 |
|
First things first, that matters.
THIS RECENT Internet text of the complete Tao Te Ching (or Dao De Jing)
can be called a pedagogical concoction. It seeks to "gyrate" the delightful wisdom of at
least three world-famous renditions into one. and then you have better chances to grasp
more ulterior meanings inside this classic of Chinese philosophy more sensibly and
hopefully less arbitrarily. As far as we know, there is no other rendition in the whole
wide world that can give just that kind of help - not yet, at least. We shall substantiate
that statement later. Here's the basis:
- The very deft translation by Dr. Arthur Waley is the base, or platform of this
survey;
- It's much suppleanted by the largely Waley-founded version by China's author
Lin Yutang.
- Finally I compared with the version by Dr. W.-T. Chan, Professor at
Princeton. His rendition is very good, too. Many of his passages run practically identical
with Yutang's.
These renditions are recommended in a book by the Staff of Oriental Studies at Columbia
University in the USA. Hardly any of them can be found on Internet nowadays.
The author The book Dao De Jing is attributed to
one ancient Chinese called Lao Tan (long-lobed one) with a lot of other names. One is Lao
Tzu (Old Boy). The word "tzu" means almost the same as guru, teacher, master - something
like that. It's spelt in lots of divergent ways: "tse" and "zi" are quite common. Thus you
may also find Lao Zi, Laozi, Laotse - and perhaps another one - the one he was born with,
according to legend: Li Erh. The name refers to "plum tree" and his long ear-lobes. [Adj
1]
"Darlings get many names." (Saying)
According to legend
his mom was pregnant for 62 years. So he was white-haired when he first appeared. Just how
white and worried she was at that time, I don't know. At the age of 160 Lao Tan resolved
to leave China. Heading westwards through a certain pass, he met with the pass-keeper who
begged him to compose a book for him. This he did. It became the Dao De Jing. Most
people still hold on to the now somewhat obsolete spelling of it, namely Tao Te
Ching. And a reason why Chinese names and words are spelt so differently, stems in no
small way from the language reform they've had in China fairly recently. An example: "Mao
Tse Tung" was made "Mao Tsedung" - for the sake of letting the pronunciaton come better to
the fore in writing as well.
The Taoism-expert Dr. Holmes Welch
recounts the growth of legendary material about the alleged author of the tall book, and
does it well. He lets us in on that there is no agreement among all the divergent sources.
Maybe he lived, and maybe he was born somewhere around 600-570 BC, as some sources tell.
And maybe he spent not 62, but 81 years in his mother's womb, and left for the west at the
age of 200, not 160, Dr. Welsh also tells us. [Adj 2]
There are
indications that the short, very terse book Dao De Jing was composed by one man,
but then again, it may be wrong. The book "mentions no dates, no places, no persons, no
events" - Dr. Holmes Welch. [Adj 3]
There's a fair chance that
later writers entered this and that under his name to impress by his growing fame, for
those were the customs of old - not only there, but in India as well. We'll look into it
just a bit: [Adj 3-4]
In ancient India the guru author Vyasa,
for example, is credited with editing all main Vedas, writing the grand epic
Mahabharata, lots of fairy-tale-like Puranas that deal with cosmology, myth,
dynasties, heroes and incarnations; and a version of the bestselling fairy tale poem
Ramayana, filled with talking and fighting animals as it is; beside lots of other
canonical heavy-weighter works, including Brahma Sutras. Sankara has written a
commentary. [R; Si; Sh; Ma; Vip; Dm; Sr, Bik; Ram; Mmw; Coco]
Most of this information can be dug up from deep inside the now five-volumed The
Cultural Heritage of India with the former Indian president, Dr. Sarvepalli
Radhakrishnan, as main editor. The immense scope an bulk of overwhelming stories and the
fact that different Puranas in turn hail different gods, indicates that Vyasa was an
attributed author, as many say. If not, he was a nearly incredibly overlooked, yet
dominant religion-maker and culture-former. We leave it there. [Xm]
Humble assertions
DEFT USE of allusions often obscure things at first look. And if your outlook gets
obscured, your taming may be next. And next there will be ample room for such as the
"compact obscurity" when the mental ropes are tightened more and still better. In Norse
mythology that process is masterfully described. All the Norse gods found it best to tie
up and chain the terrible wolf Fenrir. The only serviceable materials they found were
silly things and outright nonsense-things to look at. What do you say? [See Ng]
 Below we let Dr. Holmes Welch, author of the eniment
Taoism: The Parting of the Way, be quoted through a series of fragments.
1 One reason
for obscurity is compression "STRAIGHT word [can] seem crooked" (Lao Tzu, psalm 78).
[Adj 8]
"The main reason ... for the obscurity (of Dao De
Jing is not its succinct and paradoxical style, but the inherent difficulty of Archaic
Chinese. (It) has no active or passive, no singular or plural, no case, no person, no
tense, no mood. Almost any word can be used as almost any part of speech ... there are no
inviolable rules". [Adj 9]
Also, the demanding work was
subjected to manual copying that supplied some left out elements (called radicals). [Adj
9]
"[Its] chapters (seem reduced) to hints. The style is more
than compressed". - "The Tao Te Ching is much translated for still another reason,
namely, that it's very hard to decide what it means. It's a famous puzzle which everyone
would like to feellhe has solved. Certainly few other books have managed to achieve such
obscurity". [Adj 8, 7]
2 Deft use
of allusions often obscure things at first look
"WE HAVE to decide for ourselves what is meant, within more or less broad limits [where
to] read is an act of creation." [Adj 12]
"The book is in part
obscure due to paradoxical thinking. But also, "the style is one of extraordinary
compression." - "The reader begins to wonder whether he or Lao Tzu views the world
standing on his head." [Adj 8]
"There is the use of allusions
... we ... cannot be sure what is meant ..." [Adj 11]
"We have a
book ... No other book except the Bible has been translated into English as often". [Adj
4]
3 In the
long run no one else can decide for you what you put into this and that paradox or
metaphor or vague-looking term  "WHY have there been so many translations? ... the book is short." [Adj 5]
"Connecting words ... are reduced to a minimum, and often below it.
(The author) leaves out the subject of the sentence. There is no punctuation whatever; one
must decide for oneself where a sentence ends, and naturally there are many cases where
moving a period reverses the meaning." [Adj 10]
"Hundreds of
commentaries and subcommentaries have been written." [Adj 12; Cf. Tak ?]
 As for the text
itself: "Most of the texts we have are corrupt. Sometimes copyists have merely been
careless ... sometimes they have deliberately introduced material to launch their own
ideas." - "These things make the language more than difficult: they make it vague. And it
can be vague without being difficult." [Adj 10] ¤
"A paradox may
express not a simple, but a complex truth." [Adj 8] [T+, #1.5]
Homily
 - COMPACT OBSCURITY IS
ONE HALLMARK OF PROVERBIAL EXPRESSIONS AND FORMULAS IN SCIENCE. There is the "compact
obscurity" and artful compactness as well. One reason for obscurity is fit compression.
Goethe was once into that side of the enterprise - that of the "minimal dose", so to
speak. In the great art of homeopathy the same can be eminently
mastered.
- OLD ALLUSIONS OUTSIDE YOUR CONTACT NET MAY BE HARD TO HANDLE. Deft use of
allusions often obscure things at first look. See my essays on homeopathy, for a starter.
- TICKLE WELL. In the long run no one
else can decide for you what you put into this and that paradox or metaphor or
vague-looking term. I think you could come to that conclusion from looking up at our homeopath's corner.
Fit values help us on and some tend to entertain the advancing guy
CALCULATE JOKES on your own. Their size, winning elements and what strides they help,
for example. Start from bottom, learn to use harmonising elements. Some are inside
folktales and yarn that entertains man.
As you see, fit ways of
wording help, and jokes harmonise. The fit expression is often vague and values
relativistic. Value funny reading.
Both the mature reader or
entertainer had to start from bottom and learn such as major concepts; great values
embedded in the teachings; and functional, rich and handed-over metaphors. Funny reading
and stand-up joking often employs the measures we're into.
Humour and values go along together. There is a reason -
values are abstract elements, in other words fairly metaphoric in essence, and metaphors
may entertain Let Dr. Holmes Welch pinpoint why
the terse text Dao De Jing can be so incredibly obscure.
1 The fit
expression is often vague and values relativistic "EXTRAORDINARY obscure". - James
Legge of Oxford, on the Tao Te Ching. [Adj 13]
"Lao Tzu
is in tune with our relativism." - Holmes Welch. [Adj 14] ¤
"How easily we can find our own image in the Tao Te Ching!" It reflects our concept
of what's in it. - Holmes Welch. [See Adj 13]
These things make
the book very funny reading, yet you can hardly trust it.
2 The mature
reader had to start from bottom and learn such as major concepts; great values embedded in
the teachings; and functional, rich and handed-over metaphors IF THE translation
follows a traditional commentator - it would be Wang Pi - it represents merely one
"selection of the many possible meanings in the original text. If it follows several
commentaries, it represents the translator's selection of their selection. If the
translator ... started from scratch, it represents his concept of Chou Dynasty life and
thought. The Chinese classics are deep water". [Adj 13]
Hymn 49
contains the line: "Good persons I good them. Not good persons, I good them too." Dr.
Holmes Welch comments: ""Good" (shan) is ... here a verb. We can understand either
"I consider that they're good," "I treat them with goodness," or "I make them good." Which
is it? There is no way of telling ... it could mean all three. This is an alternative that
I think translators have too seldom adopted ... Lao Tzu used ambiguity to save words."
[Adj 10] ¤
Dr. Welch: "When we go to the two words that
immediately follow it, we strike something knottier ... te shan." Shan means
"good." Te is the power of virtue through dao. Now, "what can "power good" mean?"
he asks to inform us. He also furnishes masterly examples: [See Adj 10]
(Thus my) power (stems from) good(ing people). - Raymond Blakney.
(This is the)
goodness (of) Power. - Lin Yutang
But there is another te-word, it means "to get". If we use it, we get something
like "gets goodness". So read and weep:
The not-good person gets goodness. - Arthur Waley.
Everyone gets goodness. - James
Legge.
Here were four divergent renditions by four eminent men. Holmes Welch comments this: "At
least we know that Lao Tzu is telling us something about goodness". [Adj 10]
He also informs us: "[An English] translation ... is not a translation ...
but a spelling out in English of what is not spelled out in Chinese." [Adj 12]
Now, as mentioned above, the book abounds in allusions, and through
imagery. I like it. Let there be no doubt about that. But mind Dr. Welch: "Some poems are
little more than a patchwork (of allusions) ... meaningless unless we recognise the
sources ... even if we [do], we still cannot be sure what is meant." [Adj 11]
3 There is a
chance there are no silly concepts in the original texts, that the silliness is projected
on to it from ourselves. It pays to beware of that. HOLMES WELCH writes: "It was probably a disagreeable experience for a
Sinologist as eminent as Legge to find that he could often extract little meaning from his
own translation." [Adj 14] ¤
"We cannot be certain of what [the
book] means." [Adj 13]
Homily
- FIT WAYS OF WORDING HELP, AND JOKES HARMONISE. The fit expression is often vague
and values relativistic. Value funny reading.
- START FROM BOTTOM, LEARN TO USE
HARMONISING ELEMENTS. SOME ARE INSIDE FOLKTALES. The mature reader had to start from
bottom and learn such as major concepts; great values embedded in the teachings; and
functional, rich and handed-over metaphors. Funny reading often employs the measures we're
into.
- YOU HAVE TO CALULATE ON YOUR OWN. There is a chance there are no silly concepts
in the original texts, that the silliness is projected on to it from ourselves. It could
pay to beware of that.
Poetry, condensed points and lots of misses could seem like humour from
Norway
An adamant guru lion sat up on a sunny slope one day and roared things
like:
"Very grown-up, clever thinking - I mean sunset thinking - may be much needed, but
maybe not much liked at the start, just like the rather gruff Vikings. Clever,
domesticated all-round thinking makes the heart richer and richer; and what's more, it may
next be spanned or tied in with clever, artful handling in its main wake - sort of. That's
up to you, old bullfrog over there. Now we're in for extra hard or kingly thinking about
who's the best king around here."
A nearby frog looked up and remembered his limitations, sighed and cried much over
being shown the lion's angle -
"Thank you much, big guy," it said. "Mind that fair lion counsel and lion outfit
is ordinarily totally wasted on a small creature. Mind your own business - I find it more
useful in the long run, like all normal animals may do. Thank you."
The lion sulked and pondered for an hour and then decreed in off-hand
manner:
"Maybe your best notions are clumsy, maybe not. But why make fuss about notions
when living is rooted in substantial, carnal action and force all the way, day after day?
Masks can be ripped off. What kind and merciful heaven begets devilish mess by mercy all
over the planet? In the end mercy based on wrong notions; by its fruits you shall know
mercy as inherently unfair, or too little fair, and even possibly devilish. So favouring
the modern consumer has its croaking continuance:
In the end it may signify we're on the brink of extinction on the whole globe, all
due to the merciful cleverness developed in mankind. You must bear in mind they once were
weaker than many apes, even, but took to good thinking and got skilled in weapons and
handicraft. They built what they call culture on top of much of that aggressive and
offensive fare against well-nigh all the others around. As far as I remember, jolly good
reasoning is a basic, tricky thing to tamper with. In the garden of Eden it lead to
fraud.
Feel free to look into Taoist teachings to counteract a bit of it by steps or
grades - come closer to nature. Or otherwise there will be a dormant risk that rich
favours or technicality-mercy is secretly fiendish already from the start - oh, what a
pity I find! Oh, what a blunder to mess up the globe like man already does. He has hardly
just begun," it said.
The frog was kind of glad to hear that.
Future verdicts
1 There are
good and perfectly legitimate reasons why different renditions of such as Dao De
Jing differ much and widely BY MUCH uniting (bonding) man automatically loses
former freedom. Yoga brings bonding, bonding begets sulking men's standards - Its part of
that game. (1)
Chinese pictograms have neither commas, periods, connecting words sentences nor
chapters. structures. Thats why the renderings differ widely. And in part why study of
Chinese classics may be coupled with sense of deep freedom. No connecting, few bonds
(bindings) - next: much true or false sense of freedom. (2)
2 If you
remember just what you manage to understand of the text, there are good chances you
misconstrue much from that CLEVER, ARTFUL half-obscurity is often a way - this fine
point seems fit to remember for ever. It's tied in with a story of Plato, about how the
soon reborn Ulysses should choose the best life to be had. You may believe it, you may not
- well on top of this: (3) - Dao which is bright appears to be dark - Dr Wing-tsit
Chan.
- [A dao] out into the light often looks dark. - Me.
- The way out into the
light often looks dark. - Dr Waley.
- Who understands dao seems dull of comprehension. -
Lin Yutang.
This novel study approach unites or blends; great dao itself does such
feats higher up, says Lao. [Hymn 14]
I've also attempted to muffle or tone down what's evidently stupid or bad,
conformity-ensuring doctrine, but hardly enough - Lao says the way out into the light
often looks dark; one who understands dao seems dull, as dao which is bright appears to be
dark. (4)
Thus, even certain types of boss-ridden enlightenment
can be looked at with suspicion - smart branches of elevated yoga were perhaps (or
perhaps not) eagerly sought before, but what's eagerly shared (by or in common bonds and
fetters) may later be dwarfed - this is how it is. Topdog loyalty can be a fetter. It's
often overlooked. You may believe it, you may not.
3 The
mystical freedom to explore and manage things artist-like has to be ranked higher, because
that is tuned in with how friends happen to be - like artists of a sort TO BE merely versed is such as
Rikveda can't be much to boast of in the long run. Because the best versions of
ancient texts that may give a deep sense of freedom, can differ much in translation, I've
allowed myself the mystic freedom to roll some of the most agreeable ones into one by
various stylist devices. Some may apply to cryptical, enigmatic Veda texts too. Like the
sermons in Dao De Jing they're a lot like modernist poetry in the way they're
designed, structured, made up. There are similarities. I leave the deep content out of
consideration here. (5)
Tick tack toe scheming that we're into here, is basically clever. Good insights
have to be mobilised into humdrum routines and careful build-ups, or they fall flat in the
long run, thanks to hidden enemies and others that don't care. It could be that way. To
make very economic use of the best insights and outfit tied in with them, has to reach an
artistic level sooner or later. Handy living is the outcome. It's the everyday art,
grossly stated. Our art in question is subservient to some delegant everyday routines - it
is to make its stringed insights work for you according to design or plan in a fine
rhythm. Otherwise its major tenets come to nothing, wiped off by neurotic defences and
much else in the depth of man, it is to be feared in the light of existential psychology,
including that of Dr. Rollo May.
Much artful handling has to be generally esteemed; or matter strongly; or be
clever and well equipped. Why is that?
It could meet with outright sanctions if not. That's why.
Almost everyone has a head good enough to make sense out of my tick-tack-toe approach. All is coupled with a common-looking,
averaged survey concoction - the best we probably have. How come? Simply because it was so
designed and inspired. Behind it stands such as: "Very clever, very artful; next: good
for small and uncontrolled ones, maybe." Such principles bring forth a sort of even tenor
that is its mark.
Back to the yoga artist. Like any artist he is marked by marked style,
generousity, love of creating, maybe lack of best friends. He may feel lonely because he
has evolved his individual hallmarks - to develop oneself in unique ways has to imply such
things and others. You have to be strong for it, you have to manage contrary to conform
cencure of many sorts, and maybe what you get is a stigma to begin with. If Picasso did,
how could you hope to escape? [Pap 1-18]
This implies that to evolve isn't just sunshine. In part because big oafs and
nice-looking guru robbers may turn against, hate and molest bizarre new outlets, candid
truth-telling contrary to their trade, or any decent, fine person. Such things do happen.
It's well documented in the history of art, of science, and religion as well, and the main
problems may be common hypocricy; authoritarian attitudes with suppression of
individuality; and exploitations set in on top of that. It is a very common thing.
(6)
So beware if you master my stringed alternate thinking and want a better living
from it: Many sorts sanctions may be expected, if you break off from folds that managed
you, if former balances are upset - and there's much else to be said too. You could need
allies. Picasso had fine friends. (6)
On the other hand, if you stay conform and never evolve from deep inside, your
higher aspects may rot, more or less. To become decadent is much of that. There may be no
hope for the hearts inside decadent gangs. In its milder states, if you shy away from
evolving from inside, more or less, maybe you end up half-hearted, or can't bring your
heart into what you're doing. In that case you may get bored, more and more neurotic, and
the rest is much up to you. I've had my say so far, I think. But the next essay is the
worst. It goes freely against ailing. (8) [Cf. Dao De Jing chapter 41]
This long essay is in three parts that are numbered to make it a lot easier to
digest this and that very well.
1
Be allied with the likeable substance of ancient China if you like. Much can be
learnt through primers THIS VERSION is a concoction that's lined up to common yogi
experiences that normally are hard to get at. In days gone by there was cultural mingling
between Tantric India, Lamaistic Tibet, Shamanism and Taoist China. Dr. Waley takes us in
on parts of it in his mature work. [Tat]
There are similarities of canon, ritual and practices. Rather much can be
identical. For example, in a book edited by Dr. W.-Y. Evans-Wentz of Oxford, a Chinese
translator-professor states that common Mahamudra Buddhism found in Tibet is identical
with Zen. [Tiy?]
On top of that amalgamated stand, what was seent o be best, central cores from
many sources, were fused, co-ordinated, gyrated and in part melted somewhat, all for the
sake of pertinent sights into what Taosim might mean for anybody here and now. And thus,
rather outré dictums are clearly toned down because it pays to make modest statements if
nothing is proved and found to be hard facts. That's a solid point.
Find such rustic features included only here. They're novelties. Also, a dash of
subtle irony can be found. I hope that.
I chose to draw mainly on eminent versions because they're far better than most
others and recognised as that in university circles. In using them, I was aiming at an
even better version - here it is - than any of them had made individually. This is in step
with the motto: "Let many heads brought together think better than one single of them". It
often happens.
Until a man learns to build in cogent, fair reservations that the primitive
scripts of ancient China never accomplished to build in, but that could be presupposed
then as now, he hardly does merit to the wide data bank inside the old texts. They can be
interpreted in lots of way. Much depends on the outlook of the translator.
The rendering guy had better bear in mind his cultural roots or limitations, sigh
and shriek over being no eagle in his own right - and try to ride on another's big
back.-
Bear in mind I've toned down the most outré or foolish slogans, for the rather
crude and witty ways of writing in ancient China obviously allow it. It's hardly all right
not to sort out and then tone down the dramatic versions more than a bit if they seem to
miss any mark. For if cleverly toned down, the map may suit the terrain: the decrees may
even suit the real world more or less.
So instead of saying "this is so and so" in cramped manners, our approach renders
it to "this could be so and so". To avoid this feature could go hand in hand with plotting
assertions most often. There are many other clever reservations made use of in this
rendition, all for the sake of better presentation. You have to be cunning to do such
things.
Norwegian Professor Arne Naess and author of the fine work "The History of
Philosophy", indicates the same as you're let in on so far. "If you haven't read more than
one version you hardly understand much anyway, firmly liable to projective kinds of
errors." (My rendition) [Lof kk]
All this is to say: If you read just one single version, you're likely to
misunderstand much, no matter what, in his and my opinion. But by the round methods I've
devised, you can guard against stark shortcomings that most other renditions seem to be
marred by so far - so much the worse for them. I tell the truth: There are many
translators that haven't got up to the level and accentuated profile embedded in our
educative version.
Now, I pinpoint to make certain things
easier to see into or handle, well in time. From this you may sense this is a rather
lonely concoction - and very different from many texts by the British band Procol Harum
behind the massive hit "A Whiter Shade of Pale" and the debut album with that title. We
find silly-looking or seamless phrases inside it. But all that is not Lao. It's different,
no matter how you shave and groom it. The basis is different, the outcomes also.
I should say I've sought to remedy the most serious defects
inside very common translations of Dao De Jing. Basically I was not particularly
enthusiastic, not at all interested in recruiting and converting somebody - I just don't
suffer from such enthusisat defects - unlike Lin Yutang. So don't expect me to be an eager
simpleton, or willing to participate in common hailing either. I am what I am - far from
enthusiastic, I hardly share the main cultural biases of Chinamen - they're traditional,
no matter how. As for me, I stand on my own feet to handle matters as fair and just as I
can. You can do the same thing by looking into some top-notch presentations and choose
from among them according to system.
Hence I seem to have come a
long way towards eradicating parts of Dr. Arne Naess' simple warning against one single
rendition, and such things matter.
Now, what you get here is more
than a shortsighted warning, more than one more mediocre, narrowed-down selection. You get
instead a cogent blend with a profile that is much fair in the light of the cultural
history of such as Zen and Tao stuff aligned to Tantra - and its aim is to be synergic
also.
I just make do with presenting treasured gist from three and
more eminent versions. You can look into it with an even eye, sift, compare and see if
elements may be tried out. Don't trust Lao, trust solid facts and the better facets inside
your own solid culture instead - it most often suits us, according to Chinese Taoism. It's
also my own personal experience. Granted these premises and lots of others, you may not
stick any more to Tao lore than to the Good Bible, or bother outside your ken of common,
averaging adaptations. All that is Tao lore too. [Cf. hymns 80-1]
Speaking personally, I hardly care more for any Taoist work than for the gospel. Few
things are as difficult as this - I mean partly letting down the mountain climber and
eminent logician Arne Naess a long way ...
He's a skilled
thinker, to say the least.
Normally he and I hold much identical
views on basic issues - but let that be a little secret ... (2)
To accomplish many such things was no small leap. None else has done the same kind
of sifting, and supplied one wide, proficiently tailored and slowly amalgamated text from
it. I did so because I disliked beastly overstatements in nearly all translations on the
market. Instead of swallowing the catchy phrases one by one, no matter how they differed,
I furnished a broad supply of hints found in the most esteemed sources. My approach may
sound thoroughly cynical. I don't mind. What's most important is that it has built-in
value - standing on top of some major, cherished presentations. Besides I've aspired to a
sound, "middling" (a bit averaging) sort of round, cultured fairness. This is built in in
the best, cogent way possible for me right now where I am.
The
result - the medley - could be accused of being a too easily understandable medley - the
best half-guesses inside the long, already established dao traditions as given out by many
eminent Sinologists.
From this it stands out that this is a rich rendition, and maybe tantamount to
three dozens of others. It pesters little, for I shun away from indoctrinating young,
gullible Americans - dislike riding on top of them as one more avatar, idol or
sooth-sayer, you too. This can even be seen to be quite correct.
In the circles we're in, good renditions are looted or made use of with
variations, no matter how. It has always been that way. I've done al of that, but on top a
a scheme that must suit the material better than all others - if I'm not vry wrong.
Disprove it if you're able to. Corrections could be welcome for a change.
Now, you too can learn to digest and next concoct what's held to be best phrases,
make terse, elegant sayings and live on no matter how, looking death or avatars in the
face with a grin, year after year. At any rate, it can be called a a good thing to write
sparingly, condensed, and thus leave out much that seems all right to include - if that
sort of approach fits in. If not, select the best you're allowed, learn to grade several
sides of the allowed styles where you are, and refuse to become an outright victim of high
ideals in the matter of style, elegance and culture for others.
I felt I should give vent to this outlook to help, for to do something outside what's much
welcome where you are, may take you nowhere more often than not. We're talking proficient
deals right now. But help if you can. You don't have to be a another Cain. Note the basic
instinct lesson:
"If you do the right thing, a smile should be on
your face, no matter how it looks like -" We just have to presuppose that your instincts,
guts, sense of fairness, moral and your over-all deals aren't rudimentary and unwelcome
over and over again, no matter what others say. Solid actions speak louder than parading
words, Cain had to realise such things in his way. The LORD said: "If you do
what's right or do well - won't you be accepted - or look up with confidence?" - See
Genesis 4;6-7.
The one who does right is accepted - but by whom? Now, look at this: "If you
do well you can do kriya" without harm
- To look up is a fixed part of it, and many have to smile from the regular practice."
Who does his kriya panting all right gets accepted.
Who does right has confidence.
If you do the right thing, end up smiling.
If you do the right thing [enter the right
sect], you could gain confidence and is well received.
We have to accept the Bible allows several interpretations along with
several translations. Add one obscure subject to some others, and there are North
Americans willing to believe it. They have the avatar problem.
Is what you just read on kriya and Cain an easy subject? I don't think so. But it's
interesting to many North Americans, or Gringos that in part are descendants of Cain. He
was the first town- and tool-builder described in the Bible.
This is not an easy subject. Most humans are subjected to urbanisation, much slum and
degradation. Hence the "Cain sermon" to some city dwellers among others. Technically it's
just a medley, not a Swiss roll. There's a difference between the two of them. Our medley
above is on top of six major Bible translations found on Internet. What's called Today's
English Version (TEV) mentions one more side to it: " ... you would be smiling". The
reference is Genesis 4;6-7.
This suggests that not only Lao Tan is obscure and allows for many alternatives
among translators. The Bible does the same, particularly in the older parts. You can't be
sure if your translation makes one hundred per cent justice to the often dubious, unclear
original.
Have a good try if you like, if only you can find a
place for it, and is not afraid of divergent studies at all times. Here's my way of
gyrating sentence parts - look at this work as a figurative Swiss roll, more or less. The
Swiss roll is a cake. Layers are rolled into one whole around some theoretical central
nave along the middle, so to speak.
If you look for that nave, you'll hardly ever find anything strictly accurate, but
see for yourself: Roughly speaking the layers do work together, and they share a genuine,
common core inside that gyrated structure - the roll. I've gone a long way to make that
sort of cake for you. Put one more way: One eminent translator says this
thing, another says that thing, and a third says something else. You should know how to
handle all that, to your own major benefit. You might have to know how to
deal with lots of obscure phenomena otherwise as well. Often wordings or phrases are
different. Often more comes on top of that. It pays to try to get lax in matters that may
interest often and much, believe it or not. Sinister sects were first only divergent
opinions.
Back to Lao: If you read one translation, you may be mislead. If you read three or
four, it often pops up that there's a common axis, let it be the Swiss roll nave. You may
have to dig for it in a much creamlike substance - the centre of the cake. In some cases
the nave is much as a homonym that obviously covers stuff found inside the alternatives
presented by foremost translators. In most cases it's not that easy. You have to know
that.
I've substantiated very briefly that I've found fair ways to solve the dilemmas of
phrasing. I took to using concoction, but not wildly. That became my method. I went into
eminent versions phrase after phrase like a gourmet, and made use of this tidy, handsome
new approach. None knew anyone better! I owe it to you to pinpoint that, to be
fair.
From this it's quite clear that you have every right to presume a clever
reservation or four along the road, so as not to get disappointed around the bend. Be
allied with the pregnant sentences of artistry-bent translators. I went for that. This is
a good point if you look on the work as a textbook, a skilled and smoothed work of
long-range education from scholarly sources of ancient China. It was. It was hardly
poetry, mainly. It has to be respected as much more than that. Let's be fair: Most
translations violate that savoury outlook nowadays. They like pregnant phrases of
hard-headed poetics. By making the poems neat, they often forget to mention the many
alternative renditions that are found. And they ignore lots of soundness-helping
reservations that might have been just as much subsumed as full stops.
Much of what a brisk educator has to go against in these circles, revolves around
gross lack of methodical consistency along such lines as we've been into now. Of course,
if you want to indulge in fancy, outré phrases like a tendentious poet, this criticism is
hardly valid, not all the way. But if we consider that naive Americans love and believe
outré or silly statements formed by translators, we have no hard excuse, can hardly run
away from a sledge-hammer - I mean a cogent, proficient outlook that involves:
- A bouquet of tactful, well versed attempts, line after line;
- More moderation
built into the sayings; according to the norm: "If you allow for commas, allow for "maybe"
too. It's most often as should be.
- Profile: It would be good if the translator had
some first-hand experience of the possible states or experiences that Lao Tzu hints at,
since his sayings are obscure, and can be interpreted in many ways, along several avenues.
This new point should not be ignored. The "philosophical" outlook of a translator can
manifest in the angling of the whole work, the choice of phrases, the tone or the gamut of
feelings frequently accentuated - and more.
Speaking of the history of this rendition, I met with Yutang's rendition almost thirty
years ago, and also another good one. Later I came across the condensed versions of
Reverend R. Blakney; D. C. Lau; and lots of others - including at least ten of the fairly
recent English renditions of the age-old classic.
Non-pestering from some sort of skilled, liberal outlook matters. Methodic
indifference or laxness can often give great help to beginners, as it frees their minds
more than many beliefs. Beliefs do tend to cramp man and keep him slave-bound, especially
if they never fit in or suit the universe -
Often the translations to be found, pester by wild, grotesque claims. One is that the
colours you see, make the eyes go blind, music makes you deaf. Here's Lin Yutang's
translations, it's favourably mentioned by Columbia University! [See Wara]
The five colours blind the eyes of man;
The five musical notes deafen the ears of
man;
The five flavours dull the taste of man;
Horse-racing, hunting and chasing
madden the minds of man:
Rare, valuable goods keep their owners awake at night [Lit.
"keep on one's guard"] - All from psalm 12.
Seeing is believing: Let statistics mar these unsound teaching in a thrice. Ask "Where's
the evidence? Good guesses aren't good enough, mom," and so on.
This sinister use-up-teaching must in part be at odds with common sense, the best
modern psychology and neurology itself, and therefore has to be discarded as well-nigh
rubbish, unless interpreted a long way off from the better translations.
My point is that the body or organism is designed for seeing and hearing in
properly attuned surroundings the whole day, and for dreaming and sleeping the impressions
off at night - on and on, in a well-balanced rhythm we know as solid, good enough
living, many of us. It's not seeing lovely things while we can that's the basic trouble,
but just the factor "more ageing", I dare say.
Dance while you have strength or legs to dance with, in other words. Well trained
muscles and tendons in youngsters tend to grow stronger. As for many other organs, they're
designed to last a life-time anyhow, more or less. This matters.
But Lao Tzu's outré notions here are grossly misleading, not able enough either,
to say the least. As a renderer I could not find a way out of that trouble - It's not
rendition to put neat sense into passages where there's little or none. A translator can
weigh odd things found in the original and translations, and try to muffle it, tone some
items down, but to mean things that gainsay the original, is hardly translation outside
"the odd, obscure Lao street" we're in. Here's what I did after I had chewed on these
bizarre notions for a long time:
The five colours tend to confuse the eye,
the five sounds of music can
deafen the ear,
the five tastes all dull or spoil the palate.
Excess of
hunting and chasing makes a mind go mad.
Things hard to get, keeps one on one's guard.
Valuable things and products quite hard to get, can impede their owner's
progress.
There's no way of telling what's right. I found I couldn't go much further modifying Old
Boy with my limited knowledge of the original. Does it matter? No.
The built in, modest reservations that the book's rather crude, archaic Chinese
allows us to put is, can hardly alter basic meanings there's agreement about.
So here you see it - bland modifiers, gyrating many shots. Note the last line
right above:
Things hard to get, keeps one on one's guard: Valuable things and products quite hard to
get, can impede their owner's progress.
This is my "gyrated spell" in the matter. It includes not one sentence, but more, and
besides you can build still more on top of that, just by selecting keys and string them
like pearls on a bead, till you "get there". This is a very democratic outlook on how best
to use Lao Tzu. Feel free to condense or extract one or more lines on top of what I've
arranged - and what you end up with could be as sound and fair "Lao Tzu" as any other
thinking in the matter. He seems to be that obscure, remember. All I'm into right here,
can be called perfectly logical and legal. Why not assist someone by your own decent "Lao
outlook"? Here's one that serves to illustrate what I meant above. Things
hard to get, could impede sound progress. Interpreted: Things that are hard
to obtain, can stultify. Or: The more you strive (for a good thing), the more bound (read:
tense, cramped) you tend to get. So in some rather obvious ways Lao Tan can be
right. You have to feel into it. The sound "organismic feel" that the good American
psychologist Carl Rogers often talk about, is the thing aimed at to do it rather well, in
my opinion as an outrigh eclectic. Also note that you get at these slightly deducted
sayings by skimming neatly from the Swiss roll medley. You select keys and knit them
together like a jolly titan - his outlook is marked by sensing and feeling. [Gk; Ropp;
Tcrr]
Lin Yutang's translation misses many points found in Dr.
Waley's great work. As Dr. Holmes Welch was into, something like this concoction is hardly
one more translation - it should be better!
I hope the example makes it clear: Different translators, different statements. By
forging many good shots from foremost translators, we come up with a plain, sensible
multi-try version by such "strands inside a rope" - it's the Swiss roll layout I refer to
by that.
Some translators supplement each others, some copy a lot.
I've done nothing of that kind so far. I've taken gist from many sources, and you may feel
free to demand something like: "Here's non-vexing comparative artistry at last! Yes, why
not sensible Lao research?" As mentioned: "Two big heads think better than one" - if often
happens. Here's how to accomplish that one, to get a more rational, fair or sensible view
than by just one try alone. And that's the great value of this concoction. You have to add
skilled elegance and reasonable outlooks on your own if you deduct lines on top of my
Swiss roll design. Feel free to try.
Such a way of solving things is hardly any new approach in this terrain, not in
essence; for Dr Holmes Welch found it lacking and said so somewhere in his work Taoism:
The Parting of the Way. I've rendered him somewhere else on that one.
He said nothing about "gyrating best shots in the dark on top of eminent
renditions so that such guesses or agreed-on shots could get blandly co-ordinated - in
part fused" - he did not manage to see that far up into what was secreted levels of the
skies back then, I dare say. My main point is: we escape many pitfalls by correlating
expertly, very smartly, going forth congent and fair. And now I've shown you how to go
forth to make a lot translations better. I can't deny I had a lot experience with
translator work earlier and build from that and much else.
This I know: "Good things don't come easy." I'll explain it more: Even if decency
may forbid altering agreed-on sentences, there should be room for brisk additions, if
properly marked. They have to be marked to avoid confusion as to who means what. So from
time to time I've inserted some words in square brackets, like these one: [Boo.]. That
device can clarify some facets, lighten up much, and so on.
I managed the hitherto impossible: sifted gist from best renditions and many
others, broke up parts of the age-old poems, lines and keys, sifted and compared, and
brought it all together in one package of units that may be used further, some of them, as
you've seen above.
Of course I had to arrange and compose salient points. These were hard points that
seemed all right, fair or valid enough. I did things like this to arrive at a brand new
solution to the tricky translator's dilemma: "How to translate this work and not be
completely arbitrary."
The bland concoction model allows for artful pinpointing, no matter what. But it
has to be cautious, nay wary, as it aspires to run along some educative alley. It ventures
over and above arbitrary or too subjective-selective poetry, to be a main help for
evolvement in some educative way. Tick tack toe poetry is the sum and substance of it. It
manages to say how to build some dao, whereas many of the verses in Dao De Jing
show the contrary: how dao loses or goes down.
This is to say:
Rather long outlooks matter if they make constructive efforts towards some dao feasible.
This feat is the biggest one I supply you with.
You may find it in many tick tack toe sermons added here at the back. If you
manage to work your way on and "up" to level marked by (6) or better, you could have
gained a dao by it. How to go forth is your own responsibility, and there are many dangers
and pitfalls. This brand new construct-a-way-outlook is mathematically defined, by vector
systemics. We won't go more into it for now, as it's "heavy".
This new concoction also serves systematic labour on top of strict, methodical
arrangement. But on the assembled medley level, I mainly bring the same basic setting and
scenery as the formidable translations aligned with Taoist mainstream tradition till now.
This is to say I most often leave out the allied, dao-building sides of eeach dao hymn.
I've gathered that sort of rearranged gist elsewhere. Here I have to make do with
saying:
"Each hymn has been converted into an upbuilding sermon
as well, and you can train your children on top of it, if you master tick tack toe
methodology and are careful, I figure."
Let's move on to something else. Surprisingly enough, no matter what established
tradition says, what Lao really meant, can be different than what's much agreed on in the
good old tradition. Professor Chad Hansen from the mountains in Utah, now at work in Hong
Kong, has made a translation that mars much handed-over meaning - I think his work
illustrates it. The reasonable or laudable guess is he has looked carefully into rencenty
dug out silk prints of Dao De Jing - they are from centuries BC. Dr. Hansen should
also have lined up somewhat to D. C. Lau's Hong Kong translation of those oldest silk
texts, and perhaps built a bit on top of that. It's much a fixed part of the regular,
sound scholarly endeavour to do such things. Here's Dr. Hansen's
attempt. If you want to get confused, this version matters. I don't say dao confusion is
good, nor do I say it's bad. It can be both, or somewhere in the middle. Note the strains:
To have plenty is to be confused. (From hymn 22) Or let it be more
amply substantiated:
Abandon learning and there will be no sorrow. ...
alas confused, and the end isn't
yet.
I alone am inert, ...
Like a new-born child that can't smile yet.
I seem to be
without a home, droop and drift, as though I belonged nowhere, completely unattached. ...
I alone seem to have lost everything; I am like one left out.
Mine is indeed the
mind of a very idiot ... dull as I seem - muddled, nebulous!
The world is full of knowing people that shine; I alone am dull, confused.
I seem to
be in the dark. ... I appear alone, depressed ... blown adrift, seemingly aimless ...
I alone am intractable and boorish (etc).
Believe it or not, it's the full-fledged Taoist that speaks. And if he's a scholar, God
knows how his mastery of academic subjects is. This is all according to the masterful
translators on top of the hoary tradition. It may be wrong, it may be right, as to what
the enigmatic emblems (pictograms) really meant, but that doesn't matter.
My point right here is: To master common or fair Taoism is like taking a
marring cruise. There's no reason to make it expensive.
- The boat: The boat should have been well built. Is it? I hardly think
so. Taoism smouldered and was nearly wiped away. Zen helped saving much of it. Few know
that. [Cf. Tun ?]
- Its keel: The clever inspections of men like Dr. Waley gives us a keel
to rely on - and that keel is more or less restored. I built from that in my concoction of
phrases. Lots were tentatively abandoned for now - I knew my limits; that's why.
- And the rudder: What's the basic rudder? It must be a long-range,
rather living tradition on top of hundreds of careful, guarded commentaries from ancient
China till recently.
- The sordid or solid crew: The development of enigmatic, much
appreciated, philosophical and hoary Taoism into cultlike religion, superstition or farce,
speaks of the crew. I would rather stay away from it, to be on the safe side.
I won't keep you in suspense: Much inside Taoism can be deranged. To be just confused is
hardly the worst thing that happens here and there. Thoroughly deranged lore can be
deranging in time. Also, a beginner hardly truly knows into what sort of hands he gets -
better stay on the safe side, in my opinion. Christ talked against wolves in sheep's
clothing.
But this is on how to get to grips with Tao philosophy,
and in that connection be alerted to that standard fishers use decoys and fish traps the
fish don't see - it has to form parts of my meta-thinking. By the way, Dr. Welch explains
much of the development or glide-down of Taoism in a skilled book. [Adj]
Taoism is in part skilfully stringed philosophy, in other words good thinking. But
over and above skilled thinking comes just as skilled activity. parts stem from mastered
thinking, mastery learning, as some call it these days. Dr. Benjamin Bloom is one good man
who has looked into it. Good, regular coping has to be counted as higher or greater, if
you succeed by it summer as winter - in the long run, that is.
Behind the Dao De Jing is an outré system outlook, and it's divulged in the
Chinese oracle-book and spiritual classic I Ching, as it's most often called. Some
may say it's a wizard book. I don't care. Some of the notions and outlooks found in the
book by Lao here, can be appalling to an European. to read that the Sage or master Taoist
handles common people like Jews used cattle as sacrifice items, is hard to stomach. The
Jews murdered many, many inoocent, four-legged beings without mercy, to get mercy
themselves! (Cf. hymn 5).
Now, many of the hard sides of the mature book, can in part be due to divergent
paradigms. They include basic attitudes and ways and means to handle things, for example.
The more non-bossy, at times democratic sense of freedom won in many Calvinistic
countries, is hardly expressed from a Chinese mouth from gentile antiquity. The classic
Chinese philosopher Han Fei Tzu, for example, stood up as a Taoism-allied philosopher -
maybe cynical, but realistically fair surprisingly often. And he died from poison and
position combined. [Cf. Uom?]
Be that as it may. Half-barbarous tenets are not excluded in Lao Tzu's meagre
work. Much of the content is also linked up with very old Shamanism. There's skilled
agreement on that among Sinolgists nowadays. Similarities abound. I don't say Shamanism is
good or bad here, only present one common agreement among Sinologists nowadays. I've
looked into any books about it.
Several basic tenets in Dao De Jing, is tied in with ruler-hailing. maybe
it's the full-fledged Taoist that's the master to obey, or it's the emperor - it can be
both, as in ancient India, where tyrants and kings might be enlightened. This is according
to sourcebooks in Hinduism.
Much material from the East is shown in a somewhat alien, enigmatic, bossy or
authoritarian style. These things matter. If you enter some ruler-obedient sect or church,
you're not allowed much freedom that Western man had to fight for over centuries or longer
- and good things are not easily had, history shows, over and over. You put sides of that
perhaps top heritage at stake if you "marry" or interlink much outside Western dao - it
can happen, and maybe not. That's a formidable point to someone. [Cf. Hio]
Back to the ship to cruise inside. Unlike Noah's ark there are no hard and fixed
borders between the ship and the not-ship. Small wonder Taoism nearly sank in the old
days.
What's inside the ship is phrases, for Taoist methods of diving (contemplation)
got lost in antiquity. This is mentioned in many works, and should stand out.
What is left is utterances, aside from alchemy, dross or magic and much else.
In this confusion another thing deserves more mention. In the 70s there appeared
two silk copies of the whole work - They were many hundred years older than any extant
commentary or version, and differed much from most others, if not all of them. The
arrangement is different. The oldest texts begin with hymn 38, to mention one structural
difference. Then there are somewhat different scenes drawn by the enigmatic pictures, the
archaic pictograms. Mind that much of this allows for different interpretations, maybe
fundamental altering of this and that - but the rudder of a careful, modifying all-round
tradition is hardly got at by new infusions on top of enigmatic picture-emblems! [Cf. Tak]
In this lies my hardest criticism of new interpretations for now - alarmingly much
has to be "out of the blue" here, and if you take care to study Dr. Chad Hansen's
approach, you can see his work suffers - it can't be finished for a long time, is my
guess. Too much is obscure, unclear, not aided by wide agreement among outstanding members
of the community, not even a steady tradition. There's the additional, possible danger
that the new approach on top of the recently found silk texts from centuries BC, brings
the cruise ship to go in circles, and not only weaken some age-old course that may be seen
to have drifted, or be decadent - and maybe not. The main point is that there's much we
don't know much of here, and if we don't know much, we hardly master much. Thats' a
good-natured tip. [Tak: "Professor Harbsmeyer's surveys"]
I hardly speak of flaws in anybody's sensible renditions here, I just pinpoint
some logical fallacies and giant problems that have to be dealt with - seemingly from "out
of the blue". To deal with these marring facets of the "cruise ship" we talk about, takes
time, a long time, and there's more to be handled too.
To wait for decades or centuries in his respect, is not good enough for me; I feel
free to stick to the long-lived, handed-over and partly marring lore for a long time and
wait. Most people seem to do much the same. The rudder is not extant outside the halting,
limping tradition and the best texts and commentaries, and hardly there.
That's why I stuck with Dr. Waley's masterly work for a long time, and had to work
like an ant to make sense out of these things and many others. I couldn't cope as a
skilled educator unless, it stood clear to me.
2
Beware of logical fallacies - many cramped persons get rich and have a cosy
garden because they enact roles - in other words feign THE FACT that I seem to
understand Lao in the Taoist way can be very alarming in its implications. How can it be?
One who understands dao seems dull - Hymn 41
Lao also said his words were easy to understand, but none did it all the same. It's the
same with me, I find and sob. Quote:
My words are very easy to understand and very easy to put into practice. Yet no one
understands them; no one puts them into practice.
This was meant before sound tick tack toe scheming came along - what do you say
now?
As far as I remember, very good reasoning (on such as your part) could be a
tricky thing. That incredibly dangerous razor is not to be tampered with - it could be a
sure sign of having fallen from the garden of Eden in the Bible. Both Genesis, the
gospel and Lao Tzu might agree on something very close to it. As for the Gypsy, I don't
know what he says.
A look at a guru ORDINARY living - ordinary life as well - can hardly be outlived
without sound wisdom to steer by. Look to someone who looks like a young man, still going
strong and kicking the ageing beam after he was born AD 203, if you can find him. AD 203
is a long time ago, nearly 1800 years. The age of Methuselah of the Bible is as peanuts
compared to that. "Altogether, Methuselah lived 969 years, and then he died." -
Genesis 7;27.
How difficult it can be for a father to adapt to just one later generation - his
own kin. How much worse it might be to have around fifty new and different generations to
look into and adjust to!
Your problem can be: You're taught to believe a lot, or what? How can you
believe but make sure, as the very helpful Russian proverb has it? Now, longevity
is aimed at in Taoist circles too, for that matter. The whole point for now is that
culprits shouldn't make us ignore the sound instructions: "When in doubt, win the trick."
[Dq]
Or look into the even more sensible motto: "Give yourself
the benefit of all major doubt. Otherwise, learn to live with a measure of uncertainty,
you too."
For the lack of such astute rules of the thumb, lots of modern people in America
get cramped and maybe all too narrow mentally, because they were made just believers. If
so, to be made a beleiving idiot is not far from a shame.
Now, up to a few millions may have been let in on that great Babaji's age is not a
trick, even though his birth certificate doesn't seem to have been handed over along with
trustworthy witnesses - a long row through the centuries. For the lack of that sort of
favourable and solid evidence, some make do with believing as told. The soap opera is
next. It may not be as endearing as it looks like.
To live with Babaji uncertainty is hardly any rescue. It tackles a phenomenon like
any scientist should: "If in doubt somehow, one way or other, learn to keep
things in suspense. Don't jump to soap opera conclusions."
This fairness is remarkably overlooked in many religious circles. A grave lack of Babaji
uncertainty and much else uncertainty may cry for recompense: and later we have a sect
listener, or one that turns too rigid, cramped and fiendish, my foot. Outright, openly
shown stupidity may be next. That's hardly right dao, hardly anything to prosper much by
on one's own in freedom.
Boot-lickers become grave donkeys BEING taken in or not given safe evidence to
conclude on top of, leads us to standing up as great boot-lickers or lick-spittles through
stages - deep degradations that lots of sallow churches have prospered by. As a next last
resort a captured guy has to be careful and play the game without liking and understanding
it.
To stupefy and seduce may in the end rear rats and mice, not stout-hearted men. We
can have much responsibiltiy here. What's to be curtly aimed at is more of spiritual
sensitivity, not so much mental conditioned in the name of religious "hearsay" of a
sort.
For the lack of sound upbringing and good, congenial environment, some guys fall
victims of beliefs, and take to affirming handed-over assertions that suit topdogs, not so
much themselves. That problem may be intensely overlooked, even censured locally. Such
things happen. We had better remain free - truth, inside spirit and real freedom is the
loved thing in the gospel. There are many hints in the gospel of John. Very often
innocent beginners become stultified by strong assertions and authority figures, not
liberating evidence. It is not as should be, and the long-range repercussions may be
terrible. We should all go against such a fare, nd the sooner the better. Skilled
prevention is often better than attempts to cure.
We are to turn away from belief in fear and awe. It's quite often conform in it's
make-up. As Man the Image (See Genesis 1 and 2), you had better get awesome yourself for a
change, if awe is needed. To avoid getting trapped by New Age Christs, learn to play
havoc. Or stay totally non-committed for rather long mentally, for there are some that
have managed to get themselves tied hand and foot for the lack of sound precautions in
these matters.
Much commitment goes a long way towards slavery
thus, but not regular frivolity. Weddings bring about something in between, perhaps.
See it as it is: You could do a very ugly thing deep inside the
day you commit yourself to anybody mentally or by contract, even initially.
Look such assertiveness items in the face and ask for evidence. [Cf.
Edo]
The apostle Thomas was allowed his. If you're refused solid evidence to build
from, maybe woes come your way, maybe less. The point is: assertions by bigwigs can be
just as untrue or unverified as hearsay. You don't know.
If "dear friend" is lacking, beware Some SRF gurus are said to be Krishnas, and
in Bhagavad-gita Krishna says, "I am the fraud of the gambler," and such
things. [Bhagavad Gita 10:31, 34, 36]
According to this quite alarming selection, avatar Babaji is a fraud-dealing
expert and real death. Yet, is that all there is to say of it? Do we find a deal marked by
some little-recognised, uncontrolled, recurrent neurosis somehow?
The outcomes of these considerations and meetings with fable-linked guru-sharks
among us, should be favoured by such as well developed handling-skills and expertise, but
more too.
Where gurus appear to identify themselves with all-death, fraud and a
fable-monster (Makara), let there still be room for even the flippant, bungled believer to
measure and strive to preserve his sanity.
Otherwise there is a chance that he takes to sweeping mind-tricks, such as defence
manoeuvres, so as to preserve his dignity. It may seem exasperating, well-nigh
imposssible, but once many fellows are taught more or less the same, the "happier" they
are together, and call each other friends, brothers, and you know what. They defy sound
rationality as a gang, and feel elation by crossing and thwarting decency or id as well,
some of them.
In Europe we had the Great Inquisition as a millions-victims example. To preserve
some sense of dignity ranks high for the cramped, sinister believer. Neurotic defences may
block out rational inquiries along with that more or less neurotic quest.
Looked into with a sinister eye, the regular scapegoating that was made a religion
among such as Jews, is neurotic in essence. We hardly think Jesus wants us to go crazy
-
Feel free to refuse to believe bungling authority figures as you grow up. It's
part of the "game" of living quite often - we regret to say it, but things are as they
are, in part horribly awkwardly "baked" into social strata that don't fit health inside
men and women. Don't trust the old avatars, Lao Tzu and me if perfectly solid evidence is
missing, because belief often hinders higher evolution, culinary mental development and
all that. Healthy science stands for that approach, ideally.
The non-freak key might be deep in this proverb: Seeing is believing. You can add
in circumspect manner:
"Believe but make sure (Russian proverb). And long live a well doubting Thomas and
Solve. There was a way opened for doubting Thomas as well.
It stands out. The hoary fellow can become a misfit from outliving old loves,
grandchildren and lots of others. I might have misgivings about how wise it can be to
outlive normal living, ageing and coping, but learn to ask for a second opinion. I don't
mind."
That's how it should be in all likelihood. Welcome to my
world. Or welcome to the world of tick tack toe schemes that may build cogent, fair
new-deal dao - a route that may off-set much engrossing stupidity by steps or grades.
There's more of that sort that commonly reckoned with, if pope Julius 2 got it right. He
said something like this to a Portuguese monk one day: "If you knew with what ignorance
the world is ruled." [Bo]
There's a risk that rich mercy is secretly fiendish already from the start - oh,
what a pity! Look to the world of commerce to find the common enough, long-term
antidote.
Sound Norwegian skills make a lot circumspect MAYBE outré notions are clumsy,
maybe not. Some could even be great. But why make fuss about notions when living is rooted
in substantial, carnal action and force all the way, day after day? Masks can be ripped
off. What kind and merciful heaven begets devilish mess by mercy all over the planet? In
the end mercy based on wrong notions; by its fruits you shall know mercy as inherently
unfair, or too little fair, and even possibly devilish - yes, Messianic. So favouring the
modern consumer may one day have its croaking continuance. It's bad.
The non-enigmatic candid version sums up a lot inside Dao De Jing - and
why? Well, there's a great need. So many get fooled or halfway fooled by too little
reserved and outstanding versions found on Internet. The Norwegian mountain climber and
former professor Arne Naess nearly impresses this on you in the first volume of his
"History of Philosophy": (4)
"You have to be a fool if you take Lao Tzu's teachings literally."
Too much seems to be at risk for that, including relating well and getting along
nicely.
You find other versions than this candid, non-brutish, gently artistic one.
They're spread over Internet. Because of their educative lacks, some seem hard-headed,
tough and valuable. Some like it that way.
That can be debated in the light of what I've shown above.
3
Clever thinking is true to fact and leads none astray THERE can be dozens of "near-demoniac" translations of
Dao De Jing, and they can differ quite a lot. Now it should be crystal clear: This
comes from the particular problems involved in getting to grips with the thought artistry
in the old Chinese texts.
The most proficient, built-in best features of this book aren't found in other
renditions I know, and not on Internet.
Looking askance to Lao Tzu counsel: Mind that lion counsel and lion outfit is
ordinarily totally wasted on a small creature. Mind your own business - you and I should
find that more mature and useful in the long run, like all normal animals may do. We
should not be less proficient than them, should we?
It pays to go for very grown-up, clever thinking - I mean asset thinking - it may
be much needed, but maybe not much liked at the start, just like the rather gruff Vikings.
They could compete, but at what price?
Clever, domesticated all-round thinking may make some heart richer and richer; and
what's more, it may next be spanned or tied in with clever, artful handling in its main
wake - sort of. That's up to you. Now we're in for extra hard or kingly thinking: Who's
the best king around here, and who's that king's best man? Is it really a fiend? I don't
think that it's necessarily that way. [Cf. 1 Samuel 8]
If you look over Raymond Blarney's version and that of Peter Merel - both can be
found on Internet - you can see how their skills differ from ours. It's much the same with
kings. They differ. Some translators pinpoint a lot, others choose some other approach.
Let it be convenient. Some might say "according to whim". I would say "according to sound
preferences - and Lao might not like them, all of them".
Line after line alternate translators like to find one catchy or neat, terse
phrase where the author Lao Tzu allows many and perhaps equally justifiable ones. Again
and again they leave out what's unclear! Dr. Holmes Welch goes into that problem too, in
another place. Now, by comparing the various translations, you'll se that what he refers
to, happens over and over again. Unclear matters in the original is formed so as to make
sense ... seemingly also.
Various translators also set out and choose the things they prefer, aqnd in so
doing drop a lot of others. This is a sort of skilled mismanagement, a thing that the able
Norwegian hates.
This can be ruefully true, and for more reasons than you're let in on yet. But
here's a new solution that eliminates much of that odd trickery: the TBV is that solution.
It has to be a candid, gyrative version that unites up to five very good renditions in one
"Swiss roll version". It could be done.
And common Zen Buddhism, what is it? - The thing that "could be done" - the same
sentence applies indeed. It originated in ancient India, maybe in China too, where it was
fostered and maybe changed over the centuries, until it arrived in Japan around 1200,
roughly said. Rather surprisingly, Zen can be called Taoism too. Dr. Philip Yampolsky of
Columbia University gives an exemplary account of how Zen wandered off to Japan - he does
so in his scholarly work The Platform Sutra [Tun]
One more point: The depth philosophy of Dr. Carl Jung is much consistent with lots
of thinking inside Zen, both Soto and Rinsai Zen - they're the two major Zen divisions.
[Cf. Edit]
Apply only best translations to make a solid and fair version on top of them. By
using many sound versions you get a kick start - or a vicarious-authoritative sort of
rendition. It's for understanding much more than one single version normally lets us in
on. You can compress on top of that. Now you know. Allow me to explain a bit better. (6)
What I mean: Let something like the solid German wahrscheinlich be deftly
added to all and sundry assertions found inside Dao De Jing, and your own
understanding suffers from the lack of such modifying elements, I dare say. Be smart on
and on; read "it seems to be like this" where the satanic plot has "it's like this"
without lots of good reason. Nod "is hardly" if you come across "is never", and so on. By
this simple device you learn to keep your mind intact in face of outré claims and dictums
- more or less.
If this methodology is left out, we're left with very many outré statements that
hardly contain water - they leak because they exaggerate. And they can lead astray due
to immoderate, fantastic claims contarry to life and studies of worth. I hold that
against most renditions. Dr Waley's is a nice exception. There's no better.
TKV {The Kinnes Version) offers Lao Tzu more reasonable, cautious expressions than
most others. It's a good thing, and a darn shame that most others have left it out! By
studying lots of books it dawned on me: Where for example Lin Yutang writes "It's so and
so", or "the sage does not", he leaves out many standard reservations we're fully
allowed to read into the picture. Yes, the attributed author, Lao Tzu, took to crude,
conventionalised sketch-paintings (pictograms); they had no better means of writing in
ancient China. Neither full stops, paragraphs and commas were involved, just pictures
assembled in a sort of "line". No commas or periods in the original, nor clever
reservations. No chapter divisions either - much came helter-skelter, it may be added.
Awake: translators often ignore my finest points, but not a lot of commas.
Be on the fun side of the street, not on the one they shoot and kill each other.
Due to mingling and more, a foremost Zen emissary of our century, Dr. D. Suzuki, holds
that on the depth Zen is Tao and Tao is Zen, basicaly. That's his opinion. I
hold a different one. But Zen basically means contemplation, and is derived from Sanskrit
dhyana. [Prs ?] (7)
Maybe the crude labour is over for now. Here's why I chose a middling, medley
approach so far. It's bland, it should harm none. Lead none astray, and hopefully help
towards wit I hope you like it. On top of that, feel the innate bland freedom to see or
think on your own: "There's none better". You should refer to yourself in so doing.
Mutter "Self seems better than book stuff." A book can only take someone that far.
 James
Legge, tr.:
Tao Te Ching
CLICK on 'Literature' for the references of about 2000 works.
ANNOTATIONS: Acronym letters in square brackets in the text refer to works. Click on
'Literature' above for examples. Page references are put right after reference letters.
The abbreviation cf. means "compare". [MORE].
SEARCH THE SITE: Click on the rose in the upper left column for site
searches, access to dictionaries, and further.
REFER to the page by its 'location' address (above).
PILOTING: Some pictures and texts on top of the pages are clickable, to ease
navigation. [MORE]
|
1 
3 
6 
Supporting "well medleys" are presupposed
throughout:
