That's a great version to shout out! It's actually the only version I have but haven't gone through and I'm excited to for the exact reason you just mentioned (not to mention that it has the classical Chinese alongside it). There really aren't many translations of Chinese commentaries to the text so to offer so many excerpts from them undoubtedly makes it a unique version. Also, thanks for checking out the channel! I really enjoy your music and I hope you don't mind my uses of them in other videos (if you do mind then I can stop doing that for sure). Either way, thanks for making the beats you do!
@@IanWithyBerry Yes definitely, it's one of my favorite books and has been really eye opening as to the actual meaning of the Daodejing. Though I suppose the innermost meaning would only be accessible by practicing Nei Gong with a qualified master. No worries, feel free to use my music. The funny thing is I was once randomly watching one of your videos when I suddenly heard my music in the background haha. :)
The best is to do your own translation. I left the tools information in a separate comment. I agree that the translations are variably unreliable. There is also much copying. Beware! It's not that hard to translate it yourself and you will get so much more out of it. Just remember that you are the Dao De Jing. Draw from your life experience and insights, and your translation will come alive for you. Translating it yourself is a great meditation.
As a Chinese learner with little knowledge of classical Chinese, I used to read Laozi in a translation in my native language, modern Mandarin and the original in parallel in order to get as much as possible of its meaning.
Great video! I find myself returning to it as a guide to suitable English translations, even if I read classical Chinese. Your standard is really helpful in thinking about how to engage with this work: whether as an academic study or something more personally relevant.
If you would like to do your own translation, you will need the six ancient manuscripts, available online: Guodian (c. 300 BCE,) Mawang Dui A and B (c. 200 BCE,) Heshang Gong (c. 150 BCE,) Wang Bi (c. 150 CE,) and Fu Yi (c. 500 CE.) Type in the search field, Onkellotus Tao Te Ching manuscripts. Click on daodejing - listed. Then scroll down to number 19, just after LINKS. Click on it, Das Tao Te King von Lao Tse. The six ancient manuscripts are atop. The foreign translations are next, in descending order. The English translations are the bottom third of the page. This page is crucial because it contains the six ancient manuscripts at the top of this page, so copy paste them! You will need the MDBG Chinese-English dictionary. You can type in the pinyin (the letters that represent the characters,) or even better, copy paste the Chinese characters into the dictionary search field. Very easy to use! You will need zhongwen.com/dao.htm. This resource will give you archaic meanings and is a good complement to your MDBG resource. Just click on 1-10 or 11-20 and so forth, then scroll to the poem you're working on, then click on the character you want information on, and it will appear in the column on the right of it at the top. This resource is particularly good for archaic meanings, as well as for giving you a breakdown as to the meaning of each character you click on. Another handy resource, if needed, copy paste in your search engine the character whose meaning you are researching. Of the characters that appear, click on the one that matches the copy-pasted character. Finally, click on Wiktionary, and it will provide you with details about that character. If you scroll down, you will see translations into English.
Thanks for this! It's undoubtedly good for people to know that the text and the means to work with it directly are out there. An entire translation is a monumental task, especially taking all of the available versions into account, but it's amazing that we live in a time when anyone is capable of doing so if they are willing to put in the effort. I'd add onto your already expansive list Donald Sturgeon's Chinese Text Project which has versions and a classical Chinese dictionary. Thanks again!
@@IanWithyBerry Figure on one week per poem. Some will take less, some more. It took me about a year and a half to two years. I had plenty of time to do a conscientious translation referencing all manuscripts. Thank you for your channel, Ian! Your delight in the Dao De Jing comes through.
The Ziporyn, Yang, Lynn, Hinton, and Fischer translations are good. I’ve read excerpts from Moeller and he does good as well. I’ve heard that LaFargue and Lau are excellent translations. I actually enjoy reading the Classical Chinese more than I do any translation. That way I can see for myself what the text has to say. I’d recommend that people read various translations rather than picking just one. No single translation can do the Laozi justice because there is so much depth to it. In another video, you asked whether people would be interested in hearing an assessment of Hoff’s translation. I would be very interested, given the bizarre claims Hoff makes about his translation and how they demonstrate the kind of arrogance that the Laozi condemns.
Thanks, i just bought the 1993 one because of this video- mainly i think i was going for as close as accurate translation as possible with enough aid to the interpretation as i could get, so it seems that as an ordinary guy going for the balance, this looks good I did orginally get stephen mitchells illustrated version but to be honest, i've seen alot of the errors, in particular to the good vs evil area whicj seems particulary misconstrued for such an inctedibly vital part of daoism
Hello Ian, writing to your latest video so you may see the comment. I've discovered your channel, and it's wonderful. Also a little bad that you are "under-rated", but who cares; does the "information philantrophy", or anything require fame? Marcus Aurelius would say not! Anyway, I'm writing this just to appreciate your videos. And to give a little help with the algorithm, I guess... Keep up the good work!
I do love the sparse approach of the Addiss & Lombardo translation - I need to revisit it. That sparse quality is what I appreciate in Red Pine's version as well. Ames and Hall's is... interesting, but not so much for the translation as it is for the commentary. Brook Ziporyn's newly publish translation is really good, though lacking (I feel) in the poetic department, which is unfortunately how scholarly translations tend to go (like the Ames & Hall). I do think having multiple versions available is helpful for comparison, to possibly get at some nuances "in between the cracks" that simply can't be entirely understood with the original polysemous classical Chinese text (Ziproryn occaionally translates some lines multiple times t show some possibilities to consider). I have also found that, even lacking working knowledge of actual classical Chinese, it has been beneficial to create your own version(s), if even only for private use -- and which can be modified at any time. I wouldn't recommend that to beginners, of course, but over time, with greater familiarity, it serves as a great way to help really grok the text a lot more, just putting the text in one's own words. Great video -- 30 seconds in, I had to give it a thumbs up -- I wholeheartedly agree with your sentiments! [Edited to add: I should say also having a Chinese lexicon for the DDJ is of course important to have in addition to multiple versions if constructing one's own version.]
Wow! I had no idea Brook Ziporyn had published a translation of the DDJ. Thanks for alerting me to that. I might have to look out for that one. His 2020 translation of the complete works of Zhuangzi is truly masterful.
@@earthling1970 As soon as you made me aware of this new translation, I went to Amazon and bought the Kindle version of this book. This is the first DDJ translation I bought in many years as I feel this book has been over-translated (or should I say overinterpreted as most are just mere paraphrases done by incompetent people like Stephen Mitchell who dare to presume they know more than the real experts) But I had to buy this translation because in IMHO I can't think of any scholar who delves as deeply into research as Brook Ziporyn. One of the first things I noticed was how "Unpoetic" the translation was. But I actually found that more reassuring as it became blatantly obvious that Ziporyn was more concerned about getting the meaning(s) correct over pleasing "Western Spiritual Simpletons" who only want to read a reinterpretation to reinforce their own biased and prejudiced spiritual opinions. So once again thanks for alerting me to this brilliant translation which I've already almost finished reading.
@@ryokan9120- One of the most refreshing things about Ziporyn's translation is he emphasizes just how oddly subversive the DDJ really is, focusing as he does on the "unhewn," the "background noise" that is typically ignored in our ordinary valuation of things and events. While this might be present in some better translations (to some extent), Ziporyn really brings that aspect (ironically!) to the foreground in his translation and commentary. It really does contribute I think to a deeper significance of the text, and has had me rethink (or think more deeply) on the DDJ for sure.
@@earthling1970 Thank you! You make some excellent points about this translation. And this is why I always emphasize reading translations from scholars who have thoroughly researched their subject matter. In the case of Ziporyn, he has spent decades researching Daoist texts, especially The Zhuangzi. Roger Ames has also been engaged in research for even longer than Ziporyn and it's worth noting in some areas their interpretations differ significantly which makes it all the more interesting. Another translation I would highly recommend is by Professor Moss Roberts. I must admit though if I was really pushed to disclose my favorite translation I would probably go with Ziporyn's translation. All three translations I've mentioned ironically are the least poetic translations available, so sadly they will probably be massively outsold by those wishy-washy "feel good" translations with their "spiritual biases".
My Asian Philosophy class uses a compilation textbook featuring translations by Philipp J. Ivanhoe and Bryan W. Van Norden. The Daodejing in particular is translated by Ivanhoe. Is this a good translation in your eyes?
That's a good question. It would probably require an essay of its own to answer completely, but I might favor translated 'de' as "virtue." Undoubtedly, 'de' has implications of, as Waley put it, being Dao's power-maybe in the sense of being the immanent of the transcendent Dao-which nourishes the myriad things (c51). But I don't think we can forego the context of classical Chinese philosophy wherein Confucian philosophy purports an understanding of 'de' as "virtue." Taking the Daodejing as inverting the Confucian portray of 'de,' as it does in c38, I think maintaining it as "virtue" keeps this context in mind. Only, for the Daodejing, it is that actual virtue is not the Confucian virtue, but 'wuwei.' At least, those are a few cursory thoughts.
@@IanWithyBerry I liked it, yeah. It's very much on the end of "vibe not exact wording", so I wouldn't use it if I were to be doing an academic-type study of Daoism, but it's beautifully-written and accessible enough to recommend to anyone without being wildly inaccurate.
@@ryokan9120 Of course! I don't mean to impugn Professor Minford's credentials or academic chops. I believe he himself said in the introduction that it was meant to be a loose, poetic translation, not a technical, literal one. That's all I mean by saying 'I wouldn't use it if I were to be doing an academic-type study of Daoism'. It doesn't have substantial notes on the philology, historical context, or manuscript history of the Daodejing. Those are all what I'd consider necessary parts of a scholarly critical edition (not to mention a Classical Chinese text). Since it doesn't have them, I think it's a pretty solidly popular/artistic translation - thus the mainstream publisher (Penguin). That's no bad thing, though! It's still a real achievement. It's just oriented towards a different use.
@@josephrohrbach1588 Thanks for the information! I've read Professor Minford's translation of Sunzi and even though it's intended for a general reader, it does contain a lot of well-researched and translated commentary from historical sources.
Nice day. Simply say. Mawangdui is close to original Lou tzu. About 1600 letters are Lou tzu's, which is one third of the others'. This one see that world Lou tzu scholars yet do not know the right interpretation of Lou tzu. So say here, when world people understand that Heraclitus' Parmenides' and Socrates' are the I of each people, then people also may solve Lou tzu's I, Tao rightly. Because Lou tzu's Tao is also the I of each people. When people digest Thomas Gospel rightly, then they understand Heraclitus' Parmenides' Socrates' rightly. There are also some miswritten letters in Mawangdui's and Thomas Gospel's, so some miswritten letters may be challenged by the brave for world and people's eternal life benefit. In Thomas Gospel 13, there were such unsaid things, This opened the blaspheming here, One is 'I am whatever I am. One is 'You are all. One is 'All is whole. Nice eternal life is originally your's.
Ian, your critique of Stephen Mitchell is extremely problematic to understanding what Lao Tzu was pointing out. His book COMPLETELY gave me Lao Tzu's overall point, him being honest in saying that he may not have translated his words exactly may be correct(I'm sure you can translate and prove it), but he has definitely translated his mind. The words are not as important as the symbols that they point to. I can help you to understand mysticism if you'd like. I've got a great grasp on it. I used a lot of Alan Watts to learn about Lao Tzu, and Stephen's book is amazing at bringing all those points home.
How can somebody like Mitchell who doesn't even understand Classical Chinese or even the historical context (the book has meant different things during different periods to different commentators) possibly "translate his mind"? He clearly imposed his "Zen bias" into a text which he knows nothing about. The man is a fraud and there are plenty of scholars who share that view.
![SAFEPLANET - ดาวเคราะห์ [ THE PLANET ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/4X1XL3I_k3c/mqdefault.jpg)
Red Pine's (Bill Porter) translation is my favorite. It features commentaries by Chinese scholars and sages which clarify the meaning of each chapter.
That's a great version to shout out! It's actually the only version I have but haven't gone through and I'm excited to for the exact reason you just mentioned (not to mention that it has the classical Chinese alongside it). There really aren't many translations of Chinese commentaries to the text so to offer so many excerpts from them undoubtedly makes it a unique version.
Also, thanks for checking out the channel! I really enjoy your music and I hope you don't mind my uses of them in other videos (if you do mind then I can stop doing that for sure). Either way, thanks for making the beats you do!
@@IanWithyBerry Yes definitely, it's one of my favorite books and has been really eye opening as to the actual meaning of the Daodejing. Though I suppose the innermost meaning would only be accessible by practicing Nei Gong with a qualified master.
No worries, feel free to use my music. The funny thing is I was once randomly watching one of your videos when I suddenly heard my music in the background haha. :)
@@tonystocker1966 Haha that's actually crazy! Well I'm glad you found it and thanks for letting me use your great music!
The best is to do your own translation. I left the tools information in a separate comment.
I agree that the translations are variably unreliable. There is also much copying. Beware!
It's not that hard to translate it yourself and you will get so much more out of it.
Just remember that you are the Dao De Jing. Draw from your life experience and insights, and your translation will come alive for you.
Translating it yourself is a great meditation.
As a Chinese learner with little knowledge of classical Chinese, I used to read Laozi in a translation in my native language, modern Mandarin and the original in parallel in order to get as much as possible of its meaning.
Great video! I find myself returning to it as a guide to suitable English translations, even if I read classical Chinese. Your standard is really helpful in thinking about how to engage with this work: whether as an academic study or something more personally relevant.
If you would like to do your own translation, you will need the six ancient manuscripts, available online: Guodian (c. 300 BCE,) Mawang Dui A and B (c. 200 BCE,) Heshang Gong (c. 150 BCE,) Wang Bi (c. 150 CE,) and Fu Yi (c. 500 CE.)
Type in the search field, Onkellotus Tao Te Ching manuscripts. Click on daodejing - listed. Then scroll down to number 19, just after LINKS. Click on it, Das Tao Te King von Lao Tse. The six ancient manuscripts are atop. The foreign translations are next, in descending order. The English translations are the bottom third of the page. This page is crucial because it contains the six ancient manuscripts at the top of this page, so copy paste them!
You will need the MDBG Chinese-English dictionary. You can type in the pinyin (the letters that represent the characters,) or even better, copy paste the Chinese characters into the dictionary search field. Very easy to use!
You will need zhongwen.com/dao.htm. This resource will give you archaic meanings and is a good complement to your MDBG resource. Just click on 1-10 or 11-20 and so forth, then scroll to the poem you're working on, then click on the character you want information on, and it will appear in the column on the right of it at the top. This resource is particularly good for archaic meanings, as well as for giving you a breakdown as to the meaning of each character you click on.
Another handy resource, if needed, copy paste in your search engine the character whose meaning you are researching. Of the characters that appear, click on the one that matches the copy-pasted character. Finally, click on Wiktionary, and it will provide you with details about that character. If you scroll down, you will see translations into English.
Thanks for this! It's undoubtedly good for people to know that the text and the means to work with it directly are out there. An entire translation is a monumental task, especially taking all of the available versions into account, but it's amazing that we live in a time when anyone is capable of doing so if they are willing to put in the effort. I'd add onto your already expansive list Donald Sturgeon's Chinese Text Project which has versions and a classical Chinese dictionary. Thanks again!
@@IanWithyBerry Figure on one week per poem. Some will take less, some more. It took me about a year and a half to two years. I had plenty of time to do a conscientious translation referencing all manuscripts.
Thank you for your channel, Ian! Your delight in the Dao De Jing comes through.
RASPECT.
Derek Lin's translated, annotated and explained Tao te ching is really good.
The Ziporyn, Yang, Lynn, Hinton, and Fischer translations are good. I’ve read excerpts from Moeller and he does good as well. I’ve heard that LaFargue and Lau are excellent translations.
I actually enjoy reading the Classical Chinese more than I do any translation. That way I can see for myself what the text has to say. I’d recommend that people read various translations rather than picking just one. No single translation can do the Laozi justice because there is so much depth to it.
In another video, you asked whether people would be interested in hearing an assessment of Hoff’s translation. I would be very interested, given the bizarre claims Hoff makes about his translation and how they demonstrate the kind of arrogance that the Laozi condemns.
Thanks, i just bought the 1993 one because of this video- mainly i think i was going for as close as accurate translation as possible with enough aid to the interpretation as i could get, so it seems that as an ordinary guy going for the balance, this looks good
I did orginally get stephen mitchells illustrated version but to be honest, i've seen alot of the errors, in particular to the good vs evil area whicj seems particulary misconstrued for such an inctedibly vital part of daoism
Hello Ian, writing to your latest video so you may see the comment. I've discovered your channel, and it's wonderful. Also a little bad that you are "under-rated", but who cares; does the "information philantrophy", or anything require fame? Marcus Aurelius would say not! Anyway, I'm writing this just to appreciate your videos. And to give a little help with the algorithm, I guess... Keep up the good work!
Thanks for the kind words!!! I appreciate it!
Great video. Very helpful. Plus, I appreciate your honesty in making this. Thank you.
Thanks! Exactly the kind of summary I was looking for. I went for the 1993 version 😊
I do love the sparse approach of the Addiss & Lombardo translation - I need to revisit it. That sparse quality is what I appreciate in Red Pine's version as well. Ames and Hall's is... interesting, but not so much for the translation as it is for the commentary. Brook Ziporyn's newly publish translation is really good, though lacking (I feel) in the poetic department, which is unfortunately how scholarly translations tend to go (like the Ames & Hall).
I do think having multiple versions available is helpful for comparison, to possibly get at some nuances "in between the cracks" that simply can't be entirely understood with the original polysemous classical Chinese text (Ziproryn occaionally translates some lines multiple times t show some possibilities to consider).
I have also found that, even lacking working knowledge of actual classical Chinese, it has been beneficial to create your own version(s), if even only for private use -- and which can be modified at any time. I wouldn't recommend that to beginners, of course, but over time, with greater familiarity, it serves as a great way to help really grok the text a lot more, just putting the text in one's own words.
Great video -- 30 seconds in, I had to give it a thumbs up -- I wholeheartedly agree with your sentiments!
[Edited to add: I should say also having a Chinese lexicon for the DDJ is of course important to have in addition to multiple versions if constructing one's own version.]
Wow! I had no idea Brook Ziporyn had published a translation of the DDJ. Thanks for alerting me to that. I might have to look out for that one. His 2020 translation of the complete works of Zhuangzi is truly masterful.
@@ryokan9120 - I found out by happy accident myself - it just came out, hot off the press! And yes, his Zhuangzi translation is so good!
@@earthling1970 As soon as you made me aware of this new translation, I went to Amazon and bought the Kindle version of this book. This is the first DDJ translation I bought in many years as I feel this book has been over-translated (or should I say overinterpreted as most are just mere paraphrases done by incompetent people like Stephen Mitchell who dare to presume they know more than the real experts)
But I had to buy this translation because in IMHO I can't think of any scholar who delves as deeply into research as Brook Ziporyn. One of the first things I noticed was how "Unpoetic" the translation was. But I actually found that more reassuring as it became blatantly obvious that Ziporyn was more concerned about getting the meaning(s) correct over pleasing "Western Spiritual Simpletons" who only want to read a reinterpretation to reinforce their own biased and prejudiced spiritual opinions. So once again thanks for alerting me to this brilliant translation which I've already almost finished reading.
@@ryokan9120- One of the most refreshing things about Ziporyn's translation is he emphasizes just how oddly subversive the DDJ really is, focusing as he does on the "unhewn," the "background noise" that is typically ignored in our ordinary valuation of things and events. While this might be present in some better translations (to some extent), Ziporyn really brings that aspect (ironically!) to the foreground in his translation and commentary. It really does contribute I think to a deeper significance of the text, and has had me rethink (or think more deeply) on the DDJ for sure.
@@earthling1970 Thank you! You make some excellent points about this translation. And this is why I always emphasize reading translations from scholars who have thoroughly researched their subject matter. In the case of Ziporyn, he has spent decades researching Daoist texts, especially The Zhuangzi. Roger Ames has also been engaged in research for even longer than Ziporyn and it's worth noting in some areas their interpretations differ significantly which makes it all the more interesting. Another translation I would highly recommend is by Professor Moss Roberts. I must admit though if I was really pushed to disclose my favorite translation I would probably go with Ziporyn's translation. All three translations I've mentioned ironically are the least poetic translations available, so sadly they will probably be massively outsold by those wishy-washy "feel good" translations with their "spiritual biases".
Wes Cecil recommended Red Pines' version. I haven't read it, though.
My Asian Philosophy class uses a compilation textbook featuring translations by Philipp J. Ivanhoe and Bryan W. Van Norden. The Daodejing in particular is translated by Ivanhoe. Is this a good translation in your eyes?
It seems my comment linking a site to a translation is removed. Did you see it?
I've also found TH-cam keeps removing my links to book recommendations.
Any thoughts on the Wayne Dyer translation? My friend recommended that one
Are you more partial to translations of 德 as something along the lines of "virtue" or of "power"?
That's a good question. It would probably require an essay of its own to answer completely, but I might favor translated 'de' as "virtue." Undoubtedly, 'de' has implications of, as Waley put it, being Dao's power-maybe in the sense of being the immanent of the transcendent Dao-which nourishes the myriad things (c51). But I don't think we can forego the context of classical Chinese philosophy wherein Confucian philosophy purports an understanding of 'de' as "virtue." Taking the Daodejing as inverting the Confucian portray of 'de,' as it does in c38, I think maintaining it as "virtue" keeps this context in mind. Only, for the Daodejing, it is that actual virtue is not the Confucian virtue, but 'wuwei.' At least, those are a few cursory thoughts.
when your translated version wasn’t even mentioned 😳
Are you acquainted with the Minford version?
I am not, but from looking it up just now it has the markings to be a splendid version! Would you agree?
@@IanWithyBerry I liked it, yeah. It's very much on the end of "vibe not exact wording", so I wouldn't use it if I were to be doing an academic-type study of Daoism, but it's beautifully-written and accessible enough to recommend to anyone without being wildly inaccurate.
@@josephrohrbach1588 John Minford is a highly esteemed academic and Professor Emeritus of Classical Chinese.
@@ryokan9120 Of course! I don't mean to impugn Professor Minford's credentials or academic chops. I believe he himself said in the introduction that it was meant to be a loose, poetic translation, not a technical, literal one. That's all I mean by saying 'I wouldn't use it if I were to be doing an academic-type study of Daoism'. It doesn't have substantial notes on the philology, historical context, or manuscript history of the Daodejing. Those are all what I'd consider necessary parts of a scholarly critical edition (not to mention a Classical Chinese text). Since it doesn't have them, I think it's a pretty solidly popular/artistic translation - thus the mainstream publisher (Penguin). That's no bad thing, though! It's still a real achievement. It's just oriented towards a different use.
@@josephrohrbach1588 Thanks for the information! I've read Professor Minford's translation of Sunzi and even though it's intended for a general reader, it does contain a lot of well-researched and translated commentary from historical sources.
I am watching this video after buying James legge's translation
Nice day.
Simply say.
Mawangdui is close to original Lou tzu.
About 1600 letters are Lou tzu's, which is one third of the others'.
This one see that world Lou tzu scholars yet do not know the right interpretation of Lou tzu.
So say here, when world people understand that Heraclitus' Parmenides' and Socrates' are the I of each people,
then people also may solve Lou tzu's I, Tao rightly.
Because Lou tzu's Tao is also the I of each people.
When people digest Thomas Gospel rightly,
then they understand Heraclitus' Parmenides' Socrates' rightly.
There are also some miswritten letters in Mawangdui's and Thomas Gospel's,
so some miswritten letters may be challenged by the brave for world and people's eternal life benefit.
In Thomas Gospel 13, there were such unsaid things,
This opened the blaspheming here,
One is 'I am whatever I am.
One is 'You are all.
One is 'All is whole.
Nice eternal life is originally your's.
Or, learn Classical Chinese and join the industry!
Ian, your critique of Stephen Mitchell is extremely problematic to understanding what Lao Tzu was pointing out.
His book COMPLETELY gave me Lao Tzu's overall point, him being honest in saying that he may not have translated his words exactly may be correct(I'm sure you can translate and prove it), but he has definitely translated his mind.
The words are not as important as the symbols that they point to.
I can help you to understand mysticism if you'd like. I've got a great grasp on it. I used a lot of Alan Watts to learn about Lao Tzu, and Stephen's book is amazing at bringing all those points home.
How can somebody like Mitchell who doesn't even understand Classical Chinese or even the historical context (the book has meant different things during different periods to different commentators) possibly "translate his mind"? He clearly imposed his "Zen bias" into a text which he knows nothing about. The man is a fraud and there are plenty of scholars who share that view.
But capitalism is good
Indeed
That's what the brainwash tells us.
Just like anything, a good thing can always be twisted into a bad thing.