PDA

View Full Version : What do you take this to mean?


Indy Hippy
03-05-2009, 06:39 AM
I was reading through the Tao Te Ching as translated by J. Legge last night and I came across this part

"Not to value and employ men of superior ability is the way to
keep the people from rivalry among themselves; not to prize articles
which are difficult to procure is the way to keep them from becoming
thieves; not to show them what is likely to excite their desires is
the way to keep their minds from disorder.

Therefore the sage, in the exercise of his government, empties
their minds, fills their bellies, weakens their wills, and strengthens
their bones.

He constantly (tries to) keep them without knowledge and without
desire, and where there are those who have knowledge, to keep them
from presuming to act (on it). When there is this abstinence from
action, good order is universal."

Here is another translation by S. Mitchell

"If you overesteem great men,
people become powerless.
If you overvalue possessions,
people begin to steal.

The Master leads
by emptying people's minds
and filling their cores,
by weakening their ambition
and toughening their resolve.
He helps people lose everything
they know, everything they desire,
and creates confusion
in those who think that they know.

Practice not-doing,
and everything will fall into place."

Though its wording changes slightly parts of it still seem to speak the same. What do those of you who study this take these passages to mean?

whatsreallyreallygoingon
03-05-2009, 07:47 AM
its beautifully true. its trying not to create difference i.e. indifference. the universe does not know good from bad. it just is. it just does.

zombiewolf
03-05-2009, 08:54 AM
Legge's interpretation/translation sucks...

S. Mitchell's is nice... Yes, in my feeling, It captures the spirit of Tao nicely.

Indy, I would suggest you research Communism a bit...


ZW

zombiewolf
03-05-2009, 09:26 AM
I cannot tell you exactly what I think this passage means because it is too complex and personal for me to explain.
The weight and density of words are different for different people.
For instance, when you hear (or see) the word " Master" do you think of " Master and slave"? or " Master and student"?
Do you see what I'm getting at?

This is the biggest problem with translations. Even if we are to find the most accurate translation of a particular word, we have no idea the weight and density of that word, as it was felt by the people of that time and place. We can only guess at clues. And use our creativity and intuition. Good luck!

ZW

Indy Hippy
03-05-2009, 09:29 AM
I cannot tell you exactly what I think this passage means because it is too complex and personal for me to explain.
The weight and density of words are different for different people.
For instance, when you hear (or see) the word " Master" do you think of " Master and slave"? or " Master and student"?
Do you see what I'm getting at?

This is the biggest problem with translations. Even if we are to find the most accurate translation of a particular word, we have no idea the weight and density of that word, as it was felt by the people of that time and place. We can only guess at clues. And use our creativity and intuition. Good luck!

ZW

I got myself a full copy of Mitchell's translation and after reading through it I think I understand better what this passage meant. You are right Lagge's translation is horrible. I'm currently collecting historical taoist writings from the internet and storing them on my pc to read through when I have the time.

HippyLandscaper
07-08-2009, 03:18 PM
What really matters is how you translate it.

Lavoe
08-18-2009, 08:30 PM
It is saying that things in and of themselves have no intrinsic value, they simply are. They only have value when they are prescribed a context by us. Obama is only powerful because there are a bunch of people who say he is powerful, and allow themselves to be governed by him. Without the context of the U.S. government and blahzy blah, he's just another man. Money is only valuable because our current state of affairs allows us to procure items that WE deem. Nothing has any inherent worth.

By designating people/things as more valuable than others, we are allowing the natural flow of things to be disrupted. By acting non-coercively, we can allow life to flow much more naturally and harmoniously.

That's just my interpretation. =]