Dear Ian, thank you for taking the time to make this video. I have been posting it more than a dozen times on various Daoism groups on facebook. I regularly am asked about a good translation and I never fail to mention to steer clear of Mitchell. "Often people comment, but it was really clear or accessible to me." which unfortunately misses the point. Hoffman is now also releasing a Dao De Jing "translation" on the back of his success with The Dao of Pooh and the Te of Piglet, and it already ranks #100 without having been released yet (I believe on pre-sales basis). I have a small publishing house Purple Cloud Press with the mission to disseminate Daoism as close to the core as possible, so this video is gold to educate people.
Thanks for the kind words and sharing it! And I hadn't seen Purple Cloud Press before but looks great! And thanks for letting me know about Hoff's upcoming version! I've just looked it up and I already have numerous concerns from reading its description alone: "The Eternal Tao Te Ching is the first translation to employ the meanings of the pre-writing brush characters in use 2,400 years ago, when the classic was written, rather than relying on the often-different meanings of the more modern brush characters, as other translations have done. Hoff points out in his chapter notes the many incidents of meddling and muddling that have been made over the centuries by scholars and copyists, and he corrects the mistakes and removes such tampering from the text. Hoff also makes the provocative claim-and demonstrates by revealing clues in the text-that the Tao Te Ching’s author was a young nobleman hiding his identity, rather than the long-alleged author, the “Old Master” of legend, Lao-tzu. And Hoff’s chapter notes shed new light on the author’s surprisingly modern viewpoint." If it it lives up to those concerns then maybe I'll make a video on it (along his other works).
@@IanWithyBerry This is insanely wrong on all levels. I cannot even being to say.. Wow. You literally are great at getting facts and data together, but as for understanding Lao Tzu's points. No. The words are the entire problem. You simply are getting lost in them instead of getting the points.
Thank you for posting this discussion, I agree totally. While Mitchell's version is said by many to be "beautiful" the authors of the Laozi themselves say in the last verse that true words are not beautiful. I gave up reading Mitchell's version due to cringe fatigue. There are many superb interpretations out there, I don't see Mitchell's version succeeded in solving any particular problem with this text.
That is a big mistake. It is a great translation. If you listen to Alan Watts and then go to that translation. You could QUICKLY see what point Lao Tzu is making and it is EXTREMELY deep. IT gives the whole show away, in Stephen's translation.
@@mikeydoes There are many perspectives, and his encompasses a more Zen perspective. It’s calming and it appeals to people who got here by listening to Alan Watts, but the classical Taoist perspective is something that wasn’t always so reliant on Buddhism’s teachings. Don’t rob yourself of the literal translation and Taoism as it’s own complete worldview.
@@mikeydoes You say that as if you know it. I’m simply informing you of new experiences to be had by listening to translations that don’t heavily rewrite what was first written as Mitchell did. Do as you wish.
Thanks greatly for a very edifying video. I used to employ Mitchell's translation in my courses, although I always warned that the opening to Chapter 5 is quite misleading. Also, though I love Ursula K. LeGuin, I was greatly disappointed by her supposed translation of The Tao Te Ching; so much so, that I discarded it. D. C. Lao remains one of my favorites. I supplement that with three other translations, including Mitchell's and Red Pine's. Witter Bynner offers his version, as "The Way of Life According to Lao Tzu." He too takes liberties, but is honest about it, providing a poetic and fascinating version of The Tao Te Ching (which is the one most familiar to John Lennon). Anyway, thanks again. Great research, great video. Lucid and concise. Bravo !!
Chapter 5, yes! Mitchell certainly goes to lengths to avoid translating "straw dogs." That's quite the list of translations! Good to hear that Brynner sets an example of avoiding the title "Dao de Jing" in his version and lets the readers know of his own poetic interpretation. And thanks for the kind words!
I really like what I've read so far of Linnell's Dao De Jing A Minimalist Translation. Each chapter is presented in a four-square with the original Chinese text, a finished translation, a raw direct translation, and notes and cross-references. Reading it basically feels like what I'd imagine translating the text yourself with the help of someone else experienced would be like. I've definitely gained the most insight and understanding of the Dao De Jing from that version simply because it makes the more involved, introspective reading of the text that is always recommended that much easier compared to the English-only translations I've looked at before.
Don't listen to the OP. Stephen's translation is great. Compare it to other ones if you want, but the words are not as important as understanding what the first line means. He who speaks doesn't know, he who knows doesn't speak is perfectly fine, and I let my unconscious paint the picture on what he was saying Lao Tzu meant, and eventually I got it. So don't ever shun something just because some kid said so.
@@mikeydoesI agree. It was the Mitchell version that I got addicted to which led to so many other things for me. It woke me up and gave me some courage. I’ve read other versions which are wonderful as well. Aliester Crowley even made one of the first western translations, which it’s own thing too ha.
@@mikeydoesI stand slightly corrected. Crowley’s was an ‘interpretation’ from an English text and not a new translation. He certainly knew a lot about Eastern Culture and spiritual traditions though. Anyway, I’m just rabbiting into the void.😮
I hadn't realized that Komjathy had made a translation but after some digging I found it online (documents.pub/document/louise-komjathy-handbooks-for-daoist-practise-book-of-venerable-masters.html). Komjathy is undoubtedly a top scholar on the Daoist tradition and one utterly unafraid of criticizing the Western romanticization of "Daoism." Thanks for this!
The best to go with Lau is Roger Ames and David Hall's philosophical version, as it enters most deeply into the larger cultural context of a quite different world view. Addiss and Lombardo (as also mentioned) is also good -- it does have a smooth concision of style.
The first version I read was by Master Hua Ching Ni called "The Complete Works of Lao Tzu" which includes The "Hua Hu Ching" which is described as the hidden works of Lao Tzu. Master Ni also wrote "Esoteric Tao Teh Ching' that gives commentary. I have read that some doubt that the "Hua Hu Ching" can be attributed to Lao Tzu. I loved reading the entire book! I have no idea about it's authenticity and would welcome comments.
The Hua Hu Ching is an interesting one. I haven't read its entirety (although what remains of it is not its original entirety either but fragments that appeared in other texts). My familiarity with it comes from James Robson's Norton Anthology on Taoism, although I believe Komjathy has written on it in depth. The title would be translated as "The Classic/Scripture on the Conversion of the Barbarians" and the text tells of Lao Tzu's teachings in India, including a number of motifs shared with Gautama Buddha. Among modern scholars, I believe there to be a consensus that the text was a creation by Wang Fu in the fourth century CE, during a time of tension between Taoists and Buddhists in China. The text utilized the "Huahu theory" which was used by Taoists since the second century CE to discredit Buddhists as it suggested that Buddhism was just Taoism for barbarians. Whether certain Taoist groups have taken it to be the words of Lao Tzu, it is overwhelmingly improbable to be so as it appears certain today to be written in the midst of Taoist and Buddhist tensions. Some Buddhists even reversed the narrative and suggested that Lao Tzu was "an incarnation of a disciple of the Buddha who was sent to China to introduce a version of Buddhism to China." [Robson, 189] But this isn't to dismiss the text entirely, since its certainly an important Taoist text and also fascinating historically!
The Hua Hu JIng by Ni is very loose and is not really a translation either but more of a commentary or interpretation. Same applies for his father's translation. On a sidenote his father published a vernacular commentary (conducted by the Chinese government) on the Huang Di Nei Jing as his own commentary, where he adopted paragraph by paragraph of the vernacular version. I only found out recently and was very shocked. According to standards nowadays that is intellectual property theft and the least he could have done was credit the original creators of that commentary rather than selling it as his own. (This text was recommended reading during my unversity education, so in other words the uni recommmended a plagiarized text).
My favorite translations, from someone who doesn't read Chinese but can appreciate those who engage with the text in a respectful manner: Jonathan Star, Ames and Hall, Ellen Chen, and Derek Lin.
No problem. It's the translation by Stephen Addiss and Stanley Lombardo, "Tao Te Ching (Hackett Classics)." I'm not sure that I can authoritatively say its the best translation but it's probably my favorite!
For the record I never bought that translation of the Tao Te Ching so I guess that alot of people would say that I have dodged a bullet.However alot of people would say that since the Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao, so therefore you should not really get too infatuated or obsessed with the spoken word or the written words in a book anyway.
You're getting it. Stephen Mitchell's Translation is great. You can listen to it for free on youtube, and he reads it. This idea that it is a bad translation is coming from someone who clearly didn't listen to the tao te ching clearly.. Where bad only exists if we say something is good. He's just playing games and pretending one translation is better, when I prefer to tell people to use stephens, because every paragraph can be understood. Most translations make no sense and I understand dualism and what Lao Tzu is saying. So why would I tell people to read something that makes no sense and just sounds smart, but isn't? Alan Watts already gave two great translations. Also, people spreading the tao te ching is a good thing, not a bad thing.
@@mikeydoes I couldn't have better said it myself. Sure the Stephen Mitchell translation may be more of an interpretation as seen through a Zen Buddhist perspective rather than an actual translation, but to see people get so worked up about his version of the Tao Te Ching is wild to me. I understand how it might not be the most accurate in regards to the original text, but there is still much deep meaning within it. I never would have guessed that Taoists could get so vitriolic and take so much offense about something.
@@mikeydoes And yet I question how much of this video you watched past clicking on it to yell at clouds. He doesn't critique Mitchell for being anything but dishonest and injecting his own thoughts into the words into it. Personally, when reading translations, yeah you know what throw big rocks at me and call me a rationalist but I prefer something that actually reflects the text itself rather than some figment of this random guys mind. Also... I get the whole point is that the path of the least resistance is the best and stuff... dude the book begins with "道可道。非常道。 名可名。非常名。"which you can literally render, not translate but render this as so many different things in english and all of them are so dramatically different. One of many is something like "Dao can dao not everlasting/eternal dao. Name can name, not everlasting/eternal name." And there is such a deep history behind even just this single line, the puns of characters used, the multitude of meaning they take on, and all of this has NOTHING in his translation because he himself can't see it. You aren't just going with the way, you are blocking out such an infinitely deep text that you can deliberate over any word, and while the dao can't be named, we can talk about the Dao De Jing and enjoy it deeply and with respect and regard that doesn't denigrate the language. I just despise appealing to absolute idiocy in order to paint a picture that the world is a simple place, when if you read any actual translation or the text itself, or go out in the world and take in the complexity, you will get something so rich and complex and nuanced that you experience everything more completely rather than shutting everything out that makes you feel dumb.
@@CellzRKewl You're conflating academics with Daoists. We study texts like this to keep everybody in line and make sure people like Mitchell can't go around injecting a bunch of nonsense into ancient religious texts in order to perpetuate ideas like "ancient simple wisdom of the orient" anymore. Call us sticks in the mud, we just want everyone to actually have the ability to be exposed to something closer to the reality as it is.
@@iinc6290 This is nonsense honestly. The points made are obvious and I understand them. Furthermore, if you compare what Lao Tzu says to any other mystic, it's the exact same thing. Or look at Jung, he points to an unknowable, unspeakable God. Huxley, Jiddu Krishnamurti, they all point to words being the beginning of the problems, and people's attachment to them. You said you are a rational thinker, but you completely dispel the irrational when it's equal in it's importance, and Nietzsche points out, that is the birth of tragedy.
Thank you for a very enlightening video on an under-discussed topic that I care about! There's a disturbingly large market for these kinds of simplifying, self-help oriented translations (and it's strikingly racist how often the texts in question are non-Western, with Western translators). Mitchell fascinates me because although he comes from that self-help scene, some of his translations (particularly of Rilke) are accurate and excellent. The one quirk he allows himself in Rilke is that the word "thing", in any context, is capitalised as "Thing", as a clumsy signpost towards Rilke's very, very loose Buddhist resonances. He never shows the kind of audacity that he does towards Laozi.
Stephen Mitchell's is a GREAT translation. Do not listen to this man and give it a try. The words are not as important as understanding what Lao Tzu was trying to say. And he is pointing out the duality in everything. And that includes the first sentence, He who speaks doesn't know, he who knows doesn't speak. That line is PERFECT and explains the whole entire book. I know next to no one that understands that, and I am willing to bet Stephen actually does since he wrote it. As I said, it took me quite a while to understand it, but I knew there was a point there.
It’s sad because it’s a beautifully written work and I find some of his verses great, but I wish he was more respectful of the original intentions and didn’t misrepresent it. Millions of people think they know Lao Tzu but it’s actually just Mitchell.
Would appreciate your looking at Le Guin’s version. She followed a ver different process and makes it clear that she has not translated the book. She did not just work from a scholarly translation, she actually collaborated with a scholar.
I'll disagree. Even worse - way worse - than translating a Daoist text without understanding Chinese, is to try it without following the Way. For example in those first two lines you've criticized. They are saying the same thing. Transcendental reality is nameless and from linguistic dualism rises ten thousand things. If both sentences mean the same thing and point at the same thing, and if his version became more popular, it is hard to understand how using a noun instead of a verb has any significance in "better" communicating the book. Scholars are usually silly - often mocked by Daoists - and this is a good example. I can see by your video how his version is sloppy, but whatever flaws he had (I myself had never heard of him before and naturally have also never read his version), sounds to me like he was a man of the Way, while you're not. Simply replacing Chinese characters by English words is "the better better way of communicating the book" about the nameless Dao? If you think about it for a while, your belly will hurt from laughing. What's the problem with changing war horses for warheads? No wonder his version is more popular and you are salty! My friend, you should try to comment on Confucianism or something like that... Sounds to me like you're the bad commentator on Daoism here :( Having a rigorous translation is for academics, but how could academics understand the Way? Better a version that normal people can understand and actually practice.
I've read a couple of versions already, but neither Mitchell's nor D. C. Lau's. The latter starts with "The way that can be spoken of Is not the constant way; The name that can be named Is not the constant name.". This word "constant" is wrong. It might be right on the dictionary, but not in context. Maybe "eternal" would work, because people don't use "constant" in a way that represents Dao. People use "eternal" to do that. It always is, forever. Constant doesn't imply forever. A constant name is not something people talk about. It just becomes something without any real meaning - something for scholars to argue about, while nobody got it. I can see how a person of the way would have a better time deciphering D. C. Lau's version, but it would need deciphering and cunning. A person who wants to learn about the Way has no use for stuff like "constant names". Those words don't really mean anything, they are just changing Chinese characters for English words. That's my opinion. I am sorry if my English is somewhat like Mitchell's Chinese :(
Oh, interesting... I'm sorry for all these comments, but here is the place to register this. D. C. Lau translated the first lines of the twentieth section thus: "Between yea and nay, how much difference is there? Between good and evil, how great is the distance?" But the Chinese text does not say "between yea and nay", it says "between yes and yes". Two different kinds of "yes" - a coloquial one and a fancy one. I understand it as "these words mean the same thing, so what is the real difference?" And then it goes to "good and evil are both words, just words, so what is the real difference between them?" Hence, there is a progression in explanation, using two different kinds of "yes". D. C. Lau, however, took it on himself to "correct" the original text with his own ideas too... To conclude this commentary, we have D. C. Lau's version here, Mitchell's version there... What is the real difference? Now this is Dao, my friend. Your criticism is far from it :(
Other interesting mistake on all translations by scholars: the ending of text 28. They say that when the uncarved wood is carved, the sage makes use of these artifacts to become an official, but it makes no sense in context. This is one of the reasons scholars can't get Daoism, they are too self important. What the text actually says is that "occupied with such contraptions, a sage becomes an official", that is, a sage quits being a sage and becomes a vulgar person. How could the Dao De Jing advocate for sages to becomes leaders of men and high official? By the way, the text concludes by saying "therefore, Noble Governance does not carve". That is, the sage is not to occupy himself with utensils. The text had also said "return to the uncarved wood". But scholars, naturally, are using utensils and carving everything, in their pursuit of fame and recognition. So they make a mess out of the poem, because they can't accept what it says. I'm fine changing things or adding things to make the meaning more clear, but scholars can't interpret the book. You should't go about criticizing translations for not being scholarly. This is not math.
To my knowledge, its a good and important translation. Legge was crucial in the introduction of pre-Qin Daoist philosophy into Western study. The translation itself is faithful and I imagine its only difficulty may be in its outdated language. Its introduction and notes may be outdated as well if your version has them. Best of luck in your studies!
Legge's translation is like reading the King James version of the bible, meaning that its language is antiquated. I would steer you toward Derek Lin's translation. Beyond that, I would encourage you to do your own translation. Free an online. I have the resources if you're interested.
my preference is the translation by lin yu tan. are you familiar with it? any comments would be appreciated. the translation by james legge shows his biases in his notes and commentaries, which i find interesting but more or less helpful in the understanding. thanks for your commentary here. i have not read anything by stephen mitchell, so i cannot comment regarding any of his publications.
I wasn't familiar with Lin Yutang's translation but having a quick look at it online it reminds me of D. C. Lau's. The translation appears an earnest and accurate one! The online version didn't have any notes or introduction so I can't speak on those, and since it was published in 1944 they might not be up to date with modern scholarship on the text. But that isn't to detract from the translation itself. Unfortunately I haven't seen Legge's notes and commentaries but I do know that, as a scholar of the 19th century, his interpretation was deeply rooted in a Confucian/Victorian perspective.
The first version of the Dao de Jing I read was this text. Something in me told me it was bad just in the intro. It was about how he just translated it sometimes as he and some times as she. I already knew about how Chinese (at least historical) doesn't need to determine gender in pronouns. It made me mad because it made it seem like it was being translated on a whim and also seemed just a little sexist. Anyway, thank you for this video.
When someone does not draw from the ancient manuscripts of the Dào Dé Jīng, that individual is not doing a translation. At best, and that still would be stretching it, we might call it a rendition based on the work of modern translations. Incidentally, mû is used in 1 and in 20. It signifies mother, but it also means source, origin. It is very common for the characters to have several meanings, and it often happens that several meanings can apply. I believe the Dào was written in a laconic style so as to require introspection to behold the deeper meaning. I also believe that it was intentionally written in such a way so as to enter into the deeper meaning through a variety of symbols. The words are the superficial layer. Deeper yet are the symbols that they evoke. Deeper yet, the images that come from them that connect with personal experiences. That is the realm of wordless knowing, the realm of Dào, the realm of the nameless. All communications of wisdom function the same way. All of your life experiences function the same way. The are meant to catalyze introspection. They are meant to draw you into the dimension of the wordless. In a nutshell, go deep and the meaning is obvious.
does anybody else here like the 'united version'? a couple of chapters have unusual interpretations, and chapter 65 is modified a bit, seemingly to make it more palatable to a modern/academic audience, but the translation overall interprets the original text with a clarity that don't see in most translations
My introduction to the Tao Te Ching was by Brian Browne Walker. I don't know if it qualifies as a translation or even a good one but that is the first one I read. I have also read the one by Gia-Fu Feng and Jane English
I had not heard of Walker's translation before but Walker himself certainly seems like a funny guy. (brianbrownewalker.com/about/) Although I can't say anything about his translations. And the Gia-Fu Feng and Jane translation is, from what I gather, one of the most popular translations. No doubt, Alan Watts' strong praise of them played a role! Thanks for sharing!
Ziporyn, Lynn, and Moeller (who I have read excerpts of) are great. I will be reading Yang Peng’s and Paul Fischer’s translations, both of which I expect to be very good because they are actually scholars. As far as the duds, Jonathan Star’s translation is quite bad, but doesn’t seem as bad as Mitchell’s. John Heider’s version is even worse than Mitchell’s (truly terrible to behold). I find it very helpful to be able to read Classical Chinese and thus see for myself how close a translation is to the original. My knowledge of the language isn’t perfect, but I’m a lot more confident and at ease reading it than I was in the beginning (when reading was frustrating and even anxiety inducing). I enjoy puzzling over issues of how passages should be best translated, given the ambiguity of the Daodejing and the challenging aspects of Classical Chinese grammar. Chapter 60, which seems to contradict itself, is a good example of how translation can be a puzzle in its own right.
I cringe every time I see someone quoting Mitchell's TTC. More than once I've seen someone quoting Laozi and thinking it was one of the frequent misquotes floating around online, until I double-checked and realized it came from Mitchell. In Christian circles, there's a very loose paraphrase of the Bible called The Message, which most commentators advise people to stay far away from, because the text is so far removed from the original that it confuses the message at best and misrepresents it at worst. Mitchell's book is sort of like a Taoist version of The Message.
This is a HUGE mistake and anyone disregarding this translation is completely wrong to do so. Your first breakdown of the first paragraph shows how much you didn't understand Lao Tzu, plus you calling things "Worse" shows you barely even took the book into consideration. I am sorry OP. I for all intents and purposes am a mystic. And while you might be upset that he didn't translate his words, he 100% translated his mind. Which he clearly points out at the beginning of his book. He who knows doesn't speak, he who knows doesn't speak. That makes PERFECT sense. There is literally nothing to be said. Words are only symbols. Right now I am not saying anything, I am pointing to the fact Stephen Mitchell's translation is RIGHT there, without a doubt, as someone who ACTUALLY understands it.
There are a lot of posers out there who, even while inspiring interest in the topic, pollute the real understanding of the knowledge. Coleman Barks is no different--he just plagiarized and stylized R. A. Nicholson's legitimate, public domain translation of Rumi's Masnavi. When it comes to authentic Classical Chinese translations, leave it to the D. C. Laus, the Roger Ameses, and the Burton Watsons of the world.
For Daoism as a practice, not an academic exercise, Mitchell is best. What does it matter if it says tractors or fleet fired horses? To the practitioner the distinction is pedantic
I translated the Tao Te Ching in 2009-11. The mistranslations and omissions and plagiarisms are glaringly obvious to me as a result. The best way to know what it says is to translate it. I can share the resources you will need. All online, all free. I concur. Mitchell's "translation" is more of a loose interpretation and improvisation. As far as translators go, I think they all drop the ball. That said, Derek Lin offers a decent translation. If you take on the translation task yourself, you'll see what I mean. I used all 6 ancient manuscripts. I did a revision in 2013, in 2017 and now in 2020. Doing the translation is pretty straightforward at times, and requires lots of meditative excursions along the way, drawing from personal experience, insights, Chinese-English resources, and other reference materials as needed (synonyms, definitions, etymology, history and so forth.)
I'm actually doing something of the sort and am planning on posting about it in the future. I'll have to check out Derek Lin's translation! And thanks for the translation advice!
I have been working on my own translation for 20 years, though I am more proud of it as a translation study guide (concordance, dictionary, thesaurus, & etymology reference). I may not finish it in my lifetime though.
It blows my mind that he literally used words like "factory", "truck" and "tractor" in a translation of a book written over 2000 years ago. It doesn't only mean that he knows nothing about the work that he was translating. It shows that he had no respect on it.
If he wants to create his own version or commentary of the Tao Te Ching then that's absolutely okay and fine as far as I'm concerned but also in my opinion he should have done a better job at presenting and articulating what it actually was.However with that being alot of the way it was articulated and presented by the "translator" definitely feels as if to me that it was done so in bad faith.
Dear Ian, thank you for taking the time to make this video. I have been posting it more than a dozen times on various Daoism groups on facebook. I regularly am asked about a good translation and I never fail to mention to steer clear of Mitchell.
"Often people comment, but it was really clear or accessible to me." which unfortunately misses the point.
Hoffman is now also releasing a Dao De Jing "translation" on the back of his success with The Dao of Pooh and the Te of Piglet, and it already ranks #100 without having been released yet (I believe on pre-sales basis).
I have a small publishing house Purple Cloud Press with the mission to disseminate Daoism as close to the core as possible, so this video is gold to educate people.
Thanks for the kind words and sharing it! And I hadn't seen Purple Cloud Press before but looks great!
And thanks for letting me know about Hoff's upcoming version! I've just looked it up and I already have numerous concerns from reading its description alone: "The Eternal Tao Te Ching is the first translation to employ the meanings of the pre-writing brush characters in use 2,400 years ago, when the classic was written, rather than relying on the often-different meanings of the more modern brush characters, as other translations have done. Hoff points out in his chapter notes the many incidents of meddling and muddling that have been made over the centuries by scholars and copyists, and he corrects the mistakes and removes such tampering from the text. Hoff also makes the provocative claim-and demonstrates by revealing clues in the text-that the Tao Te Ching’s author was a young nobleman hiding his identity, rather than the long-alleged author, the “Old Master” of legend, Lao-tzu. And Hoff’s chapter notes shed new light on the author’s surprisingly modern viewpoint."
If it it lives up to those concerns then maybe I'll make a video on it (along his other works).
@@IanWithyBerry This is insanely wrong on all levels. I cannot even being to say.. Wow. You literally are great at getting facts and data together, but as for understanding Lao Tzu's points. No. The words are the entire problem. You simply are getting lost in them instead of getting the points.
Mitchell sounds like a New Age Facebook mom.
Thank you for posting this discussion, I agree totally. While Mitchell's version is said by many to be "beautiful" the authors of the Laozi themselves say in the last verse that true words are not beautiful. I gave up reading Mitchell's version due to cringe fatigue. There are many superb interpretations out there, I don't see Mitchell's version succeeded in solving any particular problem with this text.
That is a big mistake. It is a great translation.
If you listen to Alan Watts and then go to that translation. You could QUICKLY see what point Lao Tzu is making and it is EXTREMELY deep. IT gives the whole show away, in Stephen's translation.
@@mikeydoes There are many perspectives, and his encompasses a more Zen perspective. It’s calming and it appeals to people who got here by listening to Alan Watts, but the classical Taoist perspective is something that wasn’t always so reliant on Buddhism’s teachings. Don’t rob yourself of the literal translation and Taoism as it’s own complete worldview.
@@dancegod1691 There is nothing to be said or known, but you're screwing yourself.
@@mikeydoes You say that as if you know it. I’m simply informing you of new experiences to be had by listening to translations that don’t heavily rewrite what was first written as Mitchell did. Do as you wish.
I've listened to Watts many times before I ever listened to the Tao te Ching, I understand the book.
Thanks greatly for a very edifying video. I used to employ Mitchell's translation in my courses, although I always warned that the opening to Chapter 5 is quite misleading. Also, though I love Ursula K. LeGuin, I was greatly disappointed by her supposed translation of The Tao Te Ching; so much so, that I discarded it. D. C. Lao remains one of my favorites. I supplement that with three other translations, including Mitchell's and Red Pine's. Witter Bynner offers his version, as "The Way of Life According to Lao Tzu." He too takes liberties, but is honest about it, providing a poetic and fascinating version of The Tao Te Ching (which is the one most familiar to John Lennon). Anyway, thanks again. Great research, great video. Lucid and concise. Bravo !!
Chapter 5, yes! Mitchell certainly goes to lengths to avoid translating "straw dogs." That's quite the list of translations! Good to hear that Brynner sets an example of avoiding the title "Dao de Jing" in his version and lets the readers know of his own poetic interpretation. And thanks for the kind words!
I have heard a few scholars recommend the LeGuin though.
I can't believe he got away with "Live Laugh Loving" the literal dao de jing...
Ridin' on my tractor in the Zhou Dynasty.
Warheads are going to start raining down because the King has lost the Mandate of Heaven.
@@athousandplateaus6598 The great wall has fallen, billions bust die
I'm glad someone finally made a video about this. Thanks
Mr Robo, it is a huge mistake to shun that book. It 100% get's Lao Tzu's point across.
I really like what I've read so far of Linnell's Dao De Jing A Minimalist Translation.
Each chapter is presented in a four-square with the original Chinese text, a finished translation, a raw direct translation, and notes and cross-references.
Reading it basically feels like what I'd imagine translating the text yourself with the help of someone else experienced would be like. I've definitely gained the most insight and understanding of the Dao De Jing from that version simply because it makes the more involved, introspective reading of the text that is always recommended that much easier compared to the English-only translations I've looked at before.
Don't listen to the OP. Stephen's translation is great. Compare it to other ones if you want, but the words are not as important as understanding what the first line means.
He who speaks doesn't know, he who knows doesn't speak is perfectly fine, and I let my unconscious paint the picture on what he was saying Lao Tzu meant, and eventually I got it.
So don't ever shun something just because some kid said so.
@@mikeydoesI agree. It was the Mitchell version that I got addicted to which led to so many other things for me. It woke me up and gave me some courage. I’ve read other versions which are wonderful as well. Aliester Crowley even made one of the first western translations, which it’s own thing too ha.
@@mikeydoesI stand slightly corrected. Crowley’s was an ‘interpretation’ from an English text and not a new translation. He certainly knew a lot about Eastern Culture and spiritual traditions though. Anyway, I’m just rabbiting into the void.😮
@@skyerscape8454 It's unknowable, indescribable, but you can always use it as a refuge.
My fav version is komjathys the book of venerable masters, komjathys is a top scholar with attention to detail.
I hadn't realized that Komjathy had made a translation but after some digging I found it online (documents.pub/document/louise-komjathy-handbooks-for-daoist-practise-book-of-venerable-masters.html). Komjathy is undoubtedly a top scholar on the Daoist tradition and one utterly unafraid of criticizing the Western romanticization of "Daoism." Thanks for this!
The best to go with Lau is Roger Ames and David Hall's philosophical version, as it enters most deeply into the larger cultural context of a quite different world view. Addiss and Lombardo (as also mentioned) is also good -- it does have a smooth concision of style.
Also, for the student, Jonathan Star's word by word version plus the Chinese is very helpful
The first version I read was by Master Hua Ching Ni called "The Complete Works of Lao Tzu" which includes The "Hua Hu Ching" which is described as the hidden works of Lao Tzu. Master Ni also wrote "Esoteric Tao Teh Ching' that gives commentary. I have read that some doubt that the "Hua Hu Ching" can be attributed to Lao Tzu. I loved reading the entire book! I have no idea about it's authenticity and would welcome comments.
The Hua Hu Ching is an interesting one. I haven't read its entirety (although what remains of it is not its original entirety either but fragments that appeared in other texts). My familiarity with it comes from James Robson's Norton Anthology on Taoism, although I believe Komjathy has written on it in depth. The title would be translated as "The Classic/Scripture on the Conversion of the Barbarians" and the text tells of Lao Tzu's teachings in India, including a number of motifs shared with Gautama Buddha. Among modern scholars, I believe there to be a consensus that the text was a creation by Wang Fu in the fourth century CE, during a time of tension between Taoists and Buddhists in China. The text utilized the "Huahu theory" which was used by Taoists since the second century CE to discredit Buddhists as it suggested that Buddhism was just Taoism for barbarians. Whether certain Taoist groups have taken it to be the words of Lao Tzu, it is overwhelmingly improbable to be so as it appears certain today to be written in the midst of Taoist and Buddhist tensions. Some Buddhists even reversed the narrative and suggested that Lao Tzu was "an incarnation of a disciple of the Buddha who was sent to China to introduce a version of Buddhism to China." [Robson, 189] But this isn't to dismiss the text entirely, since its certainly an important Taoist text and also fascinating historically!
The Hua Hu JIng by Ni is very loose and is not really a translation either but more of a commentary or interpretation. Same applies for his father's translation. On a sidenote his father published a vernacular commentary (conducted by the Chinese government) on the Huang Di Nei Jing as his own commentary, where he adopted paragraph by paragraph of the vernacular version. I only found out recently and was very shocked. According to standards nowadays that is intellectual property theft and the least he could have done was credit the original creators of that commentary rather than selling it as his own. (This text was recommended reading during my unversity education, so in other words the uni recommmended a plagiarized text).
My favorite translations, from someone who doesn't read Chinese but can appreciate those who engage with the text in a respectful manner: Jonathan Star, Ames and Hall, Ellen Chen, and Derek Lin.
Excellent commentary, there are so many misleading publications of the Dao De Jing. Thank you for your critique.
Sorry how do you write the name of the person you mentioned as author of the best translation? Adison lombardus? XDcant find it 😅
No problem. It's the translation by Stephen Addiss and Stanley Lombardo, "Tao Te Ching (Hackett Classics)." I'm not sure that I can authoritatively say its the best translation but it's probably my favorite!
For the record I never bought that translation of the Tao Te Ching so I guess that alot of people would say that I have dodged a bullet.However alot of people would say that since the Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao, so therefore you should not really get too infatuated or obsessed with the spoken word or the written words in a book anyway.
You're getting it. Stephen Mitchell's Translation is great. You can listen to it for free on youtube, and he reads it.
This idea that it is a bad translation is coming from someone who clearly didn't listen to the tao te ching clearly.. Where bad only exists if we say something is good. He's just playing games and pretending one translation is better, when I prefer to tell people to use stephens, because every paragraph can be understood. Most translations make no sense and I understand dualism and what Lao Tzu is saying. So why would I tell people to read something that makes no sense and just sounds smart, but isn't?
Alan Watts already gave two great translations.
Also, people spreading the tao te ching is a good thing, not a bad thing.
@@mikeydoes I couldn't have better said it myself. Sure the Stephen Mitchell translation may be more of an interpretation as seen through a Zen Buddhist perspective rather than an actual translation, but to see people get so worked up about his version of the Tao Te Ching is wild to me. I understand how it might not be the most accurate in regards to the original text, but there is still much deep meaning within it. I never would have guessed that Taoists could get so vitriolic and take so much offense about something.
@@mikeydoes And yet I question how much of this video you watched past clicking on it to yell at clouds. He doesn't critique Mitchell for being anything but dishonest and injecting his own thoughts into the words into it. Personally, when reading translations, yeah you know what throw big rocks at me and call me a rationalist but I prefer something that actually reflects the text itself rather than some figment of this random guys mind.
Also... I get the whole point is that the path of the least resistance is the best and stuff... dude the book begins with "道可道。非常道。 名可名。非常名。"which you can literally render, not translate but render this as so many different things in english and all of them are so dramatically different. One of many is something like "Dao can dao not everlasting/eternal dao. Name can name, not everlasting/eternal name." And there is such a deep history behind even just this single line, the puns of characters used, the multitude of meaning they take on, and all of this has NOTHING in his translation because he himself can't see it. You aren't just going with the way, you are blocking out such an infinitely deep text that you can deliberate over any word, and while the dao can't be named, we can talk about the Dao De Jing and enjoy it deeply and with respect and regard that doesn't denigrate the language.
I just despise appealing to absolute idiocy in order to paint a picture that the world is a simple place, when if you read any actual translation or the text itself, or go out in the world and take in the complexity, you will get something so rich and complex and nuanced that you experience everything more completely rather than shutting everything out that makes you feel dumb.
@@CellzRKewl You're conflating academics with Daoists. We study texts like this to keep everybody in line and make sure people like Mitchell can't go around injecting a bunch of nonsense into ancient religious texts in order to perpetuate ideas like "ancient simple wisdom of the orient" anymore. Call us sticks in the mud, we just want everyone to actually have the ability to be exposed to something closer to the reality as it is.
@@iinc6290 This is nonsense honestly.
The points made are obvious and I understand them.
Furthermore, if you compare what Lao Tzu says to any other mystic, it's the exact same thing.
Or look at Jung, he points to an unknowable, unspeakable God. Huxley, Jiddu Krishnamurti, they all point to words being the beginning of the problems, and people's attachment to them.
You said you are a rational thinker, but you completely dispel the irrational when it's equal in it's importance, and Nietzsche points out, that is the birth of tragedy.
Thank you for a very enlightening video on an under-discussed topic that I care about! There's a disturbingly large market for these kinds of simplifying, self-help oriented translations (and it's strikingly racist how often the texts in question are non-Western, with Western translators). Mitchell fascinates me because although he comes from that self-help scene, some of his translations (particularly of Rilke) are accurate and excellent. The one quirk he allows himself in Rilke is that the word "thing", in any context, is capitalised as "Thing", as a clumsy signpost towards Rilke's very, very loose Buddhist resonances. He never shows the kind of audacity that he does towards Laozi.
Stephen Mitchell's is a GREAT translation. Do not listen to this man and give it a try. The words are not as important as understanding what Lao Tzu was trying to say. And he is pointing out the duality in everything. And that includes the first sentence, He who speaks doesn't know, he who knows doesn't speak. That line is PERFECT and explains the whole entire book.
I know next to no one that understands that, and I am willing to bet Stephen actually does since he wrote it.
As I said, it took me quite a while to understand it, but I knew there was a point there.
It’s sad because it’s a beautifully written work and I find some of his verses great, but I wish he was more respectful of the original intentions and didn’t misrepresent it. Millions of people think they know Lao Tzu but it’s actually just Mitchell.
Better said than I could say it! Mitchell's book is not a translation, but a creative writing exercise. He also seems to think that Dao is Zen.
That Mitchell definitely needs to be exposed for the fraud that he is.
Would appreciate your looking at Le Guin’s version. She followed a ver different process and makes it clear that she has not translated the book. She did not just work from a scholarly translation, she actually collaborated with a scholar.
I'll disagree. Even worse - way worse - than translating a Daoist text without understanding Chinese, is to try it without following the Way. For example in those first two lines you've criticized. They are saying the same thing. Transcendental reality is nameless and from linguistic dualism rises ten thousand things. If both sentences mean the same thing and point at the same thing, and if his version became more popular, it is hard to understand how using a noun instead of a verb has any significance in "better" communicating the book. Scholars are usually silly - often mocked by Daoists - and this is a good example. I can see by your video how his version is sloppy, but whatever flaws he had (I myself had never heard of him before and naturally have also never read his version), sounds to me like he was a man of the Way, while you're not. Simply replacing Chinese characters by English words is "the better better way of communicating the book" about the nameless Dao? If you think about it for a while, your belly will hurt from laughing. What's the problem with changing war horses for warheads? No wonder his version is more popular and you are salty! My friend, you should try to comment on Confucianism or something like that... Sounds to me like you're the bad commentator on Daoism here :( Having a rigorous translation is for academics, but how could academics understand the Way? Better a version that normal people can understand and actually practice.
I've read a couple of versions already, but neither Mitchell's nor D. C. Lau's. The latter starts with "The way that can be spoken of Is not the constant way; The name that can be named Is not the constant name.". This word "constant" is wrong. It might be right on the dictionary, but not in context. Maybe "eternal" would work, because people don't use "constant" in a way that represents Dao. People use "eternal" to do that. It always is, forever. Constant doesn't imply forever. A constant name is not something people talk about. It just becomes something without any real meaning - something for scholars to argue about, while nobody got it. I can see how a person of the way would have a better time deciphering D. C. Lau's version, but it would need deciphering and cunning. A person who wants to learn about the Way has no use for stuff like "constant names". Those words don't really mean anything, they are just changing Chinese characters for English words. That's my opinion. I am sorry if my English is somewhat like Mitchell's Chinese :(
Oh, interesting... I'm sorry for all these comments, but here is the place to register this. D. C. Lau translated the first lines of the twentieth section thus: "Between yea and nay, how much difference is there? Between good and evil, how great is the distance?"
But the Chinese text does not say "between yea and nay", it says "between yes and yes". Two different kinds of "yes" - a coloquial one and a fancy one. I understand it as "these words mean the same thing, so what is the real difference?" And then it goes to "good and evil are both words, just words, so what is the real difference between them?" Hence, there is a progression in explanation, using two different kinds of "yes". D. C. Lau, however, took it on himself to "correct" the original text with his own ideas too... To conclude this commentary, we have D. C. Lau's version here, Mitchell's version there... What is the real difference?
Now this is Dao, my friend. Your criticism is far from it :(
Other interesting mistake on all translations by scholars: the ending of text 28. They say that when the uncarved wood is carved, the sage makes use of these artifacts to become an official, but it makes no sense in context. This is one of the reasons scholars can't get Daoism, they are too self important. What the text actually says is that "occupied with such contraptions, a sage becomes an official", that is, a sage quits being a sage and becomes a vulgar person. How could the Dao De Jing advocate for sages to becomes leaders of men and high official? By the way, the text concludes by saying "therefore, Noble Governance does not carve". That is, the sage is not to occupy himself with utensils. The text had also said "return to the uncarved wood". But scholars, naturally, are using utensils and carving everything, in their pursuit of fame and recognition. So they make a mess out of the poem, because they can't accept what it says. I'm fine changing things or adding things to make the meaning more clear, but scholars can't interpret the book. You should't go about criticizing translations for not being scholarly. This is not math.
How decent is the James Legge translation of the Tao Te Ching? I've recently picked up this Translation for my study of the Tao Te Ching.
To my knowledge, its a good and important translation. Legge was crucial in the introduction of pre-Qin Daoist philosophy into Western study. The translation itself is faithful and I imagine its only difficulty may be in its outdated language. Its introduction and notes may be outdated as well if your version has them. Best of luck in your studies!
Legge's translation is like reading the King James version of the bible, meaning that its language is antiquated.
I would steer you toward Derek Lin's translation. Beyond that, I would encourage you to do your own translation. Free an online. I have the resources if you're interested.
Very outdated and inaccurate!
I read the actual Dao a long time ago and loved it. Then I started reading this garbage and returned it on Amazon. I was so glad to find this video.
my preference is the translation by lin yu tan. are you familiar with it? any comments would be appreciated. the translation by james legge shows his biases in his notes and commentaries, which i find interesting but more or less helpful in the understanding. thanks for your commentary here. i have not read anything by stephen mitchell, so i cannot comment regarding any of his publications.
I wasn't familiar with Lin Yutang's translation but having a quick look at it online it reminds me of D. C. Lau's. The translation appears an earnest and accurate one! The online version didn't have any notes or introduction so I can't speak on those, and since it was published in 1944 they might not be up to date with modern scholarship on the text. But that isn't to detract from the translation itself. Unfortunately I haven't seen Legge's notes and commentaries but I do know that, as a scholar of the 19th century, his interpretation was deeply rooted in a Confucian/Victorian perspective.
@@IanWithyBerry thanks for your reply.
Derek Lin's translation is good.
You can translate it yourself, free and online.
@@IanWithyBerry He was well versed in both English and Chinese so his translation is more readable and more accurate than most.
What is the best translation??
So, which author's translation should I buy?
Stephen Mitchell’s, it’s the most popular translation for a reason
Get as many as you can. There are dozens online, as well as the original.
D. C. Lau's coupled with the more recent Red Pine's.
The first version of the Dao de Jing I read was this text. Something in me told me it was bad just in the intro. It was about how he just translated it sometimes as he and some times as she. I already knew about how Chinese (at least historical) doesn't need to determine gender in pronouns. It made me mad because it made it seem like it was being translated on a whim and also seemed just a little sexist. Anyway, thank you for this video.
It is a great translation, don't let the OP ruin it for you.
As I said, I figured out Lao Tzu's point.. I have been pointing to it ever since.
When someone does not draw from the ancient manuscripts of the Dào Dé Jīng, that individual is not doing a translation. At best, and that still would be stretching it, we might call it a rendition based on the work of modern translations.
Incidentally, mû is used in 1 and in 20. It signifies mother, but it also means source, origin.
It is very common for the characters to have several meanings, and it often happens that several meanings can apply.
I believe the Dào was written in a laconic style so as to require introspection to behold the deeper meaning.
I also believe that it was intentionally written in such a way so as to enter into the deeper meaning through a variety of symbols.
The words are the superficial layer. Deeper yet are the symbols that they evoke. Deeper yet, the images that come from them that connect with personal experiences. That is the realm of wordless knowing, the realm of Dào, the realm of the nameless.
All communications of wisdom function the same way. All of your life experiences function the same way. The are meant to catalyze introspection. They are meant to draw you into the dimension of the wordless.
In a nutshell, go deep and the meaning is obvious.
does anybody else here like the 'united version'? a couple of chapters have unusual interpretations, and chapter 65 is modified a bit, seemingly to make it more palatable to a modern/academic audience, but the translation overall interprets the original text with a clarity that don't see in most translations
My introduction to the Tao Te Ching was by Brian Browne Walker. I don't know if it qualifies as a translation or even a good one but that is the first one I read. I have also read the one by Gia-Fu Feng and Jane English
I had not heard of Walker's translation before but Walker himself certainly seems like a funny guy. (brianbrownewalker.com/about/) Although I can't say anything about his translations. And the Gia-Fu Feng and Jane translation is, from what I gather, one of the most popular translations. No doubt, Alan Watts' strong praise of them played a role! Thanks for sharing!
Derek Lin's translation
Ziporyn, Lynn, and Moeller (who I have read excerpts of) are great. I will be reading Yang Peng’s and Paul Fischer’s translations, both of which I expect to be very good because they are actually scholars.
As far as the duds, Jonathan Star’s translation is quite bad, but doesn’t seem as bad as Mitchell’s. John Heider’s version is even worse than Mitchell’s (truly terrible to behold).
I find it very helpful to be able to read Classical Chinese and thus see for myself how close a translation is to the original. My knowledge of the language isn’t perfect, but I’m a lot more confident and at ease reading it than I was in the beginning (when reading was frustrating and even anxiety inducing). I enjoy puzzling over issues of how passages should be best translated, given the ambiguity of the Daodejing and the challenging aspects of Classical Chinese grammar. Chapter 60, which seems to contradict itself, is a good example of how translation can be a puzzle in its own right.
Youre more in love with pedantic details than the truth of the dao de jing itself
I cringe every time I see someone quoting Mitchell's TTC. More than once I've seen someone quoting Laozi and thinking it was one of the frequent misquotes floating around online, until I double-checked and realized it came from Mitchell.
In Christian circles, there's a very loose paraphrase of the Bible called The Message, which most commentators advise people to stay far away from, because the text is so far removed from the original that it confuses the message at best and misrepresents it at worst. Mitchell's book is sort of like a Taoist version of The Message.
For me D.C Lao is most,like True!Dont now why?Read and hear many translations.
This is a HUGE mistake and anyone disregarding this translation is completely wrong to do so. Your first breakdown of the first paragraph shows how much you didn't understand Lao Tzu, plus you calling things "Worse" shows you barely even took the book into consideration.
I am sorry OP. I for all intents and purposes am a mystic. And while you might be upset that he didn't translate his words, he 100% translated his mind. Which he clearly points out at the beginning of his book.
He who knows doesn't speak, he who knows doesn't speak.
That makes PERFECT sense. There is literally nothing to be said. Words are only symbols. Right now I am not saying anything, I am pointing to the fact Stephen Mitchell's translation is RIGHT there, without a doubt, as someone who ACTUALLY understands it.
thanks
Stephen Mitchell did to the Daodejing what Daniel Ladinsky did to Hafez.
it makes sense to me that the biggest translation of the book, is not actually a translation 😆
The one dislike is Mitchell
This genuinely made me laugh audibly. Thanks for that.
There are a lot of posers out there who, even while inspiring interest in the topic, pollute the real understanding of the knowledge. Coleman Barks is no different--he just plagiarized and stylized R. A. Nicholson's legitimate, public domain translation of Rumi's Masnavi. When it comes to authentic Classical Chinese translations, leave it to the D. C. Laus, the Roger Ameses, and the Burton Watsons of the world.
For Daoism as a practice, not an academic exercise, Mitchell is best.
What does it matter if it says tractors or fleet fired horses? To the practitioner the distinction is pedantic
You missed most of the real criticism of this video (if you actually did listen). Mitchell is a total grifter.
Thanks man..
A true translation is Derek Lin. One who actually speaks Mandarin.
Of course, the Daodejing wasn't written in Mandarin because Mandarin didn't exist 2500 years ago.
D C Lau
I translated the Tao Te Ching in 2009-11. The mistranslations and omissions and plagiarisms are glaringly obvious to me as a result.
The best way to know what it says is to translate it. I can share the resources you will need. All online, all free.
I concur. Mitchell's "translation" is more of a loose interpretation and improvisation.
As far as translators go, I think they all drop the ball. That said, Derek Lin offers a decent translation.
If you take on the translation task yourself, you'll see what I mean. I used all 6 ancient manuscripts. I did a revision in 2013, in 2017 and now in 2020. Doing the translation is pretty straightforward at times, and requires lots of meditative excursions along the way, drawing from personal experience, insights, Chinese-English resources, and other reference materials as needed (synonyms, definitions, etymology, history and so forth.)
I'm actually doing something of the sort and am planning on posting about it in the future. I'll have to check out Derek Lin's translation! And thanks for the translation advice!
I have been working on my own translation for 20 years, though I am more proud of it as a translation study guide (concordance, dictionary, thesaurus, & etymology reference). I may not finish it in my lifetime though.
@@GreenLanternFarms Why wouldn't you be able to finish?
It blows my mind that he literally used words like "factory", "truck" and "tractor" in a translation of a book written over 2000 years ago. It doesn't only mean that he knows nothing about the work that he was translating. It shows that he had no respect on it.
If he wants to create his own version or commentary of the Tao Te Ching then that's absolutely okay and fine as far as I'm concerned but also in my opinion he should have done a better job at presenting and articulating what it actually was.However with that being alot of the way it was articulated and presented by the "translator" definitely feels as if to me that it was done so in bad faith.