tao te ching in original chinese translate directly to english?

[mewtwo]

So anyone know of any copy of the tao te ching that is translated exactly from chinese to english? i waan read it how it was writte. not some ad libed to version. i know i might be splitting hairs here but yeah.

 

 

 

Thanks

[dawei]

So anyone know of any copy of the tao te ching that is translated exactly from chinese to english? i waan read it how it was writte. not some ad libed to version. i know i might be splitting hairs here but yeah.

You should look at a 'gloss' translation, or what this guy calls a Matrix Translation starting in Section B (once you open the PDF in this zip file).

 

Laozi.zip from Hermetica

[ChiDragon]

So anyone know of any copy of the tao te ching that is translated exactly from chinese to english? i waan read it how it was writte. not some ad libed to version. i know i might be splitting hairs here but yeah.

 

 

 

Thanks

 

I thought lienshan and I were doing it which was translating exactly from chinese to English?

[XieJia]

Mew,

 

http://ctext.org/dao-de-jing

 

Go there and start learning Chinese; you can ignore the English translation on that web but they have a useful Chinese language tool where you can see the meanings of each symbol as you scroll through the text; click the button in front of each line.

 

Or you could look for Hua-Ching Ni's which in my humble experience is a nice translation, there are others out there through. I am sure many Dao bums will point you in a good situation.

 

but I do think if you would like to get all the wonders of the text, i would go directly to the Chinese text and its wonderful symbology.

[lienshan]

So anyone know of any copy of the tao te ching that is translated exactly from chinese to english?

i waan read it how it was writte. not some ad libed to version.

Sorry, but what you desire doesn't exist.

 

The closest you can come in chinese are the 1993 exavacated Guodian bamboo slips (a chapter 25 example)

A translation of the Guodian bamboo slips chapter 25 (by Robert G. Henricks)

 

The problem of translating from classical chinese to english is using the character dao as example:

 

Tao (dao) is in english a noun (the Way). Tao (dao) was in classical chinese both a noun and a verb:

 

dao = a way (the objective noun)

dao = a walk (the subjective noun)

dao = walked on (the objective verb)

dao = walking (the subjective verb)

 

Laozi used the two subjective meanings when describing his own approach to Tao.

Laozi used the two objective meanings when describing others approach to Tao.

 

That's why 'to get the Tao' is 'to drop the Tao' because you cannot 'get a walk'.

Edited September 9, 2011 by lienshan

[XieJia]

@lienshan

 

Would you kindly share with us your experience, whether there are ways in studying the ancient Chinese text as the author intend for the reader?

 

Much would be appreciated

[Riyue]

So anyone know of any copy of the tao te ching that is translated exactly from chinese to english? i waan read it how it was writte. not some ad libed to version. i know i might be splitting hairs here but yeah.

 

 

 

Thanks

 

The first problem you have is:

There is no chinese text of daodejing which we can call the original for sure.

Guodian and Mawangdui are maybe the eldest ones - but they can be manipulated as younger ones as well...

guodian-version you can find at

http://www.daoisopen.com/A1toA2Ch1966.html

 

the results of modern research is included in the text you find at

Daodejing Sealscript---

 

the second problem is

modern transcriptions include interpretations always.

you have to go back to the characters which got used at the time the daodejing was written.

A try for this you can find as well at

Daodejing Sealscript---

 

A third problem is:

Applying any so called classical-chinese / modern grammar / syntax at the text...

The fact that the characters can be read as noun or as adjective or as adverb or as verb reflects this problem...

 

my personal experience is

the more you remember the informations of the pictures and symbols the nearer you can get the meaning in context...

 

good informations for this you find as well at

Daodejing Sealscript

 

each character is linked to a site explaining the characters breaking them down to the parts...

and giving the meaning of nowaday - and the explanations given by 說文解字 shuowenjiezi

[henro]

 

Or you could look for Hua-Ching Ni's which in my humble experience is a nice translation, there are others out there through. I am sure many Dao bums will point you in a good situation.

 

 

Every time I go to China my father-in-law and I sit and work through taoist books and scrolls, often in classical or ancient Chinese, and compare them with modern Chinese interpretations, and English translations. . . what Riyue says above is very true. It is a complex subject.

 

Hua Ching Ni's version is a good read, but I wouldn't exactly call it accurate or an exact translation. He add's quite a bit, and elsewhere on TB's is getting flack for his altering of concepts and translations to suit the western mind.

Edited September 9, 2011 by robmix

[Marblehead]

I will just add that I think the guys are doing a really great job in the TTC Chapters threads.

 

I know that everything is not neatly packed together but life, in general, is not neatly packaged either.

[lienshan]

Would you kindly share with us your experience, whether there are ways in studying the ancient Chinese text as the author intend for the reader?

An author has to follow the contemporary grammar rules, if he/she wants a contemporary reader to be able to read a text as intented. The contemporary, warring states classical chinese, grammar rules are in my opinion described in professor Edwin G. Pulleyblank's "An outline of a classical chinese grammar", containing 256 samples from several warring states texts, Zhuangzi, Mencius, Zou Zhuang, etc. but not Laozi: That'll say Pulleyblank's samples are not self-confirming, when using them to read the exavacated Tao Teh Ching versions! An example could be chapter 1 line 1:

 

dao ke dao ye fei heng dao ye

 

Pulleyblank writes, that the formula X ye fei Y ye means 'it is X it is not Y'

Pulleyblank writes, that the character 'ke' is always followed by a verb.

My own study of his samples shows, that the negative 'fei' is always preceeding 'an objective noun'.

So a rough translation of chapter 1 line 1 based on these grammar rules is:

 

It is 'a walk maybe walking' it is not 'the eternal way'.

[XieJia]

Thank you everyone for sharing their insights here;

 

@Mewtwo

I think you would have get your answer.

 

@Riyue

Thank you for the Sealscripts; it's nice to see the becoming of a language and its symbol.

I do think that we will have to bear in mind that back in that time, the words and names of things are so fixed as of today.

 

@Marblehead

I am sure that they did well, and there are so much insights and knowledges being shared.

 

@Robmix

I agree with you with Hua's translation, However i do think he tried to convey the things expressed by Lao Zi by adding that of his own to the best of his ability.

 

@lienshan

Thank you for sharing with us your understanding of chinese grammar. I do think the problem is the way, the language deride from Latin formulates its syntax; making expressing something very specific. My mother tongue is a language from East Asia, our language is not so fixed.

 

 

In the end it is Translator's Daodejing we are readimg, and our understanding adding upon it. There's alway a parody of that in reading. So one only needs to drop every thing and get back to the Great Source.

[lienshan]

I do think the problem is the way, the language deride from Latin formulates its syntax; making expressing something very specific.

A quote from Zhuangzi chapter 33:

 

"The teachings of Shen Tao are not rules for the living but ideals for a dead man."

 

That's the important difference between Laozi's Tao and the Tao of Shen Dao (the Huang Lao daoist school).

Laozi's Tao is subjective, ideals for a living man, contrary to the objective Tao, ideals for a dead man.

 

This important difference is not obvious, when reading the Received version of Tao Teh Ching,

but clearcut when reading the 1993 exavacated Guodian copies of Laozi's original manuscript,

that arguees against what's todays mainstream taoism ... try answer this simple question:

 

Why is there no online available taoist translation of the Guodian Tao Teh Ching?

[dawei]

Why is there no online available taoist translation of the Guodian Tao Teh Ching?

One is lucky to find any translation of the Guodian online... but here is Hendrick's version:

 

http://home.pages.at/onkellotus/TTK/English_HenricksG_TTK.html

 

---

 

This is generally a good website to be able to look at many translators including older versions (Addis & Lombardo, Suzuki & Carus, Legge, Crowley), popular versions (Chan, Lau, Ni, Red Pine, Mitchell, Feng/English, Hansen, Hinton, Wu) and several eastern translators as well. Lynn (Like Wagner, which is not at this site) does the translation based on the Wang Bi notes (not just the received text).

 

One can also see all the DDJ versions in original chinese at the top.

 

http://home.pages.at/onkellotus/TTK/_IndexTTK.html

[XieJia]

A quote from Zhuangzi chapter 33:

 

"The teachings of Shen Tao are not rules for the living but ideals for a dead man."

 

That's the important difference between Laozi's Tao and the Tao of Shen Dao (the Huang Lao daoist school).

Laozi's Tao is subjective, ideals for a living man, contrary to the objective Tao, ideals for a dead man.

 

This important difference is not obvious, when reading the Received version of Tao Teh Ching,

but clearcut when reading the 1993 exavacated Guodian copies of Laozi's original manuscript,

that arguees against what's todays mainstream taoism ... try answer this simple question:

 

Why is there no online available taoist translation of the Guodian Tao Teh Ching?

 

 

 

Dear lienshan,

 

Thank you for your comments; however I am still quite confused about what you meant by subjective vs. objective Dao. I don't really know much about different texts.

In my humble experience, there shouldn't be any lesser Dao or greater Dao; is it not by knowing the small we can comprehend the large? By knowing the large, we can know the multi-folds of smalls.

Subjectivity and Objectivity are things created by our minds, one within and one without.

How could the Dao not encompass all? And without anyone to walk, what use is the path?

 

My apologies if my comment come across as flaunting as anyway, it is not my intention. But as my background is not from that of scholarly nature, it might be hard bring me into perspectives.

I would like to kindly ask for the TaoBums to help correct my understanding if it is wrong. I will try to take your comments with an open-mind.

 

[lienshan]

One is lucky to find any translation of the Guodian online... but here is Hendrick's version:

Henricks is not a taoist his blog profile

 

How could the Dao not encompass all? And without anyone to walk, what use is the path?

The Tao encompass all in the Shen Dao version of the Tao:

 

"Even a clod of earth can't miss Tao"

 

Subjectivity and Objectivity are things created by our minds, one within and one without.

Most taoists use the terms 'not manifested' (wu) and 'manifested' (you) when discussing this subject/matter,

while I suspect that the terms 'subjective' and 'objective' are closer to Laozi's point of view,

when reading the Guodian texts.

 

Are e.g. our minds, creating Subjectivity and Objectivity, subjective or objective?

The ancient chinese character 'shen' meant both 'self' and 'body'.

[Everything]

You should look at a 'gloss' translation, or what this guy calls a Matrix Translation starting in Section B (once you open the PDF in this zip file).

 

Laozi.zip from Hermetica

Damn, thats good.

 

Thanks

[dawei]

Henricks is not a taoist his blog profile

I implied that indirectly with my rhetorical comment that it's almost impossible to find ANY... but there is Hendricks... ergo... it is ONE but not necessary a Taoist one. English can be very subtle at times.

[XieJia]

Henricks is not a taoist his blog profile

 

 

The Tao encompass all in the Shen Dao version of the Tao:

 

"Even a clod of earth can't miss Tao"

 

 

Most taoists use the terms 'not manifested' (wu) and 'manifested' (you) when discussing this subject/matter,

while I suspect that the terms 'subjective' and 'objective' are closer to Laozi's point of view,

when reading the Guodian texts.

 

Are e.g. our minds, creating Subjectivity and Objectivity, subjective or objective?

The ancient chinese character 'shen' meant both 'self' and 'body'.

 

Dear lienshan,

 

please correct me if i am mistaken,

i am still not quite clear on how to express it in words.

 

The subjective Dao of Lao Zi is that the Dao is the thing experienced by the man, by being one with that one act accordingly to the circumstances.

The Shen Dao's Dao is the collective Dao that encompass all myriad things, which you defined as Objective Dao.

 

I still dont see the differences it makes if we were still concieve it from the mind, does 無 or 有, subjective or objective makes that different?

Nor is it important or unimportant? In the end, did LaoZi means that two are the same with different names?

 

So LaoZi's Dao is the Here and Now of each individuals? is that what you are stating?

 

Sorry for being a hassel and Thank You

[Marblehead]

It is true that Henricks is not a Taoist. His translations have been scholastic ventures.

 

And this is why I feel strongly about his translations. He was not trying to influence anyone. He simply took the translations as scholastic challenges.

[ChiDragon]

 

I still dont see the differences it makes if we were still concieve it from the mind, does 無 or 有, subjective or objective makes that different?

Nor is it important or unimportant? In the end, did LaoZi means that two are the same with different names?

 

Yes, LoaTze did mean that two, 無 and 有, are from the same origin and differ in name(Chapter 1).

Edited September 11, 2011 by ChiDragon

[lienshan]

So LaoZi's Dao is the Here and Now of each individuals? is that what you are stating?

What I dare state is, that the scholar Henricks was paid for translating the Guodian texts by the chinese communist authorities, and that he in my opinion peeped his earlier translations of the Mawangdui silk texts, whenever he didn't understood what the Guodian texts meant. And that no one untill now has questioned the quality of his Guodian texts translation, because where are the taoist translations of the Guodian texts? Why are there NO taoist translations of the earliest known Tao Teh Ching chapters???

 

What I dare not state is, that 'LaoZi's Dao is the Here and Now of each individuals?' I have ofcourse my own impression, when reading the Guodian texts my way, but my impression has no superiority to what you and others get from reading Tao Teh Ching your way.

Edited September 11, 2011 by lienshan

[XieJia]

What I dare state is, that the scholar Henricks was paid for translating the Guodian texts by the chinese communist authorities, and that he in my opinion peeped his earlier translations of the Mawangdui silk texts, whenever he didn't understood what the Guodian texts meant. And that no one untill now has questioned the quality of his Guodian texts translation, because where are the taoist translations of the Guodian texts? Why are there NO taoist translations of the earliest known Tao Teh Ching chapters???

 

What I dare not state is, that 'LaoZi's Dao is the Here and Now of each individuals?' I have ofcourse my own impression, when reading the Guodian texts my way, but my impression has no superiority to what you and others get from reading Tao Teh Ching your way.

 

Nice and clear, thank you.

If from what I understood from you and your impression, I must say that I agree to it. But it Will change many things for me and my understanding of what Daoism is.

I will ultimately check out the Guodian text and All Under Heavens of ZhuangZi's again; as for now I am not sure what is actually Daoist or not Daoist anymore.

 

You have my gratitude, thank you again.

[dawei]

What I dare state is, that the scholar Henricks was paid for translating the Guodian texts by the chinese communist authorities, and that he in my opinion peeped his earlier translations of the Mawangdui silk texts, whenever he didn't understood what the Guodian texts meant. And that no one untill now has questioned the quality of his Guodian texts translation, because where are the taoist translations of the Guodian texts? Why are there NO taoist translations of the earliest known Tao Teh Ching chapters???

I smell conspiracy theory here... but I don't understand why there MUST be a Taoist translation of an incomplete work? Look at almost all the ancients, particularly those which seem incomplete; the only ones willing to do any research to translate are the scholars and academic; that how they make their living.

 

I do think Henrick's is not perfect in his translation but whose is perfect? Why harp on the questioning of his translation. And what's wrong with looking at his previous work on the Mawangdui; he spent the time researching that text why shouldn't he look at it? (Rhetorical).

[lienshan]

The subjective Dao of Lao Zi is that the Dao is the thing experienced by the man, by being one with that one act accordingly to the circumstances.

The Shen Dao's Dao is the collective Dao that encompass all myriad things, which you defined as Objective Dao.

An example to highlight my approach to 'subjective' is the Guodian chapter 46 (Henricks and my own translation):

 

Of vices - none is more onerous than wanting too much.

Of defects - none brings more sorrow than the desire to gain.

Of disasters - none is greater than not knowing when one has enough.

The contentment one has when he knows that he has enough -

This is abiding contentment indeed.

 

There's no larger crime than extreme desire.

There's no more sorrowful conflict than spoils sharing.

There's no greater misfortune than not knowing when enough.

What's forever enough: Sufficient knowledge is enough!

 

The last line of this chapter is one of the most important lines of Tao Teh Ching.

I read Laozi as saying, that "sufficient knowledge is enough!". That's subjective!

'enough' is a subjective matter: 'enough' means something objective to a buddhist monk,

while 'enough' means anotherthing objective to a man like me with a firm, a family, etc.

'knowledge' is thus what counts! The last line translated literally:

 

to know enough its to be enough this always enough indeed

 

'its to be' are the characters 'zhi wei' in classical chinese:

'zhi' marked 'wei' as the objective verb 'to be'.

without 'zhi' meant 'wei' the subjective verb 'to do'.

 

This is not a grammar lesson but only mentioned to tell, that Laozi's 'subjective' and 'objective'

were closely connected to the classical language itself. It was changed after 221 BC and the the two

Mawangdui versions were written in a reformed language and the Received version in another language!

[dawei]

An example to highlight my approach to 'subjective' is the Guodian chapter 46 (Henricks and my own translation):

 

Of vices - none is more onerous than wanting too much.

Of defects - none brings more sorrow than the desire to gain.

Of disasters - none is greater than not knowing when one has enough.

The contentment one has when he knows that he has enough -

This is abiding contentment indeed.

 

There's no larger crime than extreme desire.

There's no more sorrowful conflict than spoils sharing.

There's no greater misfortune than not knowing when enough.

What's forever enough: Sufficient knowledge is enough!

 

The last line of this chapter is one of the most important lines of Tao Teh Ching.

I read Laozi as saying, that "sufficient knowledge is enough!". That's subjective!

'enough' is a subjective matter: 'enough' means something objective to a buddhist monk,

while 'enough' means anotherthing objective to a man like me with a firm, a family, etc.

'knowledge' is thus what counts! The last line translated literally:

 

to know enough its to be enough this always enough indeed

I understand your point... so I would point out that "crime" is not subjective for the most part (whereas Hendrick's use of 'vice' is); so you might consider to choose another word to fit your approach.