Dao De Jing: A Minimalist Translation

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dao De Jing by Lao Zi

 

A Minimalist Translation

 

By Bruce R.Linnell, PhD

 

2015

 

Welcome to yet another translation of the Dao De Jing (DDJ), or Tao Te Ching in the old-fashioned spelling.  Why should you want to read this translation?  This version attempts to include an exact translation of every Chinese symbol in the original text, with as few added words and paraphrasing as possible.  This results in sentences which hopefully provide a more literal translation, but are bare and minimalist, sometimes awkward, and often doesn’t make sense.  You, the reader, will have to wrestle with some sentences, trying to wring out of them whatever meaning their author was trying to express 2300 years ago, instead of my simply telling you what I think they mean.  I also show you what words were translated exactly, what was interpreted, and what was added or left out, so you can see exactly how much the English translation has in common with the original Chinese.  I even point out alternative translations, so you can choose for yourself in some cases.   

 

Another difference is that while this translation is primarily based on the “Wang Bi” ancient manuscript (used by most translators), it presents some of the ideas from the earliest versions of the DDJ we have available, if those ideas are present in the majority of all the sources.

 

Finally, scholars have long speculated that different parts of the DDJ were written by different authors at different times.By analyzing the symbols, phrases, and themes in each chapter, the chapters can be separated into at least three groups.The appendix presents the chapters in these groups, so that the reader may better see the common themes each group focused on.

==============================================================

 

Who Wrote the DDJ and When?

 

There is a great deal of debate over these questions, enough to fill a book in their own right!What follows is just a very brief introduction for the first-time reader who has no idea who “Lao Zi” was (please note that all dates are very approximate).

 

Although the author of the DDJ is always given as “Lao Zi” or “Lao Tsu” (old spelling), we have no historical proof of his existence. A Chinese court historian named Sima Qian, who lived around 115 BCE, wrote a biography of Lao Zi (literally “old master”, unless Lao is a family name – in which case “master Lao”) that presents three different possible traditions, although the accuracy of any of them is doubtful. The first says that Lao Zi was a contemporary of Confucius (500 BCE). His family name was Li (“plum”), his given name was Er (“ear”), and he was posthumously called Dan (“long ear”). He was an official in the imperial archives, but when the Zhou dynasty began to decline, he decided to leave China. When he reached the northwest border of China, the border guard asked him to write down his teachings, which resulted in a document of about 5000 characters in two sections. Later in the same document, Sima Qian also speculates that Lao Zi may or may not have been Lao Dan (“old long ear”), an advisor to Duke Xian (370 BCE). Finally, Sima Qian says that a man named Lao Laizi (“old returning master”) authored a Daoist book that had 15 parts, was born in the same province as Lao Zi, and also was a contemporary of Confucius. These three accounts are further complicated by reported meetings between Confucius and someone called Lao Dan in various Confucian texts.

 

References to the DDJ by other ancient Chinese writers indicate that at least some parts of the DDJ were in existence by 300 BCE, and it was being referred to extensively by 250 BCE.  One linguistic analysis of the rhyme schemes indicates that it may have originated as early as 450 BCE, and if the DDJ contains the written version of earlier oral traditions, these rhymes may reflect its oldest origins (because rhymes are easier to memorize).  Other references and linguistic analyses place its beginnings around perhaps 375-325 BCE, and the earliest known written portions of it (described in the next section) date to about 300 BCE.   

 

So, some parts of the DDJ seem to have first appeared in written form between roughly 350-300 BCE, although its roots could be much older.  It certainly existed in some version of its finished form (roughly 5000 characters in 81 chapters) by 200 BCE.   

 

There is also debate on whether the text represents the work of mostly one author, or was added to by different authors over the course of about a century, or was later compiled from different traditions by one person.   

 

The most recent versions of the DDJ are separated into 81 chapters, and two major parts.The first part, consisting of chapters 1-37, primarily discusses Dao, while chapters 38-81 primarily discuss De.Ancient authors referring to the DDJ also speak of versions that are divided into 64, 68, or 72 chapters.

==============================================================

 

Different Versions of the DDJ

 

There are at least six different ancient sources of the text (all dates are approximate) :

 

“Guodian” (GUO) – discovered in 1993 and written around 300 BCE or slightly earlier, this version matches only about 31 chapters of the later versions of the DDJ, and its chapters are ordered completely differently than the later versions.  The Chinese symbols are so ancient that scholars disagree on what modern symbols they should correspond to, and there are occasional spots on the originals where the characters can no longer be read.   

 

“Mawangdui” (MWD) – discovered in 1973, there are two slightly different versions (“A” and “B”), obviously written by two different people, dating to about 200 BCE and 175 BCE respectively.  While all 81 chapters are present, both versions reverse the two major parts (“Dao” and “De”) compared to later versions.  In addition, the order of a few of the chapters within the parts is different, as is the order of some sections within the chapters!  The Chinese symbols are also so ancient that scholars disagree on what modern symbols they should correspond to, and there are many spots where the characters cannot be read.   

 

“Fu Yi” (FY) – Fu Yi was a scholar who lived around 600 CE and claimed that the version he presents and discusses was found in a grave that from his description could possibly be dated to around 200 BCE.

 

“Wang Bi” (WB) – written around 240 CE, this is the “standard” version that most translators use, although there are several slightly different variations of it.

 

“He Shang Gong” (HSG) – a legendary and possibly mythical person who may have lived around 170 BCE, but the work which presents and discusses the version of the DDJ associated with him is not mentioned by others until 300 CE.Many scholars think this version was probably written closer to 300 CE and attributed to He Shang Gong to give it authority.There are also many slightly different variations of this text available.

 

In comparing the six sources, it is easy to see the changes in philosophy of the early Daoists over the centuries.In general, the three earliest versions (GUO, MWD/A, MWD/B) more-or-less agree with each other, the three later versions (FY, WB, HSG) more-or-less agree with each other (despite the tentative dating of FY to 200 BCE), the two groups are often slightly different from each other, and occasionally very different.However, FY does sometimes agree with the three earlier versions.Only the later versions contain the vast majority of criticisms of Confucianism, although even GUO has a few.

 

WB, HSG, and FY were chosen as sources for this translation mainly because their earliest manuscripts are complete, and the Chinese characters are “modern” enough that there is less doubt as to their meaning. But there are occasional differences between them, so a 2/3 majority vote was used to determine which symbol to use. This would result in a document which is essentially the same as WB, since WB and HSG are almost always the same. However, in comparing all six sources (or fewer if the chapter is not in GUO, or the earlier symbols cannot be read), it becomes obvious that sometimes significant changes were made only in the most recent sources. Thus a symbol was changed to the one used by the older sources if the majority of all available sources use the different symbol, and it adds to the understanding of the sentence. In the case of a tie, the more recent symbol was used. These rules were used for adding or deleting symbols as well.

==============================================================

The Translation Process

 

There are many reasons why translations differ, besides the problems inherent in translating from a language where : each symbol represents a word that has multiple (sometimes very different) meanings; tenses, articles, and plurals are not indicated; and one symbol can represent either a noun or adjective, another a verb or adverb, another all four!

 

1. What source is used : for WB and HSG, which version of what source; in the oldest sources, what modern symbols to use
2. Accurately knowing all the possible English meanings for each symbol (and sometimes pairs of symbols), including changes in meaning over the millennia, and understanding ancient idioms
3. Having to pick just one meaning for each symbol
4. Organizing each sentence into something that makes sense, which is helped by understanding something of ancient Chinese grammar

 

The cultural background, knowledge, biases, beliefs, and agenda of the translator affect every step but the first.“Agenda” refers to how the translator approaches the content of the DDJ : as a work of mysticism vs. philosophy vs. military strategy vs. advice to emperors, etc.

 

The goals for this translation were :

• Include an English word or phrase for every Chinese symbol in the sentence
• Use exact translations of the Chinese symbols wherever possible
• Minimal interpretation of individual symbols, only where needed for clarity
• Use the same English word(s) for the same symbol(s) when appropriate
• As few added English words as possible to make it a correct English sentence
• No interpretation of the final translated sentence

 

Individual symbols are interpreted only when they either don’t make as much sense literally, or the resulting sentence would be awkward in English. In some cases, if a symbol means two English words that both seem to fit equally well, they are combined into one phrase, such as “heart/mind” for 心 (see the next section), or 玄 which can mean “mystery”, “profound”, “deep”, or “dark”, and is consistently translated as “deep and mysterious” or “deep mystery”, depending on the context.

 

The above goals hopefully help minimize, but cannot eliminate, translator bias.The problem is that each Chinese symbol still has several meanings, and the translator must pick just one for each symbol (step 3) to create an English sentence that makes sense (step 4).It is impossible to avoid translator bias here because the translator must choose what makes sense or feels right to them, in both word meanings and overall grammar.

 

For example, there is a line in chapter 58 :  禍 兮 福 之 所 倚 where 兮 can mean “good fortune” or “happiness” and 禍 can mean “misfortune” or “disaster”, but by reflection with 兮 could also be interpreted as “unhappiness”.    倚 can mean “lean on”, “rely on”, or “depend on”, so all of these are valid translations :

Misfortune is that which good fortune leans on.

Misfortune is that which good fortune relies on.

Misfortune is that which good fortune depends on.

Unhappiness is that which happiness leans on.

Unhappiness is that which happiness relies on.

Unhappiness is that which happiness depends on.

 

Beyond the differences between using “fortune” (less personal : what happens to you) versus “happiness” (more personal : how you feel), there are also subtle differences : saying that one “relies” on the other is different than saying that they mutually support each other (as possibly indicated by the sentence following this one, not shown here).       

 

Unlike the previous example, where the different translations for each symbol are more-or-less related, sometimes the choice the translator makes can affect the overall meaning or even the emotional impact of the sentence. In chapter 20, there is a line : 我 獨 若 遺 in which the last symbol can be variously translated into :

I alone seem lost.                                       

I alone seem to have lost everything.

I alone seem to have been left behind.                     

I alone seem to be forgotten.

Each of which says a completely different thing.

 

And in chapter 46, there is a line : 罪 莫 大 於 可 欲 where the first symbol can mean any of : “sin”, “crime”, “vice”, or “fault”, so (ignoring options for the other symbols), all of these are valid :

There is no sin greater than the capacity for desire.

There is no crime greater than the capacity for desire.

There is no vice greater than the capacity for desire.

There is no fault greater than the capacity for desire.

“Sin” of course has very negative religious connotations in the West, while “crime” and “vice” also have stronger negative associations than “fault”.   

 

But there are other, even more significant ways in which the translator’s choices affect the result. Because of the many (sometimes unrelated) possible meanings of each Chinese symbol, it is possible to come up with multiple translations of the exact same sentence that are completely different in meaning! For example, in chapter 41, there is a line : 大 方 無 隅 where 方 can mean both “region” and “square”, while 隅 can be “border” or “corner”, so both of these are valid translations :

The greatest region is without borders.

The greatest square is without corners.

 

And in chapter 45 : 大 巧 若 拙 where 巧 can be “skillful” or “clever”, and 拙 can mean “stupid” or “clumsy”, both of these are equally likely :

Great skillfulness seems clumsy.

Great cleverness seems stupid.

 

Finally, even when there is no ambiguity about the meaning of the individual symbols, it sometimes hard to determine what overall meaning was intended. From chapter 35, there is a line : 道 之 出 言 淡 兮 in which the first four symbols literally mean “words of Dao”, but does this mean “talking about Dao” or “the words that come out of Dao”?It can be argued both ways due to subtleties in the meanings of the symbols, but there is a tremendous difference in meaning between the two translations.

 

In addition, there are a few symbols whose modern English meanings just don’t make sense within the context of the sentence, probably due either to transcription errors or changes in meaning over the millennia.The English words used for these symbols are usually selected according to context.

 

==============================================================

 

Common Terms

 

Because the translation itself is meant to involve minimal interpretation and explanation, some of the words and phrases that are used repeatedly need to be discussed beforehand for clarity.Keep in mind that volumes have been written about some of these concepts – these are just brief summaries for the reader new to Daoism.

 

道 Dao : most often translated as the “way”; according to various passages in the DDJ, Dao appears to be the way of nature (or the universe), the process of being in harmony with that way, the source that creates and nourishes all things, and absolute ultimate reality itself (and according to the opening lines of the first chapter, this description is completely inadequate); it is left untranslated so that readers may “fill in the blank” for themselves as they read; “the Dao” is used as little as possible because in English that implies that Dao is more of a thing than a process; Dao is sometimes referred to as “it” to avoid awkward grammar (or if it was written that way in the original Chinese), but do not think of Dao as a noun (just for fun sometime, try reading “Dao” as “Daoing”…) ; one exception is when “Dao of” is used (for example, “the Dao of heaven”) – this seems to be literally referring to the way heaven does things, so it is translated as “the Way of heaven”, but “Way” is capitalized to remind the reader that this is also Dao; similarly, “this Dao” seems to be referring more to “this way (of following Dao), and is translated “this Way”

 

德 De : most often translated as “virtue”, “integrity”, or “(inner) power”, De is described in chapter 49 as “goodness” or “virtue” and “honesty” or “trust”; De might be infused into things when they are created by/from Dao, or something that develops when Dao is fully expressed through a person; De seems to be both the quality of being virtuous and the power that comes from being virtuous, so it might best be thought of as “the power of one’s virtue” or “the power from one’s integrity”, but it is also left untranslated so that readers may “fill in the blank” for themselves as they read

 

天 “heaven” : a complex concept, this symbol seems to have connotations of the sky, nature (including people and societies), that which controls our destinies, as well as possibly that of a celestial god-like spirit (and/or perhaps ancestral spirits)

 

天 地 “heaven and earth” : everything, the universe, all that is

 

天 下 “the world” : literally “heaven under”, it is perhaps better thought of as “all things under heaven”; it is left as “the world” because the English grammar sometimes gets awkward using the more accurate phrase; some translate it as “the empire”, which gives the entire document a much more imperialistic and militaristic slant

 

萬 物 “ten thousand creatures” : “ten thousand” as used here does not refer to a specific number, but means “innumerable” or “myriad”; together the symbols are perhaps better thought of as “all creatures and things”

 

聖 人 “sage” : literally “holy man”; in the DDJ, a sage is anyone who fully embodies and expresses Dao and De; as the ruling class would have been one of the few literate groups in ancient Chinese culture reading the DDJ, it seems possible that references to the way the sage does things could have also been a subtle way of saying “this is what a wise ruler would do” (especially in chapters like 5, 57, and 66, where the sage seems to be the ruler)

 

常 “ever-constant” : while this is often translated as “eternal”, it probably had more of a sense of “constant” or “permanent” in ancient China; unfortunately “constant” doesn’t imply the enduring nature of “permanent”, nor does “permanent” imply the unchanging quality of “constant”, so “ever-constant” is used here

 

心 “heart/mind” : usually translated as either “heart” or “mind” (the symbol means both), “heart/mind” seems to be the best translation

 

自 然 “naturally so” : this has the connotation of something that happens spontaneously, without being forced (“of itself”, “of its own accord”, “on its own”); Dao is “naturally so”, and although the DDJ does not say so explicitly, presumably the sage acts “naturally so” as well

 

樸 “uncarved block” (of wood) : just as a block of wood can be carved into virtually anything, in the DDJ the “uncarved block” represents the limitless undefined potential of our original nature

 

無 為 “non-action” : not passivity or lack of action, but spontaneous action taken at the proper time according to the situation

 

無 事 “non-interference” : to change the natural order of things as little as possible in achieving your goals

 

無 知 “without-knowledge” : not an absence of knowledge, but a kind of understanding that does not resort to pre-conceived ideas or rules

無 名 “without-name” : a reminder that things, concepts, and experiences are far more than the names we give them and ultimately cannot be described with words (in contrast to the Confucians, whose goal was to find the “correct name” for everything)

 

無 欲 “without-desire” : not a total lack of desire, but desires that do not control us or our happiness; a sort of spontaneous, unattached desire

 

無 or 無 有 “non-being” : the nameless absolute that is the source of all existence (“being”)

 

爭 “strive” : to struggle or make vigorous effort to achieve something, perhaps competing against others to get it; the opposite of non-action

 

陰 “yin” : the feminine principle; receptive, yielding, dark, cool, soft

 

陽 “yang” : the masculine principle; aggressive, active, light, warm, hard

 

氣 “qi” (ch’i, chi) : vitality, life energy, life force, vital energy

 

善 “virtue” : the traditional sense of moral virtue and  goodness

 

靜 “stillness” : a mental/emotional stillness of the heart/mind

 

谷 “valley” : the image of the valley is often used in the DDJ; a valley represents receptiveness (because it accepts all things that come into it), openness, and emptiness, and so is feminine in nature

 

身 “self” : often translated as “body” by others (it can mean either), it is my personal bias that this symbol seems to consistently refer to the sense-of-self, personality, or ego

 

復 or 歸 or 復 歸 or 反 “returning” : the DDJ uses four different symbols to refer to the concept of returning, and it is used many times; beyond the everyday meaning, in the DDJ creatures and people often return to their source, true nature, or original state of pure and unformed potential; sometimes they just “return”, and from where or to where is not specified

 

明 “insight” : an intuitive, without-knowledge, understanding of what is; this is another personal bias – while the literal translations include “wise”, “clear”, “understanding”, “perceptive”, and “sight”, it seems that this symbol can be consistently interpreted as “insight” (which is in agreement with the literal translations); in addition, it is variously translated by other modern translators as “enlightenment” and even “insight”

 

事 “duties” : one’s personal and business affairs, responsibilities, etc.

 

吾 “I” : on the rare occasions this is used, think of this as someone who is a sage-like Daoist rather than merely “the author”

 

百 姓 “100 families” : in ancient times this phrase referred to the entire ruling class

 

士 “scholar” : around the time of the DDJ, this referred to the elite “intellectual” class of  Chinese society, the teachers and philosophers (Confucius would have been considered a scholar)

 

君 “ruler”, 王 “king”, etc. : there are many symbols and euphemisms for various members of the nobility (“nobles”, “superiors”, “master of the people”, “son of heaven”, “master of 10,000 chariots”, etc.)

 

貴 “high rank” : any position of power or admiration

 

While the DDJ is over 2000 years old, its wisdom is still applicable today, but don’t be fooled by the ancient wording!“King” could today apply to anyone who runs things, manages others, or leads any kind of group (from the nation’s leader to a corporation CEO to…your boss), and “high rank” could apply to government officials, billionaires, or even movie stars.

 

 

There are also many Confucian terms used in the DDJ :

 

仁 “kindness” : being benevolent, kindhearted, humane
義 “righteousness” (translated as “morality” to avoid religious associations) : having a sense of justice, doing

     the right thing, being morally upright

禮 “propriety” : ritual courtesy and formality; proper etiquette
智 “wise”, “wisdom” : as it says
信 “truth”, “trust”, “honest” : as it says
忠 “loyalty” : as it says
勇 “courage”, “brave” : as it says

廉 “honorable” : having a sense of honor or integrity; incorruptibility

孝 “filial piety” (translated as “devoted children”) : respect your elders and parents, duty to your parents, care

     for the elderly
慈 “compassion” : benevolence, mercy; as specifically applied to parents’ attitude towards their children, this is

     translated as “loving parents”

君 子 “noble man” : literally “son of the ruler”, this can mean “nobleman” (one who belongs to the nobility),

     but is also a Confucian term that means one who is noble or moral in character and embodies the above

     qualities; sometimes translated by others as “gentleman” or “superior man”

 

 

Many symbols in the DDJ are used to provide emphasis (similar to an exclamation point in English), and can either come at the end of a sentence or can be used to emphasize a word or phrase in the middle of a sentence.Many translators ignore these latter symbols entirely, while others preface the emphasized word with “so…”, “such…”, “very…”, “oh,…”, etc.  Here, an exclamation point is used immediately after the word, but then the sentence continues on.One symbol in particular implies that what precedes it is not only true but has always been true, which is translated as “indeed!”

 

==============================================================

References

 

Introduction : 

Laozi, by Alan Chan; Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy,

http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2009/entries/laozi/; 2009

 

Translations :

Dao De Jing : A Philosophical Translation, by Roger T. Ames and David L. Hall; Ballantine, New York;

2003 (note that this is a translation of the MWD sources)

Lao Zi zhi Dao De Jing : Two Literal English Translations, by Bradford Hatcher;

http://www.hermetica.info/LaoziA.htm; 2005

Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching, by D.C.Lau; Penguin Books, London; 1963 (this is a reasonably literal

translation, with minimal interpretation; note that his 1994 book is an MWD translation)

The Way and Its Power, by Arthur Waley; Grove Press, New York; 1958

These were mostly used for their own explanations of the more difficult passages and ancient Chinese idioms, but were sometimes used for comparison during the translation process.

 

 

Ancient Chinese Sources :

Comparisons of Chinese Versions, by Nina Carerra; http://www.daoisopen.com/Comparisons.html;

2005

These charts were used to compare the symbols between all sources, and for end-of-sentence and end-of-chapter markers.I personally verified the WB symbols in these charts against several different references.

 

 

Key to Notations

Chapter One

 

Chapter Two

 

Chapter Three

 

Chapter Four

 

Chapter Five

 

Chapter Six

 

Chapter Seven