BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Dao De Jing

 
  

Page: (1)2

 
 
Princess
13:14 / 21.02.07
I'm somewhat suprised that we don't have a thread on this already. But the Dao De Ching, let's talk about it. Who reads it, what function does it have for them and which translation/s do we recommend. I was thinking maybe we could each take a translation and compare them verse for verse. Would people be up for that? It's just I'm having trouble working out what's in the orginal, what people have inferred from the original and what's just pure poetic addition.

Multiple translations in multiple languages here.
 
 
electric monk
14:05 / 21.02.07
I'd be up for that. Dibs on the Gia-Fu Feng & Jane English translation!
 
 
Closed for Business Time
16:42 / 21.02.07
I read this several times waaaayyy back when doing my BA.. must be 10 years ago since I've had a look. Could certainly do with a re-read/-ingestion.

There're 84 translations into English on that page alone. I looked at the first two lines in 7 of them, and lo and behold! they're all different. Seems like just those first two lines could have us going for a good while.

An example of the differences:
"Tao called Tao is not Tao. Names can name no lasting name." - Addis & Lombardo.

"The way that becomes a way is not the Immortal Way
the name that becomes a name is not the Immortal Name"
- Red Pine

"The Tao-Path is not the All-Tao.
The Name is not the Thing named."
- A. Crowley
 
 
Princess
17:46 / 21.02.07
On very initial skimming, I think I like the Ludd. Bagsy on that. Anyone else interested?
 
 
EvskiG
18:42 / 21.02.07
It's just I'm having trouble working out what's in the orginal, what people have inferred from the original and what's just pure poetic addition

If that's your concern get the Jonathan Star translation. Gives a solid translation of the text plus literal translations of each character, grammatical and interpretive notes, and a concordance of characters.

For a good loose translation I'd go with Stephen Mitchell.
 
 
Princess
21:38 / 21.02.07
Thanks Ev G.
 
 
grant
00:44 / 22.02.07
You might also find the character dictionary at Zhongwen.com useful in pulling out the multiple meanings of single Chinese characters.

They also host a translation of the Jing, under the "Readings" heading on the left side of the page. Character by character.

(By the way, if you're going to spell it "Dao De" you should probably also spell it "Jing," or even "Daodejing" - that's modern pinyin. "Ching" is the old Romanization system, which is fine, but goes with "Tao Te.')
 
 
EvskiG
13:25 / 22.02.07
Might as well get started with a translation of that first paragraph:

A way that can be walked
is not The Way
A name that can be named
is not The Name

(Star)

The tao that can be told
is not the eternal Tao
The name that can be named
is not the eternal Name.

(Mitchell)

Seems to me that this is an elegant and concise way (with what I understand is a cute play on words in Chinese) of saying the following:

"I'm going to discuss something called the Tao, the Path, or the Way. First, understand that my discussion of the Tao is not actually the Tao itself. In fact, the Tao cannot fully be explained or understood by merely using words."

What do people think? How would they describe this paragraph?
 
 
akira
13:39 / 22.02.07
I've also got the Jonathan Star translation and can vouch for it. The origional Chinese versus are included along with possible meanings for every character.
 
 
electric monk
14:54 / 22.02.07
The Feng/English translation is the same as the Mitchell (who's listed in their bibliography).

I see an emphasis on communication and a disclaimer here (as well as in the Addis & Lombardo and the Crowley translations). We are told right away that we will not be handed the Tao. The Tao will not be accurately reflected in this or any other chapter. It's as if Lao Tzu is saying that this is his experience of the Tao, but it is not THE Tao and that, further, it would be impossible for one person to give the Tao to another. It's something that has to be experienced/discovered for one's self. The 'Tao Te Ching' is merely a rough map of the Way ahead.
 
 
Closed for Business Time
15:15 / 22.02.07
Monk: I think you're right. It reminds of the via negativa in Christian theology and apophatic mysticism in general. We can only say what Tao is not. The positive attributes of Tao are not effable and sayable. We must un-say the Tao.

However, I wonder if Crowley isn't somehow injecting too much dualism into his interpretation -

"The Tao-Path is not the All-Tao.
The Name is not the Thing named."

- especially the last line, which to reads as trivially true (sign-signified dualism/General semantics map-territory relation), but strikes me as .... too dry? A name is Tao too, no, inasmuch as a name, this name Tao, is a recurring feature in the continuing making-sense-of the All-Tao, which also is Tao. Ahmmm..
 
 
petunia
15:24 / 22.02.07
I want in!

The translation I have is D.C. Lau's (Penguin Classics):

The way that can be spoken of
Is not the constant way;
The name that can be named
Is not the constant name.

I'd always figured this as saying "The words we have are in our minds. If you talk of the way, you will end up talking about a mental thing. The way is outside mind, so talking about it, i will end up not talking about it."

It's both a disclaimer for what will come and also a powerful summary of all that is to come. Everything that follows in the book can be condensed into this paragraph. That's why i love it so much.

In talking of 'the name', I reckon Old Guy is talking about the self. If we understand 'name' to be 'form', then he seems to be saying that 'the form which has form is not the True form'. e.g. the real stuff of reality lies beyond/behind single forms, in the formless.

I remember reading a little RAW where he was saying a more truthful translation of T/Dao would be 'process'. So way and name could be analogous to process and form? An eternal changing of processes and shapes taken by the unnamable.
 
 
EvskiG
15:49 / 22.02.07
Here's some possibly relevant commentary:

Chao-Chou asked, "What is the Tao?"

The master [Nan-ch'uan] replied: "Your ordinary consciousness is the Tao."

"How can one return into accord with it?"

"By intending to accord you immediately deviate."

"But without intention, how can one know the Tao?"

"The Tao," said the master, "belongs neither to knowing nor to not knowing. Knowing is false understanding; not knowing is blind ignorance. If you really understand the Tao beyond doubt, it's like the empty sky. Why drag in right or wrong?"

(taken from Alan Watts' book Tao: The Watercourse Way)
 
 
akira
15:54 / 22.02.07
The way is nature, and the way the way manifests itself is natural. Nature is the law.
 
 
petunia
16:21 / 22.02.07
Which is to say 'the way is not nature'?
 
 
Papess
16:51 / 22.02.07
Knowing is false understanding; not knowing is blind ignorance.

Sounds like a fool's dilemma to me: One must be ignorant enough to not be presumptuous (false understanding), but knowing enough not to be ignorant - of The Way, which just is.


The whole use of the word "nature", throws me off.
 
 
akira
18:28 / 22.02.07
Yea its messing with my head since you through is in there.
 
 
electric monk
12:06 / 23.02.07
The way is nature, and the way the way manifests itself is natural. Nature is the law.

I'm not so sure this is the case. I think Nature can be seen as a manifestation of the Way, one of "the ten-thousand things" that we'll read about in the next chapter. They come from the same place, Nature and the Way, but aren't the same thing.

Ever desireless, one can see the mystery.
Ever desiring, one sees the manifestations.
These two spring from the same source but differ in name;
this appears as darkness.
Darkness within darkness.
The gate to all mystery.


So I think that we can find the Tao in Nature, and that Nature is a manifestation of the Tao. But as soon as we call it "Nature", we're naming it, generalizing it, and eliminating the immediacy of the moment.

Maybe one of those "The Way is in Nature, but Nature is not in the Way" thingees.
 
 
electric monk
17:33 / 24.02.07
However, I wonder if Crowley isn't somehow injecting too much dualism into his interpretation...

He does seem to me to have an agenda he wants to fit the Tao into, namely aligning the Tao with the Book of the Law AFAICT. I admit I'm not at all familiar with the Taowley. That's just the first impression I got. Am I off base on this?
 
 
illmatic
17:45 / 24.02.07
I would guess not, bearing in mind what I know about Crowley. Everything in his canon is suborned to Liber Al. Bear in mind also that "interpretation" is more accurate that "translation", as Crowely couldn't read Chinese.
 
 
osymandus
09:15 / 27.02.07
One of Crowleys regrets , is never finding a teacher of the Tao . Yet in later years it could be argued he found the Tao anyway .

As stated above one cannot teach this only know it by knowing and returning to teh Tao.
Now given Growleys background in Gnosism (the western version ?). Is it more likley he was trying to find and express it in as many ways as possible ?
The book of teh Law could simply just be another epxression of this ?
 
 
EvskiG
14:24 / 27.02.07
I'm looking at the next few lines of the first verse:

Tao is both Named and Nameless
As Nameless, it is the origin of all things
As Named, it is the mother of all things.

(Star)

The unnameable is the eternally real.
Naming is the origin
of all particular things.

(Mitchell)

This seems to be elaborating on what we've discussed so far. The Tao, the Path, or the Way can to some extent be described in words (otherwise, no Tao Te Ching), but it can't be fully described or understood through words.

The Tao, the Path, or the Way exists regardless of whether we name it, and exceeds any description we can provide. Naming something, however -- even the Tao -- isn't useless. It creates a "particular thing" that we can grasp and understand, and possibly use as a "finger pointing to the moon" that will guide us toward the ineffable, "eternally real" "origin of all things."

Other thoughts on this part?
 
 
grant
18:31 / 27.02.07
Looking at zhongwen, it's worth noting that there's not a real verb in the first iteration of the first two lines -- Dao ke dao, fei chang dao. Ming ke ming, fei chang ming.

"Ke" means "may" or "but" and sort of represents a mouth being freed from obstructions, but it's not a verb, really.

"Fei" means "not" and "chang" means "upstanding" (like a banner outside a castle) and thus "proper."

"Ming" is a name.

The thing I think might be important is that "dao" and "ming" can both be used as verbs -- to travel or to arrive (although this is a different character), and to call (by a specific name). "Wu ming Smith, jiu Bob" is how Bob Smith would formally introduce himself. "I name Smith, call Bob."

"Ming" is also a measure-word for people. In Mandarin, when you're talking about items, you need to use the right measure-word as a suffix. I can't explain why, but ming's function is probably an important part of the idea of names and naming in Chinese culture.

The next line is "Without name Heaven soil," then "zhi" which is beyond my ability to translate even with the dictionary but probably "go" or "it", then "begins."

Next line: "Possess name 10,000 things go/it mother."

That's the same "mother" in "motherland" and "mother tongue." The general mother.

The same character that means "10,000" can also mean "scorpion," so go figure.
 
 
harmonic series
15:23 / 28.02.07
Thank you grant, this really helps (that may sound facetious, but it's not).

Looking at zhongwen, it's worth noting that there's not a real verb in the first iteration of the first two lines -- Dao ke dao, fei chang dao. Ming ke ming, fei chang ming.

"Ke" means "may" or "but" and sort of represents a mouth being freed from obstructions, but it's not a verb, really.

"Fei" means "not" and "chang" means "upstanding" (like a banner outside a castle) and thus "proper."

"Ming" is a name.


So using the literal words for Ming ke ming I get:
The NAME is an OPEN NAME.

I translate this to say:
The name is speakable.

To arrive at "The name is speakable", I extrapolate the literal definition more literally, as, the NAME MAY COME OUT OF/ AWAY FROM THE MOUTH, as in the specific translation, unobstructed mouth. Physically this seems to indicate that the title (word) for it (Tao) can be vocally said. Of course speakable becomes non-physically literal ('a title can be assigned').

Second part of the second sentence:
...fei chang ming.
Literally: not the upstanding name, or not the proper name. I translate this two ways (the first is my favorite):

The name does not hold. OR
The name is not correct.

"The name does not hold" comes, for me, directly from the imagery of the banner standing outside of a castle. To hyperliterally translate is, NOT UPSTANDING NAME or, the name does not stand up. I use "hold" with the English connotation of 'keeping a post or a position' and simulataneously 'adherence'. So the Tao is like Teflon, our names won't stick to it.

Second definition of course is: NOT PROPER NAME, i.e. We're not calling it the right thing. Seeing as there is a pretty good amount of insistence that a name isn't going to work for the Tao, I think that this more simple translation will actually cause greater complications later in understanding the intention of the 'riddles', since anything we call it won't actually be it.

As far as Ming (name) being a measure word, best I can find is that it's like assigning a title or a 'level' of name (i.e. Professor Soandso). I don't know. Grant?

Anyway, to screw us up even more here's this:

The Chinese word most commonly used for fate is Ming (ming4). Ming means:
1. Life
2. Fate, Destiny
3. The ordinances of Heaven
4. Order, Command
5. Assign (a name, title, etc.)




Finally, to parallel the second sentence with the first, I translate, Dao ke dao, fei chang dao.:

One can talk about the way, [but] that is not the proper(actual/real) way.

Rhetorically, I figure the commas are working as 'buts'.

I won't go into another long translation explanation.

Basically, philosophically what I personally understand these two key sentences to mean is, I/You/We/Anybody can assign any word or title or description (or, hah, explanation) that we want, but it isn't the thing. It's just not- don't confuse yourself/myself, et al, with the word or image or metaphor for it.

But we do. Why, so that we can talk about it- like this. Cool.
 
 
electric monk
15:51 / 28.02.07
This is caving my head in, and we're only on second couplet!

Eggs, thanks for that. Good to know going forward. D'you happen to know what source material Crowley based his interpretation on?


So, Feng/English says:

The nameless is the beginning of heaven and earth
The named is the mother of ten thousand things.


and I'm getting the idea from this that the act of naming is an act of separation. Before the name is assigned the ten thousand things are all one thing. Name one of those "X" and the rest become "not X".

It creates a "particular thing" that we can grasp and understand, and possibly use as a "finger pointing to the moon" that will guide us toward the ineffable, "eternally real" "origin of all things."

I like this.


And grant? You're doing my head in. I spent a good long time last night trying to reconcile the English and Chinese you've given. I think I reached single-pointedness just trying to balance it all out in my head. Keep it up! And BTW, is there any other symbolism for the scorpion in the Chinese culture? Like "luck" or "health" or similar?
 
 
grant
16:51 / 28.02.07
I actually don't know of any symbolism for scorpions in Chinese culture -- I can't even think of any depictions of scorpions. The only martial arts scorpion stuff I know are weapons from Japan, I think. (Others will know more than I do on that score.)

(Ah, apparently there is a Shaolin scorpion style, which is news to me.)

I should underline the fact that I'm in no way qualified to do any *real* translation of Chinese, but I thought it was important to show how differently the language works from the way people might think it works. An awful lot is done indirectly and with visual etymology (the shapes of the characters).

As far as Ming (name) being a measure word, best I can find is that it's like assigning a title or a 'level' of name (i.e. Professor Soandso). I don't know. Grant?

Measure words are hard to explain (especially for a novice like me), but when you're talking about just about any noun in Mandarin, you're supposed to tag it with a little thing at the end that gives it context. So yi-ge ren is one-thing-person, which will have a slightly different meaning than yi-ming ren (one-person-person, probably more formal), or yi-zhi ren (one-thin-round-object person, probably either incorrect or only concerned with a person as a cylindrical body, like maybe in designing an elevator or something).

Anyway, to screw us up even more here's this:

The Chinese word most commonly used for fate is Ming (ming4).


Ah -- well, THAT ming (the one in ming tien, the "Mandate of Heaven") is a different word altogether.

Here, see if this helps:
ming = name or famous (maybe I should've mentioned that other definition).
(Rising, or second tone, ming2 or míng)

Sounds the same as ming = "bright" or "lucid", but is a different character.

Doesn't sound the same as ming = fate, command, life.
(Fourth, or descending tone, ming4 or mìng).

So that's really a bit of a red herring. Mmmmight be used in some punning, but I kinda doubt it.
 
 
grant
17:06 / 28.02.07
By the way, I oversimplified on "chang" up there -- it really means "standing." It's used in a few forms of "standing committee" (as in one that's permanent, not seasonal) or "standing order." Not "upstanding" -- that's just me making a guess about what a lord's banner would have to do with a principle and an ordinary thing.

A better word might be "regular."

I'm sorry if this is distracting.
 
 
illmatic
19:54 / 28.02.07
Monk: My money would be on Crowley using James Legge's translation. He used Legge's I Ching for his reworking of that text, and Legge translated most of the Chinese classics, if I'm not mistaken. I've got a copy of Thelemic journal Red Flame which deals with Crowley's I Ching which gives notes on his translation. At the time, Legge's was the only I Ching available that went direct from Chinese to English. So, I'd imagine he used Legge as his source, but if there were any other translations availble to him when he was writing, I don't doubt he would have drawn on them also.
 
 
EvskiG
21:59 / 28.02.07
According to the Sutin biography (searchable on Amazon!) Crowley worked from the Legge translation.
 
 
harmonic series
05:47 / 01.03.07
I'm sorry if this is distracting. -grant

Ah, I'm so trusting...
 
 
EvskiG
19:30 / 02.03.07
Here's the next bit:

A mind free of thought,
merged within itself,
beholds the essence of Tao

A mind filled with thought,
identified with its own perceptions,
beholds the mere forms of this world

(Star)

Free from desire, you realize the mystery.
Caught in desire, you see only the manifestations.

(Mitchell)

Look at how pithy and elegant Mitchell is! But does he lose anything in the loose translation?

Seems to me that this is saying that people normally see the world through a filter of thoughts and desires, and as a result get caught up in surface appearances -- fragmented "manifestations" and "forms."

However, there is another manner of perception, in which one is free of desire and distracting thoughts, and can see the world without that distorting filter. In this state, one beholds the "mystery" or "essence of the Tao."

Sounds a lot like Plato's allegory of the cave -- except while I believe that Plato said you eventually could come to perceive (or at least understand) the essential nature of reality through rational thought, Lao Tsu seems to suggest that you can perceive the essential nature of reality through an absence of rational thought.
 
 
grant
20:30 / 02.03.07
Those translations seem to wander a bit from the literal Chinese, which is:
Gu (for, cause/reason or formerly) chang (the aforementioned principle/standing/proper/banner) wu (not),

Yu (desire, made by combining characters for "gaping" and "need") yi (continue, use or according to) guan (view or observe - picture shows a stork looking over something)qi (he/she/that) miao (wonderful/subtle - picture shows a young woman, presumably full of wonder);

Chang (principle/proper) you (to have, to hold, to exist),

yu (desire) yi (continue, use or according to) guan (observe) qi (he/she/that) jiao (or yao - frontier, inspect, patrol).

"Because no-principle, desire continue observe that wonderful.

"Principle exist, desire continue observe that frontier."

I'm not sure who inserted the commas an' that in the text on zhongwen, but the one between "chang" and "yu" seems to alter the meaning from the Star version quite a bit.
 
 
EmberLeo
20:39 / 02.03.07
and I'm getting the idea from this that the act of naming is an act of separation. Before the name is assigned the ten thousand things are all one thing. Name one of those "X" and the rest become "not X".

And they also become quantified, which is a step towards analysis. This changes our perception of their meaning away from what they ARE towards their subjective significance within our thought systems.

I was pondering an idea that...

The name is a door to the thing, not a container for it, yes? But as long as we have an overall tendancy to treat names as containers instead of doors, we cannot trust that we have in fact used the name as a door this time instead of simply expanding the container to the limits of our ability to conceptualize. Our limits are smaller than the truth, so it's best to not trust the name as a route to the reality of the thing at all.

Lao Tsu seems to suggest that you can perceive the essential nature of reality through an absence of rational thought.

Does rational = analytical, in this context?

A mind free of thought, merged within itself, beholds the essence of Tao

A mind filled with thought, identified with its own perceptions, beholds the mere forms of this world


I've never been able to accept this "free of thought" concept. I was discussing it with my lover the other night, and he pointed out that one doesn't necessarily have to stop thinking, so much as stop being attached to the thoughts going by, and just let them go, being what they are until the ones driven by internal snags are at rest.

There's a problem here with trying to use language to get a point across, though, because "observe" means both "filter through personal perceptions" and "passively allow information to reach you" in this context, and so both the first and second line refer to a process of Observation.

Blarg.

--Ember--
 
 
EvskiG
23:33 / 02.03.07
In the word-for-word translation provided in the back of his book, Star provides a half-dozen or so translations of each word in this section.

Here's a sample, picking just the first translation for each word:

ku ch'ang wu yu yi kuan ch'i miao

therefore always without deep-seated desire then perceive its essence

ch'ang yu yu yi kuan ch'i chiao

always have deep-seated desire then perceive its outer forms
 
 
EvskiG
23:49 / 02.03.07
By the way, I love the idea of names as doors vs. containers.

I'll have to think about that a bit . . .
 
  

Page: (1)2

 
  
Add Your Reply