Live data from Hacker News

Tao Te Ching – Gia-Fu Feng, Jane English Translation (1989)

terebess.hu

101–106 of 106 posts

Re: Tao Te Ching – Gia-Fu Feng, Jane English Translation (1989)

#101
post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we need this to understand technological things (did you learn Docker from just one manual/article for example?) we certainly must need it for spiritual things.

Many would say we need fewer concepts to understand spiritual things, and Taoism is the attempt to unlearn your grasping mind. Instead we always have more. So it goes.

That is like saying it is easy to fast for 14 days, because there is less cooking needed. Yes that is true technically. But for a mind and body geared towards a modern diet, it would be hell. At least for the first few days.

Re: Tao Te Ching – Gia-Fu Feng, Jane English Translation (1989)

#102
post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As it currently stands, ChatGPT is quite bad at classical Chinese.

I think it is great for things that have lots of translations like the Tao Te Ching. 道生一,一生二,二生三,三生万物。万物负阴而抱阳,冲气以为和。 Try it with plus. Ctexts is a great source for classical Chinese texts: https://ctext.org/

No, I mean, I'm native in Chinese and reasonably literate in classical Chinese, and my assessment is that ChatGPT's understanding and generation of classical Chinese leaves much to be desired.

As an aside, if your reading of the Tao Te Ching does not include possibility of transcription errors, borrowed homophones (words with same sounds at the time of writing), etc. you're probably not exploring the full extent of the intended meanings of the original author(s). ChatGPT does none of that.

It's possible that ChatGPT's training data includes a couple translations of Tao Te Ching, in which case I'm not sure whether that better or worse in terms of results.

ctext.org is great though, no question about that. I've been using it for decades..

Re: Tao Te Ching – Gia-Fu Feng, Jane English Translation (1989)

#103
post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> He has translated many works from other ancient languages Not really. Most of his other "translations" from ancient languages were made the same way as with the Tao te ching : he simply rewrote existing translations. As far as I can tell, the Book of Job translation is the only one made from the source text. I don’t think you understand how notorious Mitchell has been within the field of literary translation for de…

> Zen and Taoism are different philosophical systems. My understanding (and some points in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chan_Buddhism echo it) is that Chan/Zen Buddhism is a descendant of Mahāyāna Buddhism and Taoism. In that way, it is itself a Taoist religion. > Most of his other "translations" from ancient languages were made the same way as with the Tao te ching This is incorrect for any Ancient Hebrew or Greek…

> My understanding (and some points in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chan_Buddhism echo it) is that Chan/Zen Buddhism is a descendant of Mahāyāna Buddhism and Taoism. In that way, it is itself a Taoist religion.

It is still problematic, for the same reason that a translation of Christian work by a Muslim or a Mormon with no background in Christianity, in a language they're not familiar with, would raise eyebrows.

Re: Tao Te Ching – Gia-Fu Feng, Jane English Translation (1989)

#104
post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Are there two versions in the same translation? You gave two versions to number 9 in this very post!

Hi- Those are the same translation (Red Pine's) of the two sections from Mitchell that you quoted, 4 and 9. They are quite different than Mitchell, and correspond about as closely as one can to the text (given assumptions on punctuation; Classical Chinese was not punctuated).

To give a bit more detail of the first one, 4:

Mitchell 4a: The Tao is like a well: used but never used up. It is like the eternal void: filled with infinite possibilities.

  1. The original text does not mention a well.
  2. those who use it are not full, not the Tao not used up.
  3. there is no mention of eternal voids just a lack of fullness for users.
  4. there is no mention of infinite impossibilities, but it is possible "as it were the ancestor of us all" is mistranslated by Mitchell where "all" wan wu (literally 10,000 things) is translated as infinite, and the ancestor part is dropped.
Mitchel 4b:

  It appears Mitchell skips the middle part of the section, which discusses dulled edges, tangles, light, and dust.

Mitchell 4c: It is hidden but always present. I don't know who gave birth to it. It is older than God.

  1. The first half is clear / as if it were present, not hidden.
  The rest is reasonable.

By all means if you found something in Mitchell, enjoy, but he's taken many liberties while translated a language he did not understand, and so it doesn't match the original text as well as other alternatives.

Re: Tao Te Ching – Gia-Fu Feng, Jane English Translation (1989)

#105
post #103
post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Zen and Taoism are different philosophical systems. My understanding (and some points in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chan_Buddhism echo it) is that Chan/Zen Buddhism is a descendant of Mahāyāna Buddhism and Taoism. In that way, it is itself a Taoist religion. > Most of his other "translations" from ancient languages were made the same way as with the Tao te ching This is incorrect for any Ancient Hebrew or Greek…

> My understanding (and some points in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chan_Buddhism echo it) is that Chan/Zen Buddhism is a descendant of Mahāyāna Buddhism and Taoism. In that way, it is itself a Taoist religion. It is still problematic, for the same reason that a translation of Christian work by a Muslim or a Mormon with no background in Christianity, in a language they're not familiar with, would raise eyebrows.

It feels less problematic than those cases due to those religion's own views on truth and divine prophecy. Christianity largely views Muslim/Mormon views as a kind of Heresy. Toaism/Buddhism don't really map to this kind of thinking IIUC.

I would also counter that a Muslim or Mormon's view of the Bible would probably be very useful, if for no other reason that they would have a alternative but still reverent lens on it; vs an intellectual's which contains little or no reverence. I found a Jew's (Stephen Mitchel's) translation of Jesus's writings to be very enlightening indeed!

Post reply on HN