This channel is really underrated. Probably the best content on Daoism. Regarding the topic, I find it very apt that the author of Dao De Jing is unknown. I would imagine, if Laozi truly existed, he would probably not wanna take the credit for it.
Great video! And I’m interested in reading the tao de Ching but I’m not sure what version to get, I’ve seen the video you posted about this matter and I was originally going to get the Stephen Addiss & Stanley lombardo version but I’ve heard amazing things about the red pine version so I am torn between the two. Which one would you personally recommend from the two?
Sorry about the super late reply and I hope I'm not too late. I think both of those versions are great options and, if you've already gotten either, I'm sure you won't regret it. The Addiss and Lombardo version is a really good-looking version with a good introduction from Burton Watson. It's a version that I think can replace more popular, trendy pseudo-translations without getting overly academic. (For just their translation, if you haven't seen it already, you can find it here: terebess.hu/english/tao/addiss.html) As for the Red Pine version, it certainly offers more content with the numerous commentaries alongside it-possibly sacrificing some of the simplistic appeal of Addiss and Lombardo. But, in my recent research on the Daodejing, (this video being a part of that) I've come to appreciate the Daodejing more for its potential for interpretation (in part because those assumptions around authorship, composition, coherence, and more have broken down-although I still think attempts at philosophical reconstructions hold value). With the commentaries offered in the Red Pine version, you get to see that interpretative process in its diversity. So while the Addiss and Lombardo may be ripe for building your own interpretation, the Red Pine shows how others have built theirs (although I wouldn't want to discredit Red Pine's translation since I think it can do quite the same, so maybe this distinction is unfair). Maybe these two solid versions demonstrate more so the flaw in the numerous popular pseudo-translations: that the pseudo-translations render its meaning too obvious, thereby stiffing the potential for diverse interpretations. They may be easier to make sense of, but in doing so, they sacrifice the difficulty and appeal of the text itself (particularly when they are passed off as faithful translations). I'd be glad to hear if you got a version and what you think of it.
Lao Tzu was a mystic(Rumi, Jesus, Alan Watts, Jiddu Krishnamurti, to name a few), Confucius was a philosopher. It probably was one person, but likely could have been more. The thing is. Lao Tzu points out in his very first line of the Tao te Ching.. The whole game. The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal dao. Nothing need to be said or done(which doesn't mean do nothing, by any means). But here is Confucius out here doing things. It really is that simple. This was an amazing documentary and really shows how Lao Tzu really was Taoist, as he didn't take credit for it.. He simply did he job then left. The 160 year old thing seems to VERY likely as Lao Tzu did NOT found Daoism. The book itself says not to found anything, and that each person is essentially divine(meaning they are equipped with everything they need already). If you understand Lao Tzu's point, then all these words are all pointing to that, and that alone. Which is saying the EXACT same thing as when a Buddhist, in zen, says there is nothing to teach because there is nothing to know.. Any student that sticks around after that is only fooling himself.
Yikes. A composite and somewhat politically purposed legend. Perhaps I missed this in your video, but how internally consistent is the Tao Te Ching (and hence how suggestive is it of one or several authors)?
A new long longform video from you? Today is a good day.
This channel is really underrated. Probably the best content on Daoism.
Regarding the topic, I find it very apt that the author of Dao De Jing is unknown. I would imagine, if Laozi truly existed, he would probably not wanna take the credit for it.
This was so thorough and enlightening, thank you!
Great job
Thanks for the video!
Thank you
great video!
Great video! And I’m interested in reading the tao de Ching but I’m not sure what version to get, I’ve seen the video you posted about this matter and I was originally going to get the Stephen Addiss & Stanley lombardo version but I’ve heard amazing things about the red pine version so I am torn between the two. Which one would you personally recommend from the two?
Sorry about the super late reply and I hope I'm not too late. I think both of those versions are great options and, if you've already gotten either, I'm sure you won't regret it. The Addiss and Lombardo version is a really good-looking version with a good introduction from Burton Watson. It's a version that I think can replace more popular, trendy pseudo-translations without getting overly academic. (For just their translation, if you haven't seen it already, you can find it here: terebess.hu/english/tao/addiss.html) As for the Red Pine version, it certainly offers more content with the numerous commentaries alongside it-possibly sacrificing some of the simplistic appeal of Addiss and Lombardo. But, in my recent research on the Daodejing, (this video being a part of that) I've come to appreciate the Daodejing more for its potential for interpretation (in part because those assumptions around authorship, composition, coherence, and more have broken down-although I still think attempts at philosophical reconstructions hold value). With the commentaries offered in the Red Pine version, you get to see that interpretative process in its diversity.
So while the Addiss and Lombardo may be ripe for building your own interpretation, the Red Pine shows how others have built theirs (although I wouldn't want to discredit Red Pine's translation since I think it can do quite the same, so maybe this distinction is unfair). Maybe these two solid versions demonstrate more so the flaw in the numerous popular pseudo-translations: that the pseudo-translations render its meaning too obvious, thereby stiffing the potential for diverse interpretations. They may be easier to make sense of, but in doing so, they sacrifice the difficulty and appeal of the text itself (particularly when they are passed off as faithful translations).
I'd be glad to hear if you got a version and what you think of it.
@@IanWithyBerry o
I can recommend a different translation that I have found very helpful Tao te Ching: Power for the Peaceful by Marc S. Mullinax.
Good Job.
Can highly, highly recommend *Jason Gregory* (for Taoism etc) - He's also here on YT.
Thank you
My religion is that of the Egyptian Djedi The predecessor religion to Christianity, combined with the philosophies of Lau Tzu.
U should talk about he’s past more
Lao Tzu was a mystic(Rumi, Jesus, Alan Watts, Jiddu Krishnamurti, to name a few), Confucius was a philosopher. It probably was one person, but likely could have been more.
The thing is. Lao Tzu points out in his very first line of the Tao te Ching.. The whole game.
The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal dao.
Nothing need to be said or done(which doesn't mean do nothing, by any means). But here is Confucius out here doing things.
It really is that simple.
This was an amazing documentary and really shows how Lao Tzu really was Taoist, as he didn't take credit for it.. He simply did he job then left.
The 160 year old thing seems to VERY likely as Lao Tzu did NOT found Daoism. The book itself says not to found anything, and that each person is essentially divine(meaning they are equipped with everything they need already).
If you understand Lao Tzu's point, then all these words are all pointing to that, and that alone.
Which is saying the EXACT same thing as when a Buddhist, in zen, says there is nothing to teach because there is nothing to know.. Any student that sticks around after that is only fooling himself.
Yikes. A composite and somewhat politically purposed legend. Perhaps I missed this in your video, but how internally consistent is the Tao Te Ching (and hence how suggestive is it of one or several authors)?
He’s Hmong
你不应该用解构主义的视角去探寻一个2000多年前的历史人物。道德经行文风格和其主体思想都统一性就已经注定了其不可能有一位以上的作者，这在学术界已是共识。
你这篇文章对于刚接触道家学派的初学者有很强的迷惑性和误导性。关于老子身世之谜的争论在中国古已有之，你通篇只是复述了一些不太入流的论点，并没有综述整个学术环境对这个问题的整体认识，也并没有提出属于自己的新的观点。
综上所述，建议删掉该视频。
以免混淆视听，谢谢。