote]
The Stephen Mitchell translations is poetic and very well written, however - it is probably one of the least accurate translations of the Tao Te Ching being sold today.
Here is a comparison between Mitchell's translations and a literal translation:
Mitchell [v5]: "The Tao doesn't take sides;
it gives birth to both good and evil.
The Master doesn't take sides;
she welcomes both saints and sinners. The Tao is like a bellows:
it is empty yet infinitely capable.
The more you use it, the more it produces;
the more you talk of it, the less you understand. Hold on to the center."
Addiss / Lombardo [v5]: "Heaven and Earth are not kind: The ten thousand things are straw dogs to them.
The Sage is not kind: People are straw dogs to him.
Yet Heaven and Earth And all the space between Are like a bellows: Empty but inexhaustible, Always producing more.
Longwinded speech is exhausting. Better to stay centered."
:huh:
If you're looking for readability and accuracy, the Feng/English and Sanderson Beck translations, in my opinion, work much better.
The Stephen Mitchell translations is poetic and very well written, however - it is probably one of the least accurate translations of the Tao Te Ching being sold today.
Here is a comparison between Mitchell's translations and a literal translation:
Mitchell [v5]: "The Tao doesn't take sides;
it gives birth to both good and evil.
The Master doesn't take sides;
she welcomes both saints and sinners. The Tao is like a bellows:
it is empty yet infinitely capable.
The more you use it, the more it produces;
the more you talk of it, the less you understand. Hold on to the center."
Addiss / Lombardo [v5]: "Heaven and Earth are not kind: The ten thousand things are straw dogs to them.
The Sage is not kind: People are straw dogs to him.
Yet Heaven and Earth And all the space between Are like a bellows: Empty but inexhaustible, Always producing more.
Longwinded speech is exhausting. Better to stay centered."
:huh:
If you're looking for readability and accuracy, the Feng/English and Sanderson Beck translations, in my opinion, work much better.
I've hesitated to post about favorite translations because all my various versions are still packed away in the storage shed since I painted several months ago. But looks like I'm not rushing out to the storage shed to dig around and find my various copies, so I can't tell you my 'favorites'.
What I can say is that I pretty much did what you are doing, SecularFuture: I had a wide range of translations available during my various periods of study. They ranged from poetic non-literal to side-by-side comparisons with historical and linguistic commentary. In time and with a mental and personal immersion in the material, I came to synthesize the various translations into my own interpretation. That worked for me!
Now whenever I read just about any translation, I'm lucky enough that most of that rushes back to fill in or be enhanced by the new interpretation. I wish I could I remember my own favorite translations so that I could recommend them, but you really are taking the best course of study on your own, in my opinion!
What I can say is that I pretty much did what you are doing, SecularFuture: I had a wide range of translations available during my various periods of study. They ranged from poetic non-literal to side-by-side comparisons with historical and linguistic commentary. In time and with a mental and personal immersion in the material, I came to synthesize the various translations into my own interpretation. That worked for me!
Now whenever I read just about any translation, I'm lucky enough that most of that rushes back to fill in or be enhanced by the new interpretation. I wish I could I remember my own favorite translations so that I could recommend them, but you really are taking the best course of study on your own, in my opinion!
Richard John Lynn's has a lot to offer. A personal favorite of mine.
I also think the Roger & Ames translation is worth a read, if you go into it expecting that they've brought a lot of their post-modern interpretation with it (which actually fits quite well).
For a workhorse translation, I like the Lau.
I also think the Roger & Ames translation is worth a read, if you go into it expecting that they've brought a lot of their post-modern interpretation with it (which actually fits quite well).
For a workhorse translation, I like the Lau.
-
SecularFuture
- Posts: 2197
- Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 6:00 am
- Basic Beliefs:
- Out Campaign: Real Name:
[quote=""pescifish""]OH yeah, and I also wanted to add that I'm enjoying revisiting the material in this thread with all the links to the translations you have found. Thanks, SecularFuture![/quote]
You're welcome.
Trying to find a quality translation that is readable but doesn't stray too far from the original text has been a bit daunting. Wouldn't it be great if we could come to some sort of conclusion about best translation by the end of this thread? That is kind of what I'm hoping for. Currently, my favorite translations are by Sanderson Beck for its ease, and Addiss/Lombardo for its fearless literalism.
[quote=""xunzian""]Richard John Lynn's has a lot to offer. A personal favorite of mine.
I also think the Roger & Ames translation is worth a read, if you go into it expecting that they've brought a lot of their post-modern interpretation with it (which actually fits quite well).
For a workhorse translation, I like the Lau.[/quote]
Woo hoo! More translations to read. :jump:
I'll give these a peek tonight after work.
Thank you for bringing them to our attention in this thread.
You're welcome.
Trying to find a quality translation that is readable but doesn't stray too far from the original text has been a bit daunting. Wouldn't it be great if we could come to some sort of conclusion about best translation by the end of this thread? That is kind of what I'm hoping for. Currently, my favorite translations are by Sanderson Beck for its ease, and Addiss/Lombardo for its fearless literalism.
[quote=""xunzian""]Richard John Lynn's has a lot to offer. A personal favorite of mine.
I also think the Roger & Ames translation is worth a read, if you go into it expecting that they've brought a lot of their post-modern interpretation with it (which actually fits quite well).
For a workhorse translation, I like the Lau.[/quote]
Woo hoo! More translations to read. :jump:
I'll give these a peek tonight after work.
Thank you for bringing them to our attention in this thread.
[quote=""SecularFuture""]
If you're looking for readability and accuracy, the Feng/English and Sanderson Beck translations, in my opinion, work much better.[/quote]
The second translation doesn't seem coherent to me. I don't know about accuracy but I don't think many are going to understand that verse. Calling the Tao "heaven and earth" is going to be confusing and the "not kind" and "straw dogs" I don't see clicking with too many people as an unbiased nature of the Tao. Maybe you have some examples of where you think Feng is better or more correct.
If you're looking for readability and accuracy, the Feng/English and Sanderson Beck translations, in my opinion, work much better.[/quote]
The second translation doesn't seem coherent to me. I don't know about accuracy but I don't think many are going to understand that verse. Calling the Tao "heaven and earth" is going to be confusing and the "not kind" and "straw dogs" I don't see clicking with too many people as an unbiased nature of the Tao. Maybe you have some examples of where you think Feng is better or more correct.
[quote=""Elijah""]
Readers will need to read up on ancient Chinese culture, just a little, to avoid reading something into "heaven and earth" that isn't there. I'd rather the translators gave us the ancient Chinese view as much as possible; let the reader work it out.
If someone thinks "not kind" means cruel, they've committed a logical fallacy. That's not the translator's problem. If they think "straw dogs" is demeaning, then again they've read something into it that isn't there. Like I told SecularFuture in another thread, this isn't humanism. It's not my ecocentrism either. It's Tao-centrism. The advice here is for taking a more expansive view than the human view, where humans not only aren't nature's favored child but don't even have a uniquely human "being", something that's different from the rest of nature. Thus they are indeed "straw dogs" from this vantage-point.
The second translation doesn't seem coherent to me. I don't know about accuracy but I don't think many are going to understand that verse. Calling the Tao "heaven and earth" is going to be confusing and the "not kind" and "straw dogs" I don't see clicking with too many people as an unbiased nature of the Tao. Maybe you have some examples of where you think Feng is better or more correct.[/QUOTE]SecularFuture;5724812 wrote: If you're looking for readability and accuracy, the Feng/English and Sanderson Beck translations, in my opinion, work much better.
Readers will need to read up on ancient Chinese culture, just a little, to avoid reading something into "heaven and earth" that isn't there. I'd rather the translators gave us the ancient Chinese view as much as possible; let the reader work it out.
If someone thinks "not kind" means cruel, they've committed a logical fallacy. That's not the translator's problem. If they think "straw dogs" is demeaning, then again they've read something into it that isn't there. Like I told SecularFuture in another thread, this isn't humanism. It's not my ecocentrism either. It's Tao-centrism. The advice here is for taking a more expansive view than the human view, where humans not only aren't nature's favored child but don't even have a uniquely human "being", something that's different from the rest of nature. Thus they are indeed "straw dogs" from this vantage-point.