[deleted]
Tao Te Ching – Gia-Fu Feng, Jane English Translation (1989)
21–30 of 106 posts
Re: Tao Te Ching – Gia-Fu Feng, Jane English Translation (1989)
#22None of these translations work if you really want to understand the work itself and not the author's interpretation. For example, in the Analects ,『學而優則仕』is translated by Legge as "The student, having completed his learning, should apply himself to be an officer." This isn't what the sentence says. It could be what it means but that should be up to the reader. (This is a common phrase in Chinese and has a completly…
Technically you can say this to most text. You can even say practically no one alive never read The Bible.
Re: Tao Te Ching – Gia-Fu Feng, Jane English Translation (1989)
#23None of these translations work if you really want to understand the work itself and not the author's interpretation. For example, in the Analects ,『學而優則仕』is translated by Legge as "The student, having completed his learning, should apply himself to be an officer." This isn't what the sentence says. It could be what it means but that should be up to the reader. (This is a common phrase in Chinese and has a completly…
Technically you can say this to most text. You can even say practically no one alive never read The Bible.
I've read eg. different translations of Crime and Punishment written more than 100 years between each other and I still feel that I read the same book and the meaning, even if somewhat blurred, as been perserved. There is no definite meaning to many passages in classical Chinese so all you have is the text itself. It's not a question of if the author can take the meaning from the original and use that to write a new text in a different language with the same meaning but if the author has the meaning to begin with. A better way would be to give every possible translation of each line where needed, starting with the various relevant translations of each character and then what the phrase probably means literaly and then what the author meant by it (which is another point I havn't even mentioned until now).
Re: Tao Te Ching – Gia-Fu Feng, Jane English Translation (1989)
#24I've seen Tao Te Ching's translation on the HN front page for several times. It seems people are interested in it.
The thing with Tao Te Ching is it's too ambiguous because: 1) The Chinese language is very overloaded and thus very ambiguous. 2) Classical Chinese is even more so. 3) Tao Te Ching is intentionally filled with clever puns which makes it more ambiguous.
The problem with translations is the translator has to interpret source texts into specific meanings in the target languages. It's like opening Schrödinger's cat box, or unwrapping monads in Haskell and Rust, which essentially deduct multiple possibilities into a single deterministic value.
If you're really into it, you probably want to learn some basic Chinese and classical Chinese (lucky they're not so different from each other), and figure out how to look up in the dictionaries. It's probably not as difficult as it sounds - all you need to do is decrypt with dictionaries.
Maybe there should be a new form of digital translation, just like hovering texts on Duolingo and it will display all the possible meanings of the word/expression.
Re: Tao Te Ching – Gia-Fu Feng, Jane English Translation (1989)
#25Red Pine's translation, with translated historical commentaries, is the best I know in English.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/1556592906
I've read the original in Classical Chinese, as well as many translations, over many years, and for me, his translation is the best and most grounded in the work itself. He is an American that has spent substantial time in Chinese monasteries, and has won prizes for his translations generally.
Of course the linked version by Feng and English is a classic, and if you like it or can take some value from it, by all means enjoy it. I'd suggest skipping Stephen Mitchell or work from others that don't actually understand Chinese, as it's more likely new-age feel-good, and not the work itself.
For those interested in Taoism, I'd also advise reading Zhuangzi (the best version in English I know is the comic book drawn by Tsai Chih-chung, translated by Bryan Bruya, "Zhuangzi Speaks: The Way of Nature" https://www.amazon.com/dp/0691008825/
For every person that likes Dao De Jing/Laozi, I'd recommend reading Heraclitus. For every person that likes reading Zhuangzi, I'd recommend reading Diogenes... and vice versa. I am not a student of Western classics so I don't know the best translation, but Guy Davenport's "Herakleitos and Diogenes", https://www.amazon.com/dp/0912516364 , was good for me, and includes both.
Re: Tao Te Ching – Gia-Fu Feng, Jane English Translation (1989)
#26I remember reading Stephen Mitchell's version waaaay back in 1991, when I was still young and impressionable. There was one line that really blew me away in his translation, and I might be remembering it slightly incorrectly: "The Tao is older than God".
Stephen Mitchell has no real training in Old Chinese.[0] His “translation” is simply repackaging or distorting what was found in earlier, informed translations, for the sake of a publishing industry keen to cash in on “wisdom lit”. He is an analogue of Coleman Barks the Rumi “translator” who doesn’t know Persian, and Brooks Haxton the Heraclitus “translator” without a background in Greek. [0] https://academic.oup.com…
[dead]
Re: Tao Te Ching – Gia-Fu Feng, Jane English Translation (1989)
#27One pretty good translation is the one by Red Pine ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Pine_(author) ) which also contains selected commentaries from other ancient Chinese sources thus making it easier to get at the intent/meaning behind the aphorisms.
Re: Tao Te Ching – Gia-Fu Feng, Jane English Translation (1989)
#28One pretty good translation is the one by Red Pine ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Pine_(author) ) which also contains selected commentaries from other ancient Chinese sources thus making it easier to get at the intent/meaning behind the aphorisms.
I really like this translation for the feeling it gives. It leans more poetic, and is less accurate than other translations, but it's quite good.
Re: Tao Te Ching – Gia-Fu Feng, Jane English Translation (1989)
#29I remember reading Stephen Mitchell's version waaaay back in 1991, when I was still young and impressionable. There was one line that really blew me away in his translation, and I might be remembering it slightly incorrectly: "The Tao is older than God".
https://terebess.hu/english/tao/mitchell.html 4 The Tao is like a well: used but never used up. It is like the eternal void: filled with infinite possibilities. It is hidden but always present. I don't know who gave birth to it. It is older than God. My favorite, although my favorite depends on the season 9 Fill your bowl to the brim and it will spill. Keep sharpening your knife and it will blunt. Chase after money a…
Here is Red Pine's translation of both, in case you are interested. He spent ~20 years including substantial time in monasteries studying Chinese classics.
His translation is much more tightly linked to the actual work.
4:
The Tao is so empty
those who use it
never become full again
and so deep
as if were the ancestor of us all
it dulls our edges
unties our tangles
softens our light
and merges our dust
it's so clear
as if it were present
I wonder whose child it is
it seems it was here before Ti
Instead of pouring in more
better stop while you can
making it sharper
won't help it last longer
rooms full of treasure
can never be safe
the vanity of success
invites its own failure
when your work is done retire
this is the Way of Heaven
I strongly recommend Red Pine!
Re: Tao Te Ching – Gia-Fu Feng, Jane English Translation (1989)
#30I remember reading Stephen Mitchell's version waaaay back in 1991, when I was still young and impressionable. There was one line that really blew me away in his translation, and I might be remembering it slightly incorrectly: "The Tao is older than God".
Stephen Mitchell has no real training in Old Chinese.[0] His “translation” is simply repackaging or distorting what was found in earlier, informed translations, for the sake of a publishing industry keen to cash in on “wisdom lit”. He is an analogue of Coleman Barks the Rumi “translator” who doesn’t know Persian, and Brooks Haxton the Heraclitus “translator” without a background in Greek. [0] https://academic.oup.com…
Wow, I had no idea. Like I said, that was so long ago. Interesting the notes in the abstract of that paper, that he infused Christian and Buddhist ideas. It might be why I took to it so well.