5 ms·

I remember reading Stephen Mitchell's version waaaay back in 1991, when I was still young and impressionable. There was one line that really blew me away in his

I remember reading Stephen Mitchell's version waaaay back in 1991, when I was still young and impressionable. There was one line that really blew me away in his translation, and I might be remembering it slightly incorrectly: "The Tao is older than God".

vitiral 3y ago
https://terebess.hu/english/tao/mitchell.html https://terebess.hu/english/tao/mitchell.html 4 The Tao is like a well: used but never used up. It is like the eternal void: filled with infinite possibilities. It is hidden but always present. I don't know who gave birth to it. It is older than God. My favorite, although my favorite depends on the season 9 Fill your bowl to the brim and it will spill. Keep sharpening your knife and it will blunt. Chase after money and security and your heart will never unclench. Care about people's approval and you will be their prisoner. Do your work, then step back. The only path to serenity.
- Jach 3y ago
  9 is my favorite, too.
  - Podgajski 3y ago
    9 strikes a dagger into the heart of capitalism.
    - Jach 3y ago
      Not really
      - Podgajski 3y ago
        Well verse 53 twists the knife https://twitter.com/yoginho/status/1244892104196870146 https://twitter.com/yoginho/status/1244892104196870146
        Jach 3y ago
        Not really, that chapter is more about irresponsible nobles. Starving the farmers and consequently others is rather characteristic of communism, I would say. A better chapter to make your point would be chapter 80. But if all one tries to use the tao te ching for is scoring points for or against some ism, a large point has been missed.
        the_other 3y ago
        > Starving the farmers and consequently others is rather characteristic of communism, You're confusing communism with dictatorship. Communism is about communal ownership, and likely some version of worker-ownership ("own the means of production"). If the system, or its leaders, are starving the farmers, and the farmers and their customers can't actively negotiate against that practice, you don't have communism at all.
        Podgajski 3y ago
        Dao-ism is the only ism I see. It’s not about scoring points, it is trying to live in accord with the Dao. 80? That is about government! What about 19?? Give up ingenuity, renounce profit, And bandits and thieves will disappear. 29? Do you think you can take over the universe and improve it? I do not believe it can be done. 66? Because he does not compete, He does not meet competition.
- stillconfused 3y ago
  Here is Red Pine's translation of both, in case you are interested. He spent ~20 years including substantial time in monasteries studying Chinese classics. His translation is much more tightly linked to the actual work. 4: The Tao is so empty those who use it never become full again and so deep as if were the ancestor of us all it dulls our edges unties our tangles softens our light and merges our dust it's so clear as if it were present I wonder whose child it is it seems it was here before Ti 9: Instead of pouring in more better stop while you can making it sharper won't help it last longer rooms full of treasure can never be safe the vanity of success invites its own failure when your work is done retire this is the Way of Heaven Notice how different, in particular, 4. The text reads much, much closer to Red Pine's translation. The 4th line literally reads "deep !", but that word is nowhere to be found in Mitchell's translation. I strongly recommend Red Pine!
  - vitiral 3y ago
    Are there two versions in the same translation? You gave two versions to number 9 in this very post!
    - stillconfused 3y ago
      Hi- Those are the same translation (Red Pine's) of the two sections from Mitchell that you quoted, 4 and 9. They are quite different than Mitchell, and correspond about as closely as one can to the text (given assumptions on punctuation; Classical Chinese was not punctuated). To give a bit more detail of the first one, 4: Mitchell 4a: The Tao is like a well: used but never used up. It is like the eternal void: filled with infinite possibilities. 1. The original text does not mention a well. 2. those who use it are not full, not the Tao not used up. 3. there is no mention of eternal voids just a lack of fullness for users. 4. there is no mention of infinite impossibilities, but it is possible "as it were the ancestor of us all" is mistranslated by Mitchell where "all" wan wu (literally 10,000 things) is translated as infinite, and the ancestor part is dropped. Mitchel 4b: <blank> It appears Mitchell skips the middle part of the section, which discusses dulled edges, tangles, light, and dust. Mitchell 4c: It is hidden but always present. I don't know who gave birth to it. It is older than God. 1. The first half is clear / as if it were present, not hidden. The rest is reasonable. By all means if you found something in Mitchell, enjoy, but he's taken many liberties while translated a language he did not understand, and so it doesn't match the original text as well as other alternatives.
- imchillyb 3y ago
  It’s almost as if they’re saying: “Vanity of vanities, all is vanity and grasping of the wind… “There is nothing better for a person than that he should eat and drink and find enjoyment in his toil. This also, I saw, is from the hand of God,” -‭‭Ecclesiastes‬
  - vitiral 3y ago
    IIUC much of the bible's "wisdom" is taken from older root traditions. According to Mitchell's (the same Mitchell, he IS an expert in ancient Hebrew) translation of Job the entire book isn't even about a Jew but is far older.
    - imchillyb 3y ago
      Ecclesiastes was written by King Solomon, King David's son. The wisdom of Solomon was so great, the Queen of Bathsheeba made a year-long journey just to hear him. The time of Solomon, and his accomplishments, are not taken from older traditions but from the man himself. Perhaps read some for yourself. The Bible doesn't indoctrinate people do that. The Bible has so much wisdom and knowledge packed within its pages I'm not sure why people are so reticent to peruse or even read through it. The Bible doesn't bite, but it certainly does cut to the quick.
      - throwaway626 3y ago
        Qohelet was most likely compiled by multiple authors well after the Babylonian conquest. The presence of loanwords in the text makes a date in the 10th century BCE highly unlikely. Solomon the Biblical personage probably never existed. No archaeological evidence, as far as I’m aware, has been found.
MrRolleyes 3y ago
Stephen Mitchell's translation is excellent. I also like Ursula K Le Guin's. It's not a good general-purpose text, but it's quite interesting which meanings she draws out of the text.
datadrivenangel 3y ago
It's not perfect, but Stephen Mitchell's translation of the Tao is wonderful. A wrong translation being perfect is the eternal Tao.
OfSanguineFire 3y ago
Stephen Mitchell has no real training in Old Chinese.[0] His “translation” is simply repackaging or distorting what was found in earlier, informed translations, for the sake of a publishing industry keen to cash in on “wisdom lit”. He is an analogue of Coleman Barks the Rumi “translator” who doesn’t know Persian, and Brooks Haxton the Heraclitus “translator” without a background in Greek. [0] https://academic.oup.com/litthe/article-abstract/34/4/486/6029275 https://academic.oup.com/litthe/article-abstract/34/4/486/60...
- stillconfused 3y ago
  [dead]
- palad1n 3y ago
  Wow, I had no idea. Like I said, that was so long ago. Interesting the notes in the abstract of that paper, that he infused Christian and Buddhist ideas. It might be why I took to it so well.
- vitiral 3y ago
  He has translated many works from other ancient languages and is a trained Zen monk. In the spirit of Taoism he is likely a better translator than an intellectual. The work is brief. There is room for multiple translations and interpretations.
  - OfSanguineFire 3y ago
    > He has translated many works from other ancient languages Not really. Most of his other "translations" from ancient languages were made the same way as with the Tao te ching: he simply rewrote existing translations. As far as I can tell, the Book of Job translation is the only one made from the source text. I don’t think you understand how notorious Mitchell has been within the field of literary translation for decades now. > is a trained Zen monk. Zen and Taoism are different philosophical systems. As the linked paper underlines, choosing someone with a background in Zen to translate that foundational work of Taoism, was peculiar, but it is understandable within the context of a Western publishing market that wants to cash in on wisdom lit and doesn’t really care about the details of Asian religions. > There is room for multiple translations and interpretations. Attention is finite and marketing is dishonest. There are myriads of people out there for whom the Mitchell Tao te ching is the only one they will be exposed to, and they won’t even be aware that it isn’t a real translation and they will need to consult other translations in order to make up for that.
nimbleal 3y ago
I think the line you’re referring to is 象帝之先. I haven’t studied ancient Chinese (speak modern mandarin) but that would approximate to: 象 has the appearance of/seems to 帝 the Di, the highest or supreme deity/Zeus like king-of-the-gods 之先 A (the Dao) comes (typically chronologically or in terms of precedence) prior to B (The Di) I think there may be an analogy to neo Platonic emanations (including as imagined by Christian thinkers ) in Western thought where the One or ground of Being comes logically prior to the gods/angels/spiritual powers etc.

vitiral 3y ago

https://terebess.hu/english/tao/mitchell.html https://terebess.hu/english/tao/mitchell.html 4 The Tao is like a well: used but never used up. It is like the eternal void: filled with infinite possibilities. It is hidden but always present. I don't know who gave birth to it. It is older than God. My favorite, although my favorite depends on the season 9 Fill your bowl to the brim and it will spill. Keep sharpening your knife and it will blunt. Chase after money and security and your heart will never unclench. Care about people's approval and you will be their prisoner. Do your work, then step back. The only path to serenity.

Jach 3y ago
9 is my favorite, too.
- Podgajski 3y ago
  9 strikes a dagger into the heart of capitalism.
  - Jach 3y ago
    Not really
    - Podgajski 3y ago
      Well verse 53 twists the knife https://twitter.com/yoginho/status/1244892104196870146 https://twitter.com/yoginho/status/1244892104196870146
      - Jach 3y ago
        Not really, that chapter is more about irresponsible nobles. Starving the farmers and consequently others is rather characteristic of communism, I would say. A better chapter to make your point would be chapter 80. But if all one tries to use the tao te ching for is scoring points for or against some ism, a large point has been missed.
        the_other 3y ago
        > Starving the farmers and consequently others is rather characteristic of communism, You're confusing communism with dictatorship. Communism is about communal ownership, and likely some version of worker-ownership ("own the means of production"). If the system, or its leaders, are starving the farmers, and the farmers and their customers can't actively negotiate against that practice, you don't have communism at all.
        Podgajski 3y ago
        Dao-ism is the only ism I see. It’s not about scoring points, it is trying to live in accord with the Dao. 80? That is about government! What about 19?? Give up ingenuity, renounce profit, And bandits and thieves will disappear. 29? Do you think you can take over the universe and improve it? I do not believe it can be done. 66? Because he does not compete, He does not meet competition.
stillconfused 3y ago
Here is Red Pine's translation of both, in case you are interested. He spent ~20 years including substantial time in monasteries studying Chinese classics. His translation is much more tightly linked to the actual work. 4: The Tao is so empty those who use it never become full again and so deep as if were the ancestor of us all it dulls our edges unties our tangles softens our light and merges our dust it's so clear as if it were present I wonder whose child it is it seems it was here before Ti 9: Instead of pouring in more better stop while you can making it sharper won't help it last longer rooms full of treasure can never be safe the vanity of success invites its own failure when your work is done retire this is the Way of Heaven Notice how different, in particular, 4. The text reads much, much closer to Red Pine's translation. The 4th line literally reads "deep !", but that word is nowhere to be found in Mitchell's translation. I strongly recommend Red Pine!
- vitiral 3y ago
  Are there two versions in the same translation? You gave two versions to number 9 in this very post!
  - stillconfused 3y ago
    Hi- Those are the same translation (Red Pine's) of the two sections from Mitchell that you quoted, 4 and 9. They are quite different than Mitchell, and correspond about as closely as one can to the text (given assumptions on punctuation; Classical Chinese was not punctuated). To give a bit more detail of the first one, 4: Mitchell 4a: The Tao is like a well: used but never used up. It is like the eternal void: filled with infinite possibilities. 1. The original text does not mention a well. 2. those who use it are not full, not the Tao not used up. 3. there is no mention of eternal voids just a lack of fullness for users. 4. there is no mention of infinite impossibilities, but it is possible "as it were the ancestor of us all" is mistranslated by Mitchell where "all" wan wu (literally 10,000 things) is translated as infinite, and the ancestor part is dropped. Mitchel 4b: <blank> It appears Mitchell skips the middle part of the section, which discusses dulled edges, tangles, light, and dust. Mitchell 4c: It is hidden but always present. I don't know who gave birth to it. It is older than God. 1. The first half is clear / as if it were present, not hidden. The rest is reasonable. By all means if you found something in Mitchell, enjoy, but he's taken many liberties while translated a language he did not understand, and so it doesn't match the original text as well as other alternatives.
imchillyb 3y ago
It’s almost as if they’re saying: “Vanity of vanities, all is vanity and grasping of the wind… “There is nothing better for a person than that he should eat and drink and find enjoyment in his toil. This also, I saw, is from the hand of God,” -‭‭Ecclesiastes‬
- vitiral 3y ago
  IIUC much of the bible's "wisdom" is taken from older root traditions. According to Mitchell's (the same Mitchell, he IS an expert in ancient Hebrew) translation of Job the entire book isn't even about a Jew but is far older.
  - imchillyb 3y ago
    Ecclesiastes was written by King Solomon, King David's son. The wisdom of Solomon was so great, the Queen of Bathsheeba made a year-long journey just to hear him. The time of Solomon, and his accomplishments, are not taken from older traditions but from the man himself. Perhaps read some for yourself. The Bible doesn't indoctrinate people do that. The Bible has so much wisdom and knowledge packed within its pages I'm not sure why people are so reticent to peruse or even read through it. The Bible doesn't bite, but it certainly does cut to the quick.
    - throwaway626 3y ago
      Qohelet was most likely compiled by multiple authors well after the Babylonian conquest. The presence of loanwords in the text makes a date in the 10th century BCE highly unlikely. Solomon the Biblical personage probably never existed. No archaeological evidence, as far as I’m aware, has been found.

MrRolleyes 3y ago

Stephen Mitchell's translation is excellent. I also like Ursula K Le Guin's. It's not a good general-purpose text, but it's quite interesting which meanings she draws out of the text.

datadrivenangel 3y ago

It's not perfect, but Stephen Mitchell's translation of the Tao is wonderful. A wrong translation being perfect is the eternal Tao.

OfSanguineFire 3y ago

Stephen Mitchell has no real training in Old Chinese.[0] His “translation” is simply repackaging or distorting what was found in earlier, informed translations, for the sake of a publishing industry keen to cash in on “wisdom lit”. He is an analogue of Coleman Barks the Rumi “translator” who doesn’t know Persian, and Brooks Haxton the Heraclitus “translator” without a background in Greek. [0] https://academic.oup.com/litthe/article-abstract/34/4/486/6029275 https://academic.oup.com/litthe/article-abstract/34/4/486/60...

stillconfused 3y ago
[dead]
palad1n 3y ago
Wow, I had no idea. Like I said, that was so long ago. Interesting the notes in the abstract of that paper, that he infused Christian and Buddhist ideas. It might be why I took to it so well.
vitiral 3y ago
He has translated many works from other ancient languages and is a trained Zen monk. In the spirit of Taoism he is likely a better translator than an intellectual. The work is brief. There is room for multiple translations and interpretations.
- OfSanguineFire 3y ago
  > He has translated many works from other ancient languages Not really. Most of his other "translations" from ancient languages were made the same way as with the Tao te ching: he simply rewrote existing translations. As far as I can tell, the Book of Job translation is the only one made from the source text. I don’t think you understand how notorious Mitchell has been within the field of literary translation for decades now. > is a trained Zen monk. Zen and Taoism are different philosophical systems. As the linked paper underlines, choosing someone with a background in Zen to translate that foundational work of Taoism, was peculiar, but it is understandable within the context of a Western publishing market that wants to cash in on wisdom lit and doesn’t really care about the details of Asian religions. > There is room for multiple translations and interpretations. Attention is finite and marketing is dishonest. There are myriads of people out there for whom the Mitchell Tao te ching is the only one they will be exposed to, and they won’t even be aware that it isn’t a real translation and they will need to consult other translations in order to make up for that.

nimbleal 3y ago

I think the line you’re referring to is 象帝之先. I haven’t studied ancient Chinese (speak modern mandarin) but that would approximate to: 象 has the appearance of/seems to 帝 the Di, the highest or supreme deity/Zeus like king-of-the-gods 之先 A (the Dao) comes (typically chronologically or in terms of precedence) prior to B (The Di) I think there may be an analogy to neo Platonic emanations (including as imagined by Christian thinkers ) in Western thought where the One or ground of Being comes logically prior to the gods/angels/spiritual powers etc.