- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I’d be curious about which translation, of the thousands available, that members prefer. I’m sensing more alchemy in these new lessons.
There are so many different translations. I like things about a lot of different ones. These are good translator/commentators for me: Arthur Wailey, John Chu, Stephen Mitchell, David Hinton, Gia-Fu Feng, Ursula Le guin, Red Pine. I like Robert G. Henricks book based on the Mawangtui text. This is a good source for contemporary scholarship. I don’t much like James Legge’s or Thomas Cleary’s work.
I feel like I need quite a few different translations, each giving a glimpse of the real meaning of the text. I then have a kind of composite understanding based on all of them.
It’s a lot like working with the I Ching. There are a lot of versions out there and no one translations is complete and not biased by the translator in some way. I think the ambiguity and richness of meaning of classical Chinese is one of the things that makes the language a perfect vehicle for these kinds of texts. American English isn’t quite up to the task.
I look forward to other ideas.
Best,
mjn
Taoist Master Hua Chin Ni’s translation is the one i primarily use. As Taoist and scholar, I feel his translation has more insight and a richer flavor of principal being conveyed than the strict scholarly, verbatim books/translation. I think what Master Bruce convey’s in his dialog is the same points/principals. I also really enjoy his presentation in Chinese. For me it really helps drive the inflections of the translation.
I think that’s why I like the Hua Ching Ni translation… He conveys the Chinese language through the Taoist perspective in a well understood english version.
Pretty much, just like what Bruce is doing here, but the extended commentary and the added meditation is great. I like this added bit. I never thought to meditate on it this way, but why not. What better way to really ingrain the principals of the Tao Te Ching?
You have named a number of translations I have not read. I’m on it and thanks.
Matthew-
What do you think about Victor Mair’s translation? Also his translation of the Chuang Tzu? I’m curious why you don’t like Cleary? Are you speaking of all his translations, or just the TTC?
I just bought Henricks’ and Ni’s translations. Thanks for the tips guys. On Amazon alone there are a pile of translations. Most published book behind the Bible and Bhagavad Gita I believe. Speaking of the Bhagavad Gita, what do you think about the theory that the BG had an influence on the thinking in the TTC.
I don’t know Victor Mair’s work. I’ll have to check it out.
In general, I find Cleary’s work sucks all the magic and joy out of whatever he translates. I find his I Ching translations colored by a neo-confucian perspective that’s very much at odds with the way Bruce approaches all the taoist texts. Cleary’s work is very abstract and removes things from the practical, applied realm.
That’s just me… Maybe others have some different ideas.
I agree Cleary is very academic and he has translated and published so much and been at it so long. He must be emeritus by now. His books are everywhere he really cranks them out.
Hi Folks, I just picked up on this thread. I’m working with Ames and Hall’s translation which includes consideration of the Guodian and Mawangdui texts. Whilst academic in scope, they attempt to locate the text in the context that it was originally written, i.e., rather than a modern interpretation, they’ve produced a translation closer to that of the original philosophy and world view of the early daoists. I’m finding their text fits well with Bruce’s teaching, although it’s very stretching in its use of vocabulary!
Thanks Colin. Another translation for me to pickup
The differences in translations interests me. Here’s one small example from Chapter One both using the Ma-wang-tui texts:
Robert Henricks:
“Those constantly with desires, by this means will see only that which they yearn for and seek.”Victor Mair:
“Always have desire so that you may observe its manifestations.”To me. that subtle difference changes the meaning.
And for something completely different, Hua-Ching Nin
“A mind with intention contains the subtle activity of life.”
………….I think part of the issue is that some people translate whilst others interpret (with varying degrees of naivity and subjectivity, sometimes coloured by vested interests), and some people stretch artistic licence to the extreme! Also, no doubt, some individuals and publishers know that the ‘product’ sells so cook up all sorts of nonsense .
I just ordered Ames and Halls translation that you suggested. The TTC is worked over and published so much it comes in many flavors like Baskin & Robbins. A testament to its great popularity. I’m surprised there isn’t a “Good News” version. Although there probably is. Add some beautiful pictures to any translation and you have another publication. Is there a “King James” version of the TTC?
……there’s a Quaker version (Richard Gordon Zyne) and doubtless there’s an Islamic/Sufi take on it somewhere!
A Quaker version! I had no idea.
This is an archived forum (read only). Go to our active forum where you can post and discuss in real time.