Mitchell's translation of part 50, in particular, has long resonated with me:
The Master gives himself upto whatever the moment brings.He knows that he is going to die,and he has nothing left to hold on to:no illusions in his mind,no resistances in his body.He doesn't think about his actions;they flow from the core of his being.He holds nothing back from life;therefore he is ready for death,as a man is ready for sleepafter a good day's work.
He admits (in the end notes, If I remember correctly) that this is not a literal translation; but comparing it to translations that do stick more closely to the original text I find that there's a lot here I prefer.
Very happy to see this as the top comment. His translation isn't word for word, he tried to translate the mind of Lao tzu after having been trained in Zen for 14 years.
"The above is the most accurate translation of the ancient classic available anywhere at any price."
I have read a few different translations in different languages, and the interpretations are often quite different. So I think this description is a bit too overconfident.
I have to think back to a pet project that I never realized in which I wanted to build a platform for people to provide their own interpretation/commentary on this Classic - something like a genius.com for Daoism and the Daodejing. This was specifically because I had noticed so many different translations and interpretations.
Nevertheless I appreciate the website, and anything to do with Daoism, and will be reading this translation as well.
A crowdsourced interpretation platform for spiritual texts is actually a really cool idea. It seems like people have already 'abused' genius.com for that purpose:
For those who want to compare a translation alongside the original (with pop-up boxes explaining the meanings of the original Chinese) look no further than Yellowbridge:
This website has helped me appreciate the imagery and structure of Mandarin, having never studied it before. I also appreciate the difficulty of translating such a poetic, ambiguous text as the Tao Te Ching or the related I Ching. Helps me understand how to "triangulate" the original meaning using multiple translations of the same source material.
“The above is the most accurate translation of the ancient classic available anywhere at any price.”
Quite a bold statement that immediately makes me very sceptical. When reading ancient classics in translation, the wisest approach is comparing multiple translations. Only then a more complete picture will emerge.
With this said, the Tao Te Ching is one of the most astonishing texts to ever be written. It hovers around what I see as an essential truth, pointing at it while intentionally avoiding defining it. Any translation and any form is worth being read.
I have recently been reading a new Italian translation of it, by Luigi Maggio and published by Bompiani, and I have been really appreciating its care for the mystic, shamanic origin of the text, and the deep discussions of each translation choice, together with the presence of the original text.
FWIW, I've wrote a tool to help translate from Chinese on a per-word basis using open ressources (dictionaries, decomposition table, etc.). In particular, it helps to recover some of the information lost when translating from Chinese.
It's a personal project for now, so some things are still rough (e.g. no way to add new books, and I haven't bothered with the Tao Te Ching yet). You can see how it works on the San Zi Jing here[0].
If some of you are interested or have any questions, don't hesitate to reach out; my email should be on the "about" page.
If you haven't read it yet I can highly recommend the Italian collection of translations by Augusto Shandena Sabbadini (curator), which also provides translations to each individual Chinese character in the book.
(btw looks like we commented almost the same thing at the same time.)
The problem of language is a common thread in eastern philosophies, and Western Idealist.
Language can't express the idea, but Language is the only way to pass the idea to others, but then what others hear is something not quite right and can be misinterpreted, which can lead to problems.
> It hovers around what I see as an essential truth
Yeah, and it opens with basically saying "look, we know that we're going to talk about things ill suited to be captured by language, so keep that it mind"
Most of those are not translations from Chinese, they are interpretations from already translated Chinese texts.
> With this said, the Tao Te Ching is one of the most astonishing texts to ever be written. It hovers around what I see as an essential truth, pointing at it while intentionally avoiding defining it. Any translation and any form is worth being read.
There is a lot missing in any translation of the Dao De Jing, because nothing really captures the various layers of meanings from the original. There are also some meanings that are made clear with realizations and gnosis (for the lack of a better term).
One of my favorite is Ursula K Le Guin’s rendering. Her version captures some of the poetry that I rarely find in more straightforward translation.
>When reading ancient classics in translation, the wisest approach is comparing multiple translations. Only then a more complete picture will emerge.
But if I can't read the original ancient Chinese, what good does comparing the translations do? I can tell which ones read better to me, but I have no idea if any of them are actually accurate.
I've thought about this for quite a bit and here is my relatively legible explanation of what the 'Dao' and synonymous concepts in other religions/cultures is
The "Path" is the arc from a state of anti-entropy(negentropy) to entropy. Negentropy is synonymous with "God" or goodness while entropy is the "Devil" or badness.
A life that is in "flow" is one that is on the path moving away from God's light while bravely facing death with eyes forward.
Courage is the first of all virtues b/c when facing forward, you are more thankful for each and every fleeting moment.
"False idols" are like perpetual motion machines, they seem like sources of negentropy and can reverse the arrow of time like a fountain of youth.
As someone with interest in Zen and Buddhism, I find that line of thought very interesting, but feel like it needs some tweaking somehow. I feel like they want to perhaps equalize anti-entropy and entropy...like, say, between plants and animals, O2 represents a waste product for the plant, and a vital input for the animal, and the CO2 a waste product for the animal, and an important input for the plant. When you don't take the perspective of either of them, you see entropy from one angle, and anti-entropy from another angle.
Below I put a bit from Zen master Huang Po on 'the fundamental principle'. The glorious Buddhas would represent anti-entropy, which you do not go toward. The horrific forms entropy, from which you do not move away. Equalized.
Anyway, interesting line of thought, only offering another perspective!
"If an ordinary man, when he is about to die, could only see the five elements of consciousness as void; the four physical elements as not constituting an 'I'; the real Mind as formless and neither coming nor going; his nature as something neither commencing at his birth nor perishing at his death, but as whole and motionless in its very depths; his Mind and environmental objects as one - if he could really accomplish this, he would receive Enlightenment in a flash. He would no longer be entangled by the Triple World; he would be a World-Transcendor. He would be without even the faintest tendency towards rebirth. If he should behold the glorious sight of all the Buddhas coming to welcome him, surrounded by every kind of gorgeous manifestation, he would feel no desire to approach them. If he should behold all sorts of horrific forms surrounding him, he would experience no terror. He would just be himself, oblivious of conceptual thought and one with the Absolute. He would have attained the state of unconditioned being. This, then, is the fundamental principle. [This paragraph is, perhaps, one of the finest exposition of Zen teaching, for it encompasses in a few words almost the entire scope of that vast and penetrating wisdom.]" - Huang Po
'At the time, I was newly infatuated with the writing of Quentin Tarantino and David Mamet, so my dream version of a TTC reflected the simplicity and grit of their dialogue.'
Here is how Hogan translates the first lines of the Tao Te Ching:
To really "get" the Tao Te Ching, I think you have to study Zen and Buddhism. Without getting an intuitive understanding of abstract phrases, talking about things with metaphors, stuff like emptyness and "the way" you're really not going to get anything out of it. You also need to have worked to master some craft or art form.
But once you do understand those things, the ideas in the Tao Te Ching are almost common sense. Stuff any somewhat wise person would understand immediately. You can pick any random line out of it and apply to almost any discipline or situation.
Its all really just a collection of basic worldly wisdom, that you would encounter doing anything if you put genuine effort into it.
Hell, take any art composition class and you can see most ideas in the Tao Te Ching applied literally. This is because in art, things like form, balance and emptyness are all basic building blocks to design
> To really "get" the Tao Te Ching, I think you have to study Zen and Buddhism.
TTC doesn't really require a particular framework to understand. It is however difficult to grok from with a Western/Christian philosophical framework. So studying Eastern philosophy could indeed help break down those preconceptions if one suffers from them.
Zen evolved from Chinese Chan Buddhism which was influenced by Daoism. Zen is not Daoism though, it is Buddhism. Therefore, to study Daoist texts as a beginner I don't think Zen Buddhism is going to help. It's just going to muddy concepts whatever overlap there may be.
The “most accurate translation” of the first line of the Tao Te Ching (The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao) would be “Tao that is Tao is not Tao”. The original Chinese leaves a lot of room for interpretation, and the best translation (in my opinion) is by Gia-Fu Feng & Jane English.
IIRC Smullyan "literally" translates a modern "literal" Chinese translation as "The Tao that can be Taoed is not the true Tao" which I think is a little more accessible without meaningful compromise.
(I cribbed that for my personal rendering as "Tao that is 'tao' is not really tao" and it's one of the few lines I don't think I changed in many years. Maybe it's something other programmers will appreciate.)
Some identify Tao (道) with Ṛta (ऋत) and with Logos (λόγος). And perhaps most interesting is the first chapter of the Gospel of John, which identifies Christ with the Logos (Incarnate) (though one can be forgiven for missing this because translations into most languages result in seemingly inscrutable constructions like "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."; "Word" is horribly anemic in comparison to "Logos"). Given this equivalence, this could result in interesting dialogue between, say, Catholics, Hindus, and Taoists. (The pagan Greeks were already in dialogue with early Christians, of course, hence the use of the extremely Greek word in question in the New Testament.)
Section 1 can be understood in terms of the incomprehensible "Logos" which is before both the "logoi" (in Latin, "ratio"; that is, "reasons") in things, as well as before the human "logos"; the rational mind by which we can understand those things.
Section 4 has parallels to many Biblical passages (Isaiah 40:4, John 4:14, etc) and speaks of the Tao as being like an "offspring" or "preface" to God.
Likewise, Sections 7-9, 13 & 14, 16, 22, 27, and many others have strong parallels to Biblical passages.
Section 42 speaks of the Tao begetting One, the One begetting Two, the Two begetting Three, and the Three begetting all else. This is definitely not exactly the Trinity, but the cosmology here (and see the Taijitu Shuo) is suggestive...
Section 78 says that only one who takes up the shame and sins of the world is fit to be its ruler.
Anywhere one can find concepts or themes that "rhyme", I find there to be something real and weighty.
The only time I've ever read the Tao Te Ching, I had just hitchhiked 350 miles in the name of love and hadn't slept in about 48 hours. I think that's the ideal state to read it.
The book of ancient wisdom about Taoism from an isolated nation with a completely different language sounding vaguely like "Tao Teaching" really stressed me out when I first learned about it. It's no wonder paranoid schizophrenics get so wild, coincidences are sometimes alarmingly weird.
It's interesting to me how Daoism from China and Hermeticism from Greco-Egyptian culture erose from very separate places with very similar themes. Both traditions emphasize the idea of a universal force or principle governing the cosmos (the Tao in Daoism and the All or the 0ne in Hermeticism).
This is probably due to a built-in preference in our minds for something we later started calling Occam's razor.
Obviously there must have been something that started it all, and if there were n+1 things at some time, there might have been n things before, leading to the conclusion that there must once have been 1 thing.
These philosophies arise multiple times per evening in any pub where alcohol is served. It's just that most don't stick around for long enough, possibly due to bad marketing.
Hermeticism was influenced by Daoism and Daoism was around way before Hermeticism as a folk religion and shamanistic practice. Daosim was centrifuged as early as 500BCE, a good 200 years before Hermeticism.
It is most likely there was some cultural interactions, ie, the Dayuan
Fair question. I think it’s similar to the art of war by Sun Tzu, very abstract principles that one can still use for strategic guidance on conflict situations. The main value of Sun Tzu’s book was the realization that deception is one of the top strategies, but it only has limited applicability.
As for the Tao Te Ching, many interesting ideas can be extracted on how to deal with contemporary challenges.
Would probably stand up to the test of time, say a little better than if we put the bible under some testing for "verified via some kind of socioeconomic data analysis".
Really, it says right at the beginning, that the ideas can't be communicated by language, these are some pretty aloof descriptions. Not sure testing is how we should value ancient texts.
The Art of War is held up as some great text, but it has a lot of contradictions, and bad advice. (Not sure on this) Wish I had link, but apparently it was not used by generals in ancient times, it was more of a puff piece by a non-military writer.
I recently created my own translation with annotations based on chatgpt. It’s hard to state what is the “most accurate” translation, as there’s several ancient versions of the Tao Te Ching. The most popular one is from a guy named Wang Bi. He was actually a Confucian and sought to integrate both philosophical currents, which had been in opposition in the past centuries. Who’s to say what is “accurate” in this context.
If anyone’s interested, send me a DM and I’ll send you the PDF, or if not, you can check it out on Amazon, it’s called “Tao Te Ching: Reinterpreted”.
[+] [-] thisisauserid|2 years ago|reply
Then go back and reread The Dispossessed and you'll see a lot of the Tao in it.
[+] [-] johnthescott|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jayavanth|2 years ago|reply
https://stephenmitchellbooks.com/translations-adaptations/ta...
This page posts one every day https://dailytao.org/
[+] [-] jwx48|2 years ago|reply
The Master gives himself up to whatever the moment brings. He knows that he is going to die, and he has nothing left to hold on to: no illusions in his mind, no resistances in his body. He doesn't think about his actions; they flow from the core of his being. He holds nothing back from life; therefore he is ready for death, as a man is ready for sleep after a good day's work.
He admits (in the end notes, If I remember correctly) that this is not a literal translation; but comparing it to translations that do stick more closely to the original text I find that there's a lot here I prefer.
[+] [-] vorpalhex|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bottlepalm|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] specproc|2 years ago|reply
https://terebess.hu/english/tao/ron.html
[+] [-] dudefeliciano|2 years ago|reply
I have read a few different translations in different languages, and the interpretations are often quite different. So I think this description is a bit too overconfident.
I have to think back to a pet project that I never realized in which I wanted to build a platform for people to provide their own interpretation/commentary on this Classic - something like a genius.com for Daoism and the Daodejing. This was specifically because I had noticed so many different translations and interpretations.
Nevertheless I appreciate the website, and anything to do with Daoism, and will be reading this translation as well.
[+] [-] tcmb|2 years ago|reply
Bhagavad Gita: https://genius.com/artists/Bhagavad-gita
King James Bible: https://genius.com/artists/Holy-bible-kjv
Tao Te Ching: https://genius.com/albums/Laozi/Tao-te-ching
[+] [-] uoaei|2 years ago|reply
https://www.yellowbridge.com/onlinelit/daodejing.php
This website has helped me appreciate the imagery and structure of Mandarin, having never studied it before. I also appreciate the difficulty of translating such a poetic, ambiguous text as the Tao Te Ching or the related I Ching. Helps me understand how to "triangulate" the original meaning using multiple translations of the same source material.
[+] [-] rijoja|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dantondwa|2 years ago|reply
Quite a bold statement that immediately makes me very sceptical. When reading ancient classics in translation, the wisest approach is comparing multiple translations. Only then a more complete picture will emerge.
This website allows one to compare some translations side by side: https://ttc.tasuki.org/display:Code:gff,sm,jc,rh
With this said, the Tao Te Ching is one of the most astonishing texts to ever be written. It hovers around what I see as an essential truth, pointing at it while intentionally avoiding defining it. Any translation and any form is worth being read.
I have recently been reading a new Italian translation of it, by Luigi Maggio and published by Bompiani, and I have been really appreciating its care for the mystic, shamanic origin of the text, and the deep discussions of each translation choice, together with the presence of the original text.
[+] [-] mbivert|2 years ago|reply
It's a personal project for now, so some things are still rough (e.g. no way to add new books, and I haven't bothered with the Tao Te Ching yet). You can see how it works on the San Zi Jing here[0].
If some of you are interested or have any questions, don't hesitate to reach out; my email should be on the "about" page.
[0]: https://zhongmu.eu/trbook.html#c=1;w=6;b=san-zi-jing
[+] [-] mkovach|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dudefeliciano|2 years ago|reply
(btw looks like we commented almost the same thing at the same time.)
[+] [-] FrustratedMonky|2 years ago|reply
Language can't express the idea, but Language is the only way to pass the idea to others, but then what others hear is something not quite right and can be misinterpreted, which can lead to problems.
Huang Po - Zen
Wittgenstein - West
[+] [-] fnordsensei|2 years ago|reply
Yeah, and it opens with basically saying "look, we know that we're going to talk about things ill suited to be captured by language, so keep that it mind"
[+] [-] keyle|2 years ago|reply
The whole thing is fascinating to me.
[+] [-] FollowingTheDao|2 years ago|reply
Most of those are not translations from Chinese, they are interpretations from already translated Chinese texts.
> With this said, the Tao Te Ching is one of the most astonishing texts to ever be written. It hovers around what I see as an essential truth, pointing at it while intentionally avoiding defining it. Any translation and any form is worth being read.
I agree.
[+] [-] hosh|2 years ago|reply
One of my favorite is Ursula K Le Guin’s rendering. Her version captures some of the poetry that I rarely find in more straightforward translation.
[+] [-] LiquidSky|2 years ago|reply
But if I can't read the original ancient Chinese, what good does comparing the translations do? I can tell which ones read better to me, but I have no idea if any of them are actually accurate.
[+] [-] superb-owl|2 years ago|reply
https://blog.superb-owl.link/p/taoism-minus-the-nonsense
[+] [-] notShabu|2 years ago|reply
The "Path" is the arc from a state of anti-entropy(negentropy) to entropy. Negentropy is synonymous with "God" or goodness while entropy is the "Devil" or badness.
A life that is in "flow" is one that is on the path moving away from God's light while bravely facing death with eyes forward.
Courage is the first of all virtues b/c when facing forward, you are more thankful for each and every fleeting moment.
"False idols" are like perpetual motion machines, they seem like sources of negentropy and can reverse the arrow of time like a fountain of youth.
etc...
[+] [-] theonemind|2 years ago|reply
Below I put a bit from Zen master Huang Po on 'the fundamental principle'. The glorious Buddhas would represent anti-entropy, which you do not go toward. The horrific forms entropy, from which you do not move away. Equalized.
Anyway, interesting line of thought, only offering another perspective!
"If an ordinary man, when he is about to die, could only see the five elements of consciousness as void; the four physical elements as not constituting an 'I'; the real Mind as formless and neither coming nor going; his nature as something neither commencing at his birth nor perishing at his death, but as whole and motionless in its very depths; his Mind and environmental objects as one - if he could really accomplish this, he would receive Enlightenment in a flash. He would no longer be entangled by the Triple World; he would be a World-Transcendor. He would be without even the faintest tendency towards rebirth. If he should behold the glorious sight of all the Buddhas coming to welcome him, surrounded by every kind of gorgeous manifestation, he would feel no desire to approach them. If he should behold all sorts of horrific forms surrounding him, he would experience no terror. He would just be himself, oblivious of conceptual thought and one with the Absolute. He would have attained the state of unconditioned being. This, then, is the fundamental principle. [This paragraph is, perhaps, one of the finest exposition of Zen teaching, for it encompasses in a few words almost the entire scope of that vast and penetrating wisdom.]" - Huang Po
[+] [-] unknown|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] slantaclaus|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sanatgersappa|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bravura|2 years ago|reply
Here is how Hogan translates the first lines of the Tao Te Ching:
If you can talk about it,
it ain't Tao.
If it has a name,
it's just another thing.
[+] [-] calebm|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] timacles|2 years ago|reply
But once you do understand those things, the ideas in the Tao Te Ching are almost common sense. Stuff any somewhat wise person would understand immediately. You can pick any random line out of it and apply to almost any discipline or situation.
Its all really just a collection of basic worldly wisdom, that you would encounter doing anything if you put genuine effort into it.
Hell, take any art composition class and you can see most ideas in the Tao Te Ching applied literally. This is because in art, things like form, balance and emptyness are all basic building blocks to design
[+] [-] vorpalhex|2 years ago|reply
You will get the most from Taoism by studying it with the mind of a beginner or a child than entering into it with preconceived ideologies.
[+] [-] pphysch|2 years ago|reply
TTC doesn't really require a particular framework to understand. It is however difficult to grok from with a Western/Christian philosophical framework. So studying Eastern philosophy could indeed help break down those preconceptions if one suffers from them.
[+] [-] jmfldn|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] primitivesuave|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] morelisp|2 years ago|reply
(I cribbed that for my personal rendering as "Tao that is 'tao' is not really tao" and it's one of the few lines I don't think I changed in many years. Maybe it's something other programmers will appreciate.)
[+] [-] lo_zamoyski|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cjameskeller|2 years ago|reply
Section 1 can be understood in terms of the incomprehensible "Logos" which is before both the "logoi" (in Latin, "ratio"; that is, "reasons") in things, as well as before the human "logos"; the rational mind by which we can understand those things.
Section 4 has parallels to many Biblical passages (Isaiah 40:4, John 4:14, etc) and speaks of the Tao as being like an "offspring" or "preface" to God.
Likewise, Sections 7-9, 13 & 14, 16, 22, 27, and many others have strong parallels to Biblical passages.
Section 42 speaks of the Tao begetting One, the One begetting Two, the Two begetting Three, and the Three begetting all else. This is definitely not exactly the Trinity, but the cosmology here (and see the Taijitu Shuo) is suggestive...
Section 78 says that only one who takes up the shame and sins of the world is fit to be its ruler.
Anywhere one can find concepts or themes that "rhyme", I find there to be something real and weighty.
[+] [-] mjklin|2 years ago|reply
https://youtu.be/EJ1bB2w2gBk?si=qxBQq9KiL6pSom2Q
[+] [-] drcongo|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Boogie_Man|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] blastro|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jadbox|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] smokel|2 years ago|reply
Obviously there must have been something that started it all, and if there were n+1 things at some time, there might have been n things before, leading to the conclusion that there must once have been 1 thing.
These philosophies arise multiple times per evening in any pub where alcohol is served. It's just that most don't stick around for long enough, possibly due to bad marketing.
[+] [-] FollowingTheDao|2 years ago|reply
It is most likely there was some cultural interactions, ie, the Dayuan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dayuan
[+] [-] modernpink|2 years ago|reply
For example, the following could be verified via some kind of socioeconomic data analysis:
>Do not glorify the achievers
>So the people will not squabble
[+] [-] MadSudaca|2 years ago|reply
As for the Tao Te Ching, many interesting ideas can be extracted on how to deal with contemporary challenges.
[+] [-] edgyquant|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] FrustratedMonky|2 years ago|reply
Really, it says right at the beginning, that the ideas can't be communicated by language, these are some pretty aloof descriptions. Not sure testing is how we should value ancient texts.
The Art of War is held up as some great text, but it has a lot of contradictions, and bad advice. (Not sure on this) Wish I had link, but apparently it was not used by generals in ancient times, it was more of a puff piece by a non-military writer.
[+] [-] MadSudaca|2 years ago|reply
If anyone’s interested, send me a DM and I’ll send you the PDF, or if not, you can check it out on Amazon, it’s called “Tao Te Ching: Reinterpreted”.
[+] [-] zaphod420|2 years ago|reply
"The tao that can be told is not the eternal tao."