tao te ching

[uki]

i have a version translated by derek bryce and leon wieger, with summaries being attributed to huai nan tzu, kuan yin tzu, and tung ku ching... i am doing a personal hand written copy of the tao in my personal book for future generations and as it were, there are many, many translations to choose from... i feel inclined to ask for some personal favorites of the board members... i hope to have a translation from a different source for each chapter so feel free to swamp me with choices to choose from.

[Lucas]

i always have liked any translation work by thomas cleary....

edit: i guess i could clarify why lol

i have always enjoyed his personal commentary, ive found him to be a well thought out person who can come at the topic from multiple angles

[Dale Dugas]

you want to get a copy of Dao De Jing by Ursula LeGuin.

A very nice way with words has she. http://www.amazon.com/Lao-Tzu-Ching-.../dp/1570623953

There are many translations out there.

Here is a link that has many of them: http://www.bopsecrets.org/gateway/pa...o-te-ching.htm

[Scott R. Brown]

I agree with reading a number of translations. I have to rate, TAO TE CHING: The Definitive Edition, translated by Jonathan Star

This edition discusses the difficulties in translating Chinese and compares different translator's choice of words. It also contains a complete concordance of every single Chinese character and a commentary on verse One!

[Hendrik]

IMHO, It is just very straight forward and simple words, there is no needs for 100000 translation and causing misleading.

It must be something which give a clear direction instead of just words which sound fuzzy and taken as deep / mysterious because non understand the fuzzy and cloudiness. and then it becomes the emperors' new cloth and everyone give it a prays but non knows what it is and benifit from it. it is not about literature or philosophy but could one " be" .





道 可 道 ， 非 常 道 。

A Path that can be described with words is not the boundless path.



名 可 名 ， 非 常 名 。

An identity that can be identify with characters is not the true identity.




The above means the path/ Dao/ ultimate is boundless thus one cant describe the boundless. if one describe the boundless with limitation, that is no longer the ultimate.




無 名 天 地 之 始 ﹔

Beyond could be identifying with mind is the origin of heaven and earth.

This means one needs to go beyond the mind. Mind is a creation machine, one needs to go beyond the mind to be "beingness" or the origin. Mind doesnt know Beingness because Beingnes is "be" and beyond " know, aware, think, identifying....."


有 名 萬 物 之 母 。


able to identify with mind is the source give birth to millions of things.

This means all things are created with mind.




故 常 無 ， 欲 以 觀 其 妙 ﹔

Thus, being in boundless, the intention to let go the mind and enter into the boundless is to observe the wonderful beyond creation.
This means dropping the mind one will "be" the wonderful beyond creation.

Or as in the west said, Let Go and Let God "Be".



常 有 ， 欲 以 觀 其 徼 。

focus on limits/bounday, the intention of focus the mind is to observe the creation/manifestation.

focus the mind and creation/manifestation begun, for mind is the machine to create.




此 兩 者 ， 同 出 而 異 名 ， 同 謂 之 玄 。

Both Being in boundless and focus the mind, they are from the same source although human using different identity/terms to describe them. They are from the same source means non dual.


This means, to be totally free, one needs to be in non dual. and to be in non dual means no attachement to either beings or mind, for one is the "body" and one is the " application" of the body. Similar to a coin with two faces. To be free, liberate, "be" with the Dao, one doesnt make discrimination of the two, one doesnt attached to both.



玄 之 又 玄 ， 眾 妙 之 門 。

practice Non attachment within Non attachment is the gate way toward the wonderful existence within emptiness or Boundless.



This chapter one is simply describing Creation and beyond creation.


Thus, in Qigong practice there are the state of fusion the Jing to become Zhen Qi, .....transcend the shen to return to the boundless.

Thus, if one practice the state of fusion the jing to become Zhen Qi , that is on the creation. However, when one reaches the state of " transcend the shen to return to the boundless" that is going into the boundless. the practices carry one from the creation back to the boundless.

As it said, Quiet the Mind and settle the Shen or Xi Xing AAn Shen. That is the starting training to enter the boundless. and only after AAn Shen, one can go further to Lien Shen Huan Xui or transcend the shen to return to the boundless. at that state, mind is drop long ago

Thus, this chapter 1 serve as a direction for Qigong/ Dao/ Internal archemi cultivation. it is not just beatifull or fuzzy words like the new cloth of the emperor. The bottom line is can one do it with the teaching, and how far has one gone?

[Scott R. Brown]

Hi Hendrik,

It is simple and straight forward for those who read Chinese, it is less clear to those who must read translations. Therefore, reading a number of different translations would be a benefit to those who are interested in what the Tao Te Ching teaches.

On the other hand, there is nothing within the Tao Te Ching that cannot be understood through direct perception/experience if one is wiling to take the time and make the effort to do so.

Reading and understanding the Tao Te Ching is not even necessary in order to understand Tao, it is nothing more than a description of the processes of Tao.

Since the processes of Tao are processes of nature, observation of Tao/Life/Nature will reveal the processes.

[Hendrik]

It is simple and straight forward for those who read Chinese, it is less clear to those who must read translations. Therefore, reading a number of different translations would be a benefit to those who are interested in what the Tao Te Ching teaches.

1, there is nothing to do with who read or read not chinese, one needs a sifu to coach one for the proper path.

2, reading some one's speculative translation is only going to mislead one more then helping one.

3, not to mention, how can reading something and understanding with mind which is limiting get to the boundless? cant.

On the other hand, there is nothing within the Tao Te Ching that cannot be understood through direct perception/experience if one is wiling to take the time and make the effort to do so.

It is not about understanding. It is about " be". Thus, one can could sand for 10000000 years and still can get rice.

Reading and understanding the Tao Te Ching is not even necessary in order to understand Tao, it is nothing more than a description of the processes of Tao.

Again, there is nothing todo with understanding, because Tao cannot be understood by mind, mind is a creation machine which sets limit and create within the limit. Boundless and non attach is beyond limit or limitless, how can one use the limit setting creating machine to understand the limitless or boundless? It is impossible.

Since the processes of Tao are processes of nature, observation of Tao/Life/Nature will reveal the processes.

There is no such thing as Nature. Human beings are running by Habitual. thus due to everyone's habitual is different everyone's nature is different.

Dao is beyond the habitual or let go of the habitual. Thus, one "be" with Dao by letting go the habitual instead of using the mind to observe the "natuar = habitual" of individual.

One easily falling into the trap of using one's habitual to argue with others' habitual claiming one knows dao better. in fact both doesnt " be " / accord with Dao at all.


Again, it is let go and let GOD "be". the key is "be". and not all the process....etc which is the concept created by the mind.


DAo is simple because it is let it "be" and Let it " be" is Wu Wei. one fall into Wei the instant one uses the mind. Even if one uses the mind to understand Dao De Jing. That is Wei. So there is no way the Wei become Wu Wei. To get to Wu Wei, means let go and let God " be" or let Go. That's all.

But this need a sifu to coach one to enter then one "be". sifu is like a boat, one needs it for crossing. and let it go after crossed the river. understanding doesnt make one cross the river but speculate what is crossing river.

[Skip J.]

1, there is nothing to do with who read or read not chinese, one needs a sifu to coach one for the proper path.

snip.....DAo is simple because it is let it "be" and Let it " be" is Wu Wei. one fall into Wei the instant one uses the mind. Even if one uses the mind to understand Dao De Jing. That is Wei. So there is no way the Wei become Wu Wei. To get to Wu Wei, means let go and let God " be" or let Go. That's all.

But this need a sifu to coach one to enter then one "be". sifu is like a boat, one needs it for crossing. and let it go after crossed the river. understanding doesnt make one cross the river but speculate what is crossing river.

Hello Hendrik my friend.... good to see you in here again!

This may not culturally translate well, but...

While the song does not reverberate thru my mind (while) in taiji .... it does and has thru out my life ever since the beatles sang it.... I've been a closet daoist all these years and never knew it. They did spend a few years in India right about then....

[Scott R. Brown]

It is simple and straight forward for those who read Chinese, it is less clear to those who must read translations. Therefore, reading a number of different translations would be a benefit to those who are interested in what the Tao Te Ching teaches.

1, there is nothing to do with who read or read not chinese, one needs a sifu to coach one for the proper path.

1A) If having a teacher is necessary then there is no need for written words of any kind, in which case one must ask themselves, “What was the purpose for writing texts in the first place?” They must then be written for no useful purpose; however Ch’an teachings state that written words, and teachers for that matter, are for the slow-witted. Meaning they are “expedient means” used for a purpose, yet are not to be attached too. Any insistence that a teacher is necessary demonstrates attachment to a Dharma, which is to be avoided!

In each of your posts you use words to communicate what you believe to be “correct” ideas. Yet according to your own communications, words bind others to the limited mind. You are, therefore, leading others to bind themselves to “limited mind”, so why type anything at all?

1B) If one has bound themselves to the need for a teacher they will become trapped by that attachment.

2, reading some one's speculative translation is only going to mislead one more then helping one.

2) All demonstrations of Tao, within the world system, are but shadows of the direct experience/perception. All a teacher may do is point to the shadow and any method must adhere to the world of forms because we live in the world of forms. No one understands until they have that direct experience for themselves. All experiences have the risk of leading one to attachment since all of us live within the world system of forms.

Lao Tzu used words, which do nothing other than point to shadows. The direct Chinese script may just as easily lead a person to attachment as any other form. Since the direct perception is an individual experience each must have for their self any form of guidance may lead one towards using the “limited mind”.

3, not to mention, how can reading something and understanding with mind which is limiting get to the boundless? cant.

3) Excellent question! If this is true then, as I have already stated, any teaching, including the teaching of a teacher, will lead one astray since understanding is from the “limited mind”. Therefore, no teacher is necessary and having a teacher at all is just as likely to cause one to attach to the limited mind as not having one!

On the other hand, there is nothing within the Tao Te Ching that cannot be understood through direct perception/experience if one is wiling to take the time and make the effort to do so.

It is not about understanding. It is about " be". Thus, one can could sand for 10000000 years and still can get rice.

You are either nitpicking here or you do not understand what you are talking about. It is not about “BE” either. “BE” too is a concept. As long as one is attached to concepts one cannot directly perceive Tao/Thusness. However, we must use words to communicate ideas. Even Ch’an teachers used actions which are nothing more than forms themselves. Forms are used to lead one beyond forms! If you do not understand this then you are confused by your “limited mind”.

Reading and understanding the Tao Te Ching is not even necessary in order to understand Tao, it is nothing more than a description of the processes of Tao.

Again, there is nothing todo with understanding, because Tao cannot be understood by mind, mind is a creation machine which sets limit and create within the limit. Boundless and non attach is beyond limit or limitless, how can one use the limit setting creating machine to understand the limitless or boundless? It is impossible.

Again you are nitpicking, which demonstrates either ignorance or argumentativeness.

Technically speaking there is no “mind” therefore it cannot be a “creation machine! Your statement, “mind is a creation machine” is nothing more than a dream fantasy you use to communicate ideas beyond form, yet you must use form to communicate ideas beyond form. “Boundless” and “non-attachment” are also forms you are using to communicate ideas beyond form. All words, indeed, all communications are forms and unreal thus contributing to ones attachment to “limited mind”.

Why nitpick others when you do what you criticize others of doing? You are either ignorant of what you are doing or you are being argumentative which is from your ego, either way, you are communicating with your “limited mind” and thus, according to your thought process, are leading others to do the same. In which case, why say anything in the first place?

Wouldn’t it be wise to stay silent rather than lead others into attachment using words/forms?

No, it would not be better to be silent; while “understanding” is a form from the limited mind, we must communicate with others using forms. We use forms to help transcend forms. Forms do not disappear; we merely recognize their limitations and do not confuse forms with Thusness, even though forms themselves are Thusness!

If you disagree with this, then it would behoove you to follow your own wisdom and never post another thought on this topic again!
I am willing to bet you won’t however, which would make you a hypocrite since you continually insist on criticizing others for what you do yourself!

Since the processes of Tao are processes of nature, observation of Tao/Life/Nature will reveal the processes.

There is no such thing as Nature. Human beings are running by Habitual. thus due to everyone's habitual is different everyone's nature is different.

You misunderstand my point here.

The world system of “forms” follows rhythmic, repeating, patterns. These patterns are Tao as well and are what we generally refer to as “The Laws of Nature”. I call these rhythmic, repeatable patterns, “Processes of Tao”. They are observable, understandable and when applied effectively provide one with benefits.

Further, to take your point……One learns to transcend form not by eliminating forms, but by understanding that forms are impermanent. Forms do NOT disappear; they are recognized for what they are, impermanent! Once one recognizes that forms are impermanent, one may choose to not become attached to forms. That does not mean one does not live in the world of forms. It means one is not RULED by attachments to form! Fire still burns wood, water still runs down hill, living creatures still breathe air. If you jump off a cliff you will still go splat! These are “Processes of Tao” that one may learn to use for a benefit!

Dao is beyond the habitual or let go of the habitual. Thus, one "be" with Dao by letting go the habitual instead of using the mind to observe the "natuar = habitual" of individual.

There is no letting go of anything. There is nothing gained or lost, nothing to do, or not do. There are no habits to let go of since all “habits” are empty form. It is not that habits are “let go” it is that we recognize they are impermanent and therefore do not become attached to habits.

One easily falling into the trap of using one's habitual to argue with others' habitual claiming one knows dao better. in fact both doesnt " be " / accord with Dao at all.

You believe you recognize this in others, yet still appear unable to recognize it within yourself. As I have pointed out numerous times, your time would be better spent addressing your own habitual thought patterns than using your dream fantasy mind to falsely project what you possess yourself onto others.

As long as an attachment exists to any thought or idea one will not recognize they are already one with Tao. There is no separation from the start. All “appearance” of separation is an illusion created by one’s own “dream fantasy mind”, yet even the “dream fantasy mind” is one with Tao. There is NEVER any separation from Tao under any circumstances of any kind, there is only an ILLUSION of separation from Tao!

Again, it is let go and let GOD "be". the key is "be". and not all the process....etc which is the concept created by the mind.

Your statement too, is a “concept created by the mind”. There is no “Let go and let God” because this too is a concept that may lead one to attachment!

I do not criticize the use of concepts, words, ideas etc. because they are necessary. We use forms to help recognize the impermanence form! However, you make continuous statements that are critical of others using forms while using forms yourself!

[Scott R. Brown]

DAo is simple because it is let it "be" and Let it " be" is Wu Wei. one fall into Wei the instant one uses the mind. Even if one uses the mind to understand Dao De Jing. That is Wei. So there is no way the Wei become Wu Wei. To get to Wu Wei, means let go and let God " be" or let Go. That's all.

There is no reason for any reading, learning or instruction then! So please stop posting nonsense and confusing the issue!

But this need a sifu to coach one to enter then one "be". sifu is like a boat, one needs it for crossing. and let it go after crossed the river. understanding doesnt make one cross the river but speculate what is crossing river.

As long as you are attached this need you are bound to follow your own foolishness, however there is no reason for you to pass your disease on to others!

[Hendrik]

If having a teacher is necessary then there is no need for written words of any kind,

3) Excellent question! If this is true then, as I have already stated, any teaching, including the teaching of a teacher, will lead one astray since understanding is from the “limited mind”. Therefore, no teacher is necessary and having a teacher at all is just as likely to cause one to attach to the limited mind as not having one!

With this type of logic, it said alots about your mind pattern isnt it?

Best Wishes and hope somedays you realize.

[taai gihk yahn]

1, there is nothing to do with who read or read not chinese, one needs a sifu to coach one for the proper path.

so, then, let me ask you - who was the FIRST guy to get this stuff? because whoever the FIRST person was to figure this all out, to "understand truth", to "be in Dao", whatever you want to call it, he / she could not have had a sifu! it may have been thousands of generations ago, but there had to have been somebody who was the first one to learn the "proper path"; meaning that he / she didn't need a sifu; which also means that, no one today absolutely needs a sifu;
perhaps, in the future, you may want to qualify your comments by saying that "I, Hendrick, needed a sifu in order to be able to etc., etc.";

2, reading some one's speculative translation is only going to mislead one more then helping one.

so would that include your translation as well? or are you claiming that, unlike all other translations, yours is NOT speculative? if so, how do you make that distinction? why is it that your translation is NOT speculative while others are? or, is it possible that other translations are NOT speculative as well? so which is it?

3, not to mention, how can reading something and understanding with mind which is limiting get to the boundless? cant.

well, maybe YOU can't! otherwise, not true; in Ch'an writings, there is a frequent reference to "going down into the weeds"; this expression connotes how Ch'an teachers have to use the conventions of words, actions, etc. in order to teach - even the Buddha smelling the flower and smiling was using "limitation" to teach - and it worked for Mahakasayapa, because he saw this, and awoke! same with Hui Neng - he heard someone reading Dharma, and was awakened - WITHOUT A TEACHER, mind you!
what you are doing when you say this, is to show preference for the "absolute" over the "relative"; you are making a hierarchical distinction between the two, not realizing, perhaps, that by doing so, you create a relativistic distinction between "absolute" and "relative"; now, if you are in fact proposing to "teach", you have done so using words, which are limited; if you are not proposing to teach, then you are expressing an opinion that others can disagree with based on their own experiences; either way, you have contradicted yourself;

It is not about understanding. It is about " be". Thus, one can could sand for 10000000 years and still can get rice.

it's always about "be", because you are always "being", whether you are living in a state of habitual attachment or not;

Again, there is nothing todo with understanding, because Tao cannot be understood by mind, mind is a creation machine which sets limit and create within the limit. Boundless and non attach is beyond limit or limitless, how can one use the limit setting creating machine to understand the limitless or boundless? It is impossible.

untrue - because the "limited" is an aspect of the "boundless" (both being artificial delineated constructs of mind to begin with, but ignoring that for a moment...); if one could not use the "limited" to discern the "boundless", that would infact mean that the "limited" and "boundless" are discreet and separate! but they are not, because if they were, you would have a "boundless" that was really "boundless + something else"!
like many others, you are making the distinction between boundless and limited for the simple fact that you feel that there is something that needs to be learned to see past, overcome, etc.; in effect, you are creating the problem that you are then proposing the solution too - so much spinning, why not just follow your own advice and "BE"?; no one ever told Hui Neng about the difference between "limited" and "boundless", and when he wrote "no mirror and no dust", he was expressing his profound understanding of this! you, OTOH are saying "there is a mirror off of which the dust needs to be cleaned" when you assert what you assert; ehhh! th3 fail, thank you for playing - no bowl and robe fer you, matey

There is no such thing as Nature. Human beings are running by Habitual. thus due to everyone's habitual is different everyone's nature is different.
Dao is beyond the habitual or let go of the habitual. Thus, one "be" with Dao by letting go the habitual instead of using the mind to observe the "natuar = habitual" of individual.

Nature is certainly a distinction and therefore utimately without substance; and yes, we are creatures of habit - it's in function of the processes that keep us "alive"; however, one can still function in a habitual manner but not be enslaved by it: for example, one can still engage in habitual activity: eating, sleeping, eliminating, but one can do all these things with an awareness of what they are as opposed to what we project them to be; remember, as Chuang Tzu said, "there is Dao even in the **** and the dung" - do you think he was ONLY talking about actual human waste? or perhaps he was also talking metaphorically, meaning that even in words and forms there is still Dao?

One easily falling into the trap of using one's habitual to argue with others' habitual claiming one knows dao better. in fact both doesnt " be " / accord with Dao at all.

but that is what you are doing! you are arguing that you "know Dao" better than others - you argue that one needs a teacher to show one the path to "know Dao"; see, the mistake you make is to project your neurotic need to be the one showing the truth to others - you can't show anything to anyone, only you yourself can become awake: the teacher, if one feels the need to have one, is the one who can be part of context of the process of awakening (whatever that means to you), but the teacher is not the actual process : the maitre d' can seat you at the table, the chef can prepare the meal, the waiter can bring you the food, your momma can put it into your mouth, and someone might even be able to get you to chew and swallow it, but only YOU are able to actually taste it! so tell us, Hendrick, how does it taste? (careful now...)

Again, it is let go and let GOD "be". the key is "be". and not all the process....etc which is the concept created by the mind.

GOD is also a construct of mind; there is no GOD; get over that already;

DAo is simple because it is let it "be" and Let it " be" is Wu Wei. one fall into Wei the instant one uses the mind. Even if one uses the mind to understand Dao De Jing. That is Wei. So there is no way the Wei become Wu Wei. To get to Wu Wei, means let go and let God " be" or let Go. That's all.

But this need a sifu to coach one to enter then one "be". sifu is like a boat, one needs it for crossing. and let it go after crossed the river. understanding doesnt make one cross the river but speculate what is crossing river.

one does NOT need a sifu - unless you want to characterize a "sifu" as being one's experience in life; as in the case of the Buddha - his "sifu" was the little girl that offered him a bowl of milk, and it was upon tasting that bowl of milk that he profoundly understood the nature of "the Middle Way" - indeed, if anything, the Buddha's "sifus" were the ones who led him astray into the path of excessive denial! and when they saw him drinking the bowl of milk, they rejected him and his understanding, because they were too attached to their own methods! meaning that they could not have been teaching the "true" path, because
meaning that, if one were to have a "sifu" to theach them the "path", then that "sifu" would necessarily have to be non-attached to their own teaching in order to truly teach! meaning that, in effect, there is no "proper path", or, as Krishnamurti used to say, "Truth is a pathless land." you might want to investigate K's approach to "teaching", it may help you rid yourself of some of the unnecessary baggage that you seem to have acuumulated...

[taai gihk yahn]

With this type of logic, it said alots about your mind pattern isnt it?
as much as yours;

it's extremely telling that, whenever someone engages you in a way that is not automatic wholesale acceptance of what you post, that you answer with the same kind of dismissive, condescending statement;

you're an asz Hendrick, and unfortunately, you are probably surrounded in life by a bunch of weak-minded individuals who do nothing but reinforce your own projection of yourself as "teacher" that you think that you can get away with the same schtick with others who don't need you to satisfy their own self-projection as someone who is learning under a "master"; really sad...

Best Wishes and hope somedays you realize.

you are so arrogant, it is beyond belief...

I can say that without fear of contradiction that you have failed to understand what "haul water, chop wood" actually means; you should do your students a favor and immediately stop teaching them anything ever again - that would be the most liberating thing that you could do for them at this point!

[taai gihk yahn]

Hello Hendrik my friend.... good to see you in here again!

This may not culturally translate well, but...

While the song does not reverberate thru my mind (while) in taiji .... it does and has thru out my life ever since the beatles sang it.... I've been a closet daoist all these years and never knew it. They did spend a few years in India right about then....

[channels Hendrick]
this is all speculation of your dream fantasy spinning mind - whatever it is that you are doing, even if it's something that I would have told you to do, is wrong because you did it before I told you it was the right thing to do
[end transmission]

[Hendrik]

you're an asz Hendrick, and unfortunately, you are probably surrounded in life by a bunch of weak-minded individuals who do nothing but reinforce your own projection of yourself as "teacher" that you think that you can get away with the same schtick with others who don't need you to satisfy their own self-projection as someone who is learning under a "master"; really sad...


you are so arrogant, it is beyond belief...

I can say that without fear of contradiction that you have failed to understand what "haul water, chop wood" actually means; you should do your students a favor and immediately stop teaching them anything ever again - that would be the most liberating thing that you could do for them at this point!

when one cant discuss the subject with confident, that is where personal attack starts.