wandelaar

Benjamin Hoff's "Tao Te Ching"

Recommended Posts

Haven't read it, but it looks like Hoff is certain that he has found the Real Meaning of the text, unlike all those other sillies, and moreover has seen fit to remove entire chapters. Based on that it sounds like another exercise in self-aggrandizement and marketing in the Tao Te Ching mini-industry. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, SirPalomides said:

Haven't read it, but it looks like Hoff is certain that he has found the Real Meaning of the text, unlike all those other sillies, and moreover has seen fit to remove entire chapters. Based on that it sounds like another exercise in self-aggrandizement and marketing in the Tao Te Ching mini-industry. 

 

Yes  - that sure is what it looks like. But is Hoff correct in his claim that the pre-writing brush characters often had a different meaning than the traditional characters in which they are transcribed in the common scholarly translations? And further that those old meanings have been ignored by all scholars prior to Hoff?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, wandelaar said:

 

Yes  - that sure is what it looks like. But is Hoff correct in his claim that the pre-writing brush characters often had a different meaning than the traditional characters in which they are transcribed in the common scholarly translations? And further that those old meanings have been ignored by all scholars prior to Hoff?

 

I have no idea, but in my experience with oft-retranslated books (Laozi, Bible, etc). usually claims about a new translation blowing open some previously obscured quality of the text prove to be exaggerated, if not entirely empty. Moreover, when we are dealing with an ancient, influential text such as the DDJ,  which has taken a life of its own in the hands of numerous scribes and interpreters, the way the text has been carried on and read throughout the ages is more important than trying to uncover the author's true intent, which is probably impossible anyway.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, wandelaar said:

Benjamin Hoff … Tao Te Ching ..… How …. original is this one?


I read the sample chapters (Ch 1-4) in the preview.  Imo they are in the same range as all the other translations. 
 

 

Edited by Cobie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something that is radically different from other translations is that Hoff has deleted some chapters. He'd better come up with some very convincing arguments for that...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does the Hoffman book provide the two sets of characters? 

Edited by Cobie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, SirPalomides said:

… Hoff … has seen fit to remove entire chapters. …

 

13 minutes ago, wandelaar said:

… Hoff has deleted some chapters. …


Shock horror. :o Does it say which chapters?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, wandelaar said:

… is Hoff correct in his claim that … those old meanings have been ignored by all scholars prior to Hoff?


I would think that it is highly unlikely. Sinologists do research the changes in meaning of characters over time. 
 

 

Edited by Cobie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have seen no characters in the preview, and I'm wondering what sources Hoff used to determine their (differences in) meaning.

Edited by wandelaar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, wandelaar said:

I have seen no characters in the preview …


Neither have I. Nor did I see any mention of providing the ‘real’ characters in the preview (but I did not read all of the preview, as I found it a rather boring piece of self-aggrandisement with hardly any real info).

 

 

Edited by Cobie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, wandelaar said:

… I'm wondering what sources he used to determine their (differences in) meaning.


Exactly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“the characters used in the Guodian text created much controversy between the modern scholars who have tried to determine which modern characters they represent.” (DIO)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Cobie said:

“the characters used in the Guodian text created much controversy between the modern scholars who have tried to determine which modern characters they represent.” (DIO)

 

That proves that Hoff is right and wrong at the same time. ^_^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, wandelaar said:

That proves that Hoff is right and wrong at the same time. ^_^


:lol:  Scrap the DIO comment. :P 

 

 

 

Edited by Cobie
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Cobie said:


:lol:  Scrap the DIO comment. :P

 

 

What do you mean? It would be nice to know where we can read about the controversy you mentioned before.

Edited by wandelaar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, wandelaar said:

What do you mean?


I disliked his audio sufficiently to now feel prejudiced against the Hoff. :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, wandelaar said:

It would be nice to know where we can read about the controversy you mentioned before.


Yes. I am searching but can’t find anything.

 

 

Edited by Cobie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now this brings up two further questions:

 

1. Were those characters indeed not written with a brush.

2. If they were not written with a brush, is there a dictionary or something were one can look up the meaning of those characters. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The calligraphy brush has a long history in China. Legend has it that the brush was invented by Meng Tian (? - 210 BC), a general under the First Emperor of the Qin Dynasty (221-206 BC). However, primitive painted pottery contains decorative designs painted by tools resembling a brush. Visible stains or brush marks clearly remain in certain places on the pottery. This evidence suggests that the brush may have predated written language itself.

 

Expanded quote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites