4 ms·

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 paragra

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 9mo 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 9mo 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 9mo 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 9mo 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 9mo 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 9mo 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.
    - 9mo ago
getpost 9mo 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 9mo 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 9mo 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?

roromainmain 9mo 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 9mo 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 9mo 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 9mo 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 9mo 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 9mo 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.
  - 9mo ago

getpost 9mo 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 9mo 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 9mo 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?