5 ms·

From the bottom: > This is a rendition, not a translation. I do not know any Chinese. I could approach the text at all only because Paul Carus, in his 1898 tra

From the bottom: > This is a rendition, not a translation. I do not know any Chinese. I could approach the text at all only because Paul Carus, in his 1898 translation of the Tao Te Ching, printed the Chinese text with each character followed by a transliteration and a translation. My gratitude to him is unending.

raincole 8mo ago
Honestly, even if you know Chinese, it's very hard to translate Tao Te Ching into English. Hell, it's hard to translate it into Chinese. Even the first paragraph is controversial. For example this rendition says: > The name you can say > isn’t the real name. However, in a 5th century interpretation[0], it's more akin to: > The fame and wealth the mortals praise are not a natural state. (My extremely simplified paraphrasing) [0]: https://ctext.org/wiki.pl?if=gb&chapter=491818 https://ctext.org/wiki.pl?if=gb&chapter=491818
- roromainmain 8mo ago
  Interesting. Your comparison reminds me of something from Lacanian psychoanalysis: the idea that people often mistake themselves for the symbolic labels they occupy, their title for instance. Like a doctor who would praise himself for being a doctor, a president a president. From that perspective, both versions of the Tao Te Ching line point to the same thing: what can be named, praised, or socially recognized isn’t the true underlying reality. Different phrasing, but the same structural idea.
  - hosh 8mo ago
    More generalized, any kind of symbol representing something is not the something. The social labelling is very accessible, true now and true then. There’s a Zen koan about that (with Zen coming from Chang which came from a meeting of Buddhism and Taoism in China) — about the finger pointing to the moon, and how all but one student looked at the finger. In a different example, there is the distinction of virtue signaling and virtue (the “Te” in “Tao Te Ching”)
- polotics 8mo ago
  Thank you, this there is the first version I see that feels like it's got solid cultural context. I like Ursula's version and have read her books over the years, but for example when she write "mystery" in there I always felt she was dropping the ball a bit.
- prewett 8mo ago
  I didn't encounter the Dao de Jing until later in life, but the opening bit has always seemed straightforward to me. I first saw it as "the way that can be described is not the Way", but also "the way that can be traveled is not the eternal Way". That is, the eternal (spiritual) Way cannot be concretized, just as a name is not the real thing. Or, given that this is HN, "the software development methodology that can be executed like a program is not software development methodology". ("The Agile that can be PM'd is not Agile.") However, I think it might require some life maturity to recognize that. Certainly a recovery from Englightenment rationalism. My person experience is that an understanding that "the name that can be named/identified is not the eternal Name" and "the way that can be walked is not the eternal Way" took me until around my 40s to appreciate. Daoism also appears to have taken a literalist turn (ironically). The book "Taoism: the Parting of the Ways" [1], by (former) Harvard Professor Holmes Welch, interprets the text as being a guide to a mystical way of living, similar to St. John of the Cross (minus the Christian part), which is fascinating. Then he describes how the two main factions took the text literally, and how that evolved. [1] I have a summary at http://geoffprewett.com/BookReviews/TaoismThePartingOfTheWay.html http://geoffprewett.com/BookReviews/TaoismThePartingOfTheWay...
  - mbivert 8mo ago
    > but the opening bit has always seemed straightforward to me the a/symmetry of the opening bits in Chinese, visually echoes a taiji: > 道可道， > 非恆道； > 名可名， > 非恆名。 given the diversity of translations available for those bits, I think it's fair to say that there's room for debate regarding their exact meaning − dare I say amusingly, by being certain one understand what it means, somehow one really does not. Lao-Tseu may have been way, way wiser than average.
    - sifar 8mo ago
      Exactly. It subrly hints at the limitations of language in capturing true understanding. This is something I was impressed with. Almost every other ancient text starts of being full of certainty or being the authoratitve truth.
      - 8mo ago
- getpost 8mo ago
  > it's hard to translate it into Chinese. It's a text about non-duality, among other things. Like the Heart Sutra, or the Diamond Sutra, or 101 Zen Stories, it's not supposed to make sense in an ordinary way. A successful translation is, like the original, intended to catalyze a shift in awareness. EDIT: For those with a nerdy or scholarly bent, I suggest Red Pine's translation[0], which includes translation of historically relevant commentaries. [0] https://www.amazon.com/Lao-tzus-Taoteching-Lao-Tzu/dp/1556592906 https://www.amazon.com/Lao-tzus-Taoteching-Lao-Tzu/dp/155659...
- phendrenad2 8mo ago
  How can something translate into both of those things? The second translation doesn't have the concept of "saying" anything and the first translation says nothing about "wealth".
  - t-3 8mo ago
    "dao" has multiple meanings; a road or path (extended by metaphor into philosophy), as well to speak or explain. So "dao ke dao fei chang dao", which dao has which meaning? How about the other characters, alone or in multi-character readings?
lubujackson 8mo ago
Having done a similar "rendition" to a book of poetry, I agree it is not the same as translating directly. It does open up a question about the fuzziness of "what is even translation?" Especially when we talk about translating historic writing. Yes, not knowing the source language is a huge barrier. But so is not knowing specific cultural touchstones or references in the text. In-depth translations usually transliterate as a part of the process. Many words and language patterns are untranslatable, which is why perfect translations are impossible. When translating poetry, issues of meter and rhythm are even more important. It comes down to what the purpose of a translation is meant to achieve. Yes, there are ideas and themes but there is no hiding the fact that translators always imprint their own perspective on a work - it's unavoidable and personally shouldn't even be the goal. Most translators of popular texts look closely at other translations to "triangulate" on meaning and authorial intent. Older translations may use archaic writing but have historical understanding, well-researched translations may be more precise about tricky words or concepts. More "writerly" translations tend to rebuild the work from the building blocks and produce a more cohesive whole. None of these are wrong approaches. I like the term "rendition" because it throws away the concept of the "authoritative translation". I like to think of translations the same way as cover songs. The best covers may be wildly different from the original but they share the same roots. As a reader, if you can't ever "hear" the original because you don't know thr language you can still appreciate someone's "cover version", or triangulate the original by reading multiple translations.
- riffraff 8mo ago
  For those with a passing interest in this topic and quite some patience, "le ton beau de Marót" by Douglas Hofstadter is a whole book of musings about translation, particularly of poetry. It's a fun book full of interesting linguistic trivia. The patience would be needed to get through the 50 or so translations of the same poem, all different and "wrong" in some way.
  - kjellsbells 8mo ago
    also recommended: After Babel by George Steiner. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/After_Babel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/After_Babel
hosh 8mo ago
I have a hard copy of that book. She’s captured the poetry and beauty of the received text very well. (I’ve tried my own hand at a translation and read a few other translations).
2b3a51 8mo ago
The Library of Congress very generously provides a scan of the Paul Carus translation [1]. The transliteration of the Tao starts on page 159 and consists of columns of the characters each with a literal meaning and occasional comments by the translator. I found the first few chapters in that presentation very interesting, like a kind of puzzle (I don't read Chinese to any extent at all). [1] https://www.loc.gov/item/34009062/ https://www.loc.gov/item/34009062/

raincole 8mo ago

Honestly, even if you know Chinese, it's very hard to translate Tao Te Ching into English. Hell, it's hard to translate it into Chinese. Even the first paragraph is controversial. For example this rendition says: > The name you can say > isn’t the real name. However, in a 5th century interpretation[0], it's more akin to: > The fame and wealth the mortals praise are not a natural state. (My extremely simplified paraphrasing) [0]: https://ctext.org/wiki.pl?if=gb&chapter=491818 https://ctext.org/wiki.pl?if=gb&chapter=491818

roromainmain 8mo ago
Interesting. Your comparison reminds me of something from Lacanian psychoanalysis: the idea that people often mistake themselves for the symbolic labels they occupy, their title for instance. Like a doctor who would praise himself for being a doctor, a president a president. From that perspective, both versions of the Tao Te Ching line point to the same thing: what can be named, praised, or socially recognized isn’t the true underlying reality. Different phrasing, but the same structural idea.
- hosh 8mo ago
  More generalized, any kind of symbol representing something is not the something. The social labelling is very accessible, true now and true then. There’s a Zen koan about that (with Zen coming from Chang which came from a meeting of Buddhism and Taoism in China) — about the finger pointing to the moon, and how all but one student looked at the finger. In a different example, there is the distinction of virtue signaling and virtue (the “Te” in “Tao Te Ching”)
polotics 8mo ago
Thank you, this there is the first version I see that feels like it's got solid cultural context. I like Ursula's version and have read her books over the years, but for example when she write "mystery" in there I always felt she was dropping the ball a bit.
prewett 8mo ago
I didn't encounter the Dao de Jing until later in life, but the opening bit has always seemed straightforward to me. I first saw it as "the way that can be described is not the Way", but also "the way that can be traveled is not the eternal Way". That is, the eternal (spiritual) Way cannot be concretized, just as a name is not the real thing. Or, given that this is HN, "the software development methodology that can be executed like a program is not software development methodology". ("The Agile that can be PM'd is not Agile.") However, I think it might require some life maturity to recognize that. Certainly a recovery from Englightenment rationalism. My person experience is that an understanding that "the name that can be named/identified is not the eternal Name" and "the way that can be walked is not the eternal Way" took me until around my 40s to appreciate. Daoism also appears to have taken a literalist turn (ironically). The book "Taoism: the Parting of the Ways" [1], by (former) Harvard Professor Holmes Welch, interprets the text as being a guide to a mystical way of living, similar to St. John of the Cross (minus the Christian part), which is fascinating. Then he describes how the two main factions took the text literally, and how that evolved. [1] I have a summary at http://geoffprewett.com/BookReviews/TaoismThePartingOfTheWay.html http://geoffprewett.com/BookReviews/TaoismThePartingOfTheWay...
- mbivert 8mo ago
  > but the opening bit has always seemed straightforward to me the a/symmetry of the opening bits in Chinese, visually echoes a taiji: > 道可道， > 非恆道； > 名可名， > 非恆名。 given the diversity of translations available for those bits, I think it's fair to say that there's room for debate regarding their exact meaning − dare I say amusingly, by being certain one understand what it means, somehow one really does not. Lao-Tseu may have been way, way wiser than average.
  - sifar 8mo ago
    Exactly. It subrly hints at the limitations of language in capturing true understanding. This is something I was impressed with. Almost every other ancient text starts of being full of certainty or being the authoratitve truth.
    - 8mo ago
getpost 8mo ago
> it's hard to translate it into Chinese. It's a text about non-duality, among other things. Like the Heart Sutra, or the Diamond Sutra, or 101 Zen Stories, it's not supposed to make sense in an ordinary way. A successful translation is, like the original, intended to catalyze a shift in awareness. EDIT: For those with a nerdy or scholarly bent, I suggest Red Pine's translation[0], which includes translation of historically relevant commentaries. [0] https://www.amazon.com/Lao-tzus-Taoteching-Lao-Tzu/dp/1556592906 https://www.amazon.com/Lao-tzus-Taoteching-Lao-Tzu/dp/155659...
phendrenad2 8mo ago
How can something translate into both of those things? The second translation doesn't have the concept of "saying" anything and the first translation says nothing about "wealth".
- t-3 8mo ago
  "dao" has multiple meanings; a road or path (extended by metaphor into philosophy), as well to speak or explain. So "dao ke dao fei chang dao", which dao has which meaning? How about the other characters, alone or in multi-character readings?

lubujackson 8mo ago

Having done a similar "rendition" to a book of poetry, I agree it is not the same as translating directly. It does open up a question about the fuzziness of "what is even translation?" Especially when we talk about translating historic writing. Yes, not knowing the source language is a huge barrier. But so is not knowing specific cultural touchstones or references in the text. In-depth translations usually transliterate as a part of the process. Many words and language patterns are untranslatable, which is why perfect translations are impossible. When translating poetry, issues of meter and rhythm are even more important. It comes down to what the purpose of a translation is meant to achieve. Yes, there are ideas and themes but there is no hiding the fact that translators always imprint their own perspective on a work - it's unavoidable and personally shouldn't even be the goal. Most translators of popular texts look closely at other translations to "triangulate" on meaning and authorial intent. Older translations may use archaic writing but have historical understanding, well-researched translations may be more precise about tricky words or concepts. More "writerly" translations tend to rebuild the work from the building blocks and produce a more cohesive whole. None of these are wrong approaches. I like the term "rendition" because it throws away the concept of the "authoritative translation". I like to think of translations the same way as cover songs. The best covers may be wildly different from the original but they share the same roots. As a reader, if you can't ever "hear" the original because you don't know thr language you can still appreciate someone's "cover version", or triangulate the original by reading multiple translations.

riffraff 8mo ago
For those with a passing interest in this topic and quite some patience, "le ton beau de Marót" by Douglas Hofstadter is a whole book of musings about translation, particularly of poetry. It's a fun book full of interesting linguistic trivia. The patience would be needed to get through the 50 or so translations of the same poem, all different and "wrong" in some way.
- kjellsbells 8mo ago
  also recommended: After Babel by George Steiner. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/After_Babel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/After_Babel

hosh 8mo ago

I have a hard copy of that book. She’s captured the poetry and beauty of the received text very well. (I’ve tried my own hand at a translation and read a few other translations).

2b3a51 8mo ago

The Library of Congress very generously provides a scan of the Paul Carus translation [1]. The transliteration of the Tao starts on page 159 and consists of columns of the characters each with a literal meaning and occasional comments by the translator. I found the first few chapters in that presentation very interesting, like a kind of puzzle (I don't read Chinese to any extent at all). [1] https://www.loc.gov/item/34009062/ https://www.loc.gov/item/34009062/