Gary Shannon | Re: [LFN] La Tao
--- qatama1 <qatama1@...> wrote:
> I have undertaken translating the Tao Te Ching and I would like to
> know how I am doing.
>
> I am using this English version: http://www.taoism.net/ttc/complete.htm
<snip>
A worthy task to undertake! I wish you the best of luck.
I cannot say anything about the LFN version because I'm just a beginner myself,
but I have translated portions of the Tao into a number of conlangs. It is a
very slippery document and translation from the original Chinese is at most 50%
translation and at least 50% interpretation.
The first problem is transliterating the name itself. It is pronounced "Dao de
Jing" rather than "Tao te Ching", and the use of "T" is peculiarly English.
The second problem is with the English equivalent of "Tao". It has been
interpreted as "path" (both figuratively and literally depending on the
translator), "way" (as in way of life) "law of nature", "guiding principle",
among others.
Transliterated, the first two lines are usually given as "tao k'o tao fei
ch'ang tao / ming k'o ming fei ch'ang ming", although earlier versions had
"heng" (eternal) where later texts had "ch'ang" (constant or unchanging).
What I did, since I'm not competent to read the original, was to collect as
many English translations as I could and study them, looking for consensus,
while also noting significant disagreements among translators. Consider these
translations of just the first two lines:
Gia Fu Feng and Jane English: The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao.
/ The name that can be named is not the eternal name.
John C.H. Wu: TAO can be talked about, but not the Eternal Tao. / Names can be
named, but not the Eternal Name.
Stan Rosenthal: Even the finest teaching is not the Tao itself. / Even the
finest name is insufficient to define it.
Ted Wrigley: A path is just a path / a name is just a name
Dr. Lin Yutang: The Dao that can be told of Is not the Absolute Dao; The Names
that can be given Are not Absolute Names.
Jim Clatfelter: Words and names are not the way / They can't define the
absolute
Sanderson Beck: The Way that can be described is not the absolute Way; / the
name that can be given is not the absolute name.
Raymond Blakeney: There are ways but the Way is uncharted; / There are names
but not nature in words:
Tormod Byrn: The way that can be told of is hardly an eternal, absolute,
unvarying one; / the name that can be coded and given is no absolute name.
A. Crowley: The Tao-Path is not the All-Tao. / The Name is not the Thing named.
C. Ganson: The Tao described in words is not the real Tao. / Words cannot
describe it.
Chad Hansen: To guide what can be guided is not constant guiding. To name what
can be named is not constant naming.
J. Legge: The Tao that can be trodden is not the enduring and unchanging Tao. /
The name that can be named is not the enduring and unchanging name.
David Lindauer: A tao that one can tao Is not the entire tao / A name that one
can name Is not the entire name.
Tolbert McCarroll: The Tao that can be spoken of is not the eternal Tao. / The
name that can be named is not the eternal name.
John H. McDonald: The tao that can be described is not the eternal Tao. / The
name that can be spoken is not the eternal Name.
Stephen Mitchell: The tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao / The name
that can be named is not the eternal Name.
Charles Muller: The Tao that can be followed is not the eternal Tao. / The name
that can be named is not the eternal name.
Consensus
The [ Tao | Path | Way ]
that can be [ named | described | told | talked about ]
is not the [ absolute | eternal | real | unvarying ] [ Tao | Path | Way ].
Contrary interpretations
The [ Tao | Path | Way ]
that can be [ followed | trodden | experienced ]
is not the [ absolute | eternal | real | unvarying ] [ Tao | Path | Way ].
Granted, with these two opening lines, as simple as they are, it's pretty easy
to arrive at a reasonable consensus among the translators, but deeper into the
work it gets very tricky to try and figure out what the intent of any
particular line might be, and very often there is little consensus among
translators.
Take for example these translations of the same line: "He who knows that enough
is enough, will always have enough" vs. "When a man knows he has gotten enough,
he is rich." vs "He who has enough knows that he is rich." So is a man rich
when he has enough stuff, or is he rich when he decides that whatever he has is
enough, or is a man rich when he knows that having gathered enough stuff, he
can stop gathering stuff and still be rich?
My advice would be to work from at least two or three English translations and
cross check you LFN translation against what seems to be the consensus among
the translations. Even at that, you will have to do some "interpretation" and
decide which meaning best fits your own conception of the spirit of the Tao.
I'm looking forward to learning enough LFN to read your translation. Keep up
the good work!
--gary