Tao Te Ching

Rating:
Summary: there are plenty of better ones out there
Review: Let's see: Stephen Mitchell is not a Taoist and doesn't know Chinese, and this interpolation, while interesting, is quite poor and changes the original meaning of the text in several places. For those who care: No, this isn't Taoism.

For an example of what reading this interpolation can do to your understanding of Taoism, take the many reviewers who have said that since "The tao that can be told is not the eternal tao," any and all translations of the Tao Te Ching are good (or at least potentially good).

Wrong! The first line simply means that as humans, our understanding of the world is constrained by our way of looking at the world (our brain), and that the Tao is incomprehensible. Therefore, to try to speak of the Tao in words is ultimately pointless, though the Tao Te Ching tries at least to point the way, with words, toward harmonizing with the Tao. This is analogous to (though quite different from) the ineffability of the Judeo-Christian God; anything we say about Him will ultimately be inadequate, but there are some things He is definitely not, just as there are some statements about the Tao that are definitely untrue.

The meaning of the Tao (as a cosmology and a way of life) is very definite; it's the explaining that's so difficult.

For those people who use the first line of the Tao Te Ching to defend Mitchell's interpretation, I have to ask: What, in your mind, would qualify as a _bad_ translation of the Tao Te Ching? If someone screwed it up even more than Mitchell, but made it sound more poetic, would you even care? (This is ignoring all the people who think that they're "philosophical Taoists" -- now that term is a joke -- because the Tao Te Ching seems to fit in with their current philosophy of life.)

And let's not forget the awful, awful, _awful_ footnotes at the end of the book. I'd rather slog through Arthur Waley's interminable babbling that preceeded his translation again than have to look for the slightest bit of wisdom in Mitchell's footnotes.

Rating:
Summary: Mitchell's translation is good enough for me
Review: Every translation/manifestation of the Tao Te Ching is flawed based upon Master Lao's own words: "The tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao"

Lao-tzu points at the timeless, natural truths with the Tao Te Ching. He can only point... it is up to the reader to find the truth on his/her own.

I have seen the wisdom contained in this translation benefit dozens people. I view the harsh criticisms of this specific transaltion as a passionate expression of personal taste.

This is a great book and a good translation.

Rating:
Summary: This book comes in handy
Review: I don't know much about Taoism. I liked this book because it fits so well in my back pocket. You can't do that with a Bible. Also when your cat starts crying at three in the morning you wouldn't want to fling the Holy Scriptures at him. That would just be cruel. So I use my copy of the Tao te Ching by Stephen Mitchell. It always seems to be right by my bedside and it comes in handy. I don't think Lao Tzu would mind. I don't even read it that much because I have all the poems memorized. And all this talk about which translation is the most definitive is a load of hot air. The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao. What more can be said? You can decide for yourself.

Rating:
Summary: new age taoism
Review: As a Taoist I am offended when I read people saying that it's irrelevant whether Mitchell's interpolation is a good "translation" of the Tao Te Ching, irrelevant whether this is a good introduction to Taoism -- what matters to these people, and nothing else, is whether this book "moved" them.

Imagine you're a devout Christian, and someone has read a particularly beautiful, but misleading and inaccurate, translation of the Bible. Suppose you complain that Christ's message has been garbled and distorted by the "translation" -- by someone who knows no Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek -- and this person replies: "It's pretty irrelevant to me whether this is a 'proper translation' of the Bible. If a piece of art, writing or performance touches you to the core of your being then all criticism is really obsolete," etc.

Okay, quick quiz: Who of you think it would be right for someone to misinterpret the Bible into having Jehova or Christ saying things They didn't say, and then defend that interpretation because it is relevant to them? Well, you might say, it's their right to see the Bible that way, but it's certainly not Judaism or Christianity, now is it?

Just as Mitchell's so-called "translation" is _not_ Taoism. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. Of course New Agers simply don't care; if it makes them happy, "moves" them, and reifies beliefs they already have, who cares about us cynics complaining about the inaccuracies of the text itself? Just accuse us of being obsessed with textual criticism, languages, and with our petty, close-minded insistence on understanding Taoism and not twisting the Tao Te Ching for its easier but uninsightful digestion by Westerners with little or no concern about actually expanding their understanding of othr belief systems.

Rating:
Summary: Lao-tzu: five stars. Stephen Mitchell: One star.
Review: I have to echo the other criticisms posted here. The text is beautifully written and full of thought-provoking wisdom which as Huston Smith says, you can read in a "half hour or a lifetime." This goes without saying. But when I got to the end notes, I was disturbed to discover how loose Mr Mitchell was in his translation. Where the end notes show the original words, they are so different from the translation that one can only conclude Mitchell is inventing his own poetry. Does he think he's a better writer than Lao-tzu? Does he think we are too stupid to understand the original, and so must be given a modernized and in my opinion somewhat "politically-correctified" version? Personally, I think the original "literal" words, where they are given, are far more interesting--both in terms of the thoughts expressed and what it reveals about life in the time the _Tao_ was written. For example, it is intersting to learn that tigers and rhinoceroses were part of Lao-tzu's universe, but Mitchell thinks these references are too narrow, so he substitutes entirely different words that are more abstract, words he thinks better convey the meaning. But who is Mitchell to say? Why not let the original text stand as is? Why should a translator feel the need to "perfect" it? I found myself wondering: Does this translation resemble the original at all? Being a translator is a position of serious responsibility and trust: Readers unable to read the original language must trust the translator to be true to the original. I feel let down by Mitchell; I feel I can't trust him--so I'm buying another translation I hope will be better. I think Mitchell is too much in love with his own writing--Lao-tzu's name doesn't even appear on the cover of the book! It's the _Tao Te Ching_ by Stephen Mitchell. Obviously Mr Mitchell has not learned one of the most important virtues of Taoism: humility.

Rating:
Summary: A poetic interpretation of a timeless classic
Review: Mitchell's work is not for purists of textual criticism or hermeneutics. Literal translations of ancient documents tend to be dry and awkward. Mitchell's loose paraphrase and notes are refreshing and agreeable. The spirit of this work is both heartfelt and delightful. It is a joy to read.

Rating:
Summary: This book sorely misses the mark.
Review: Mitchell has apparently given in to the "fast- food Chinese take-out" syndrome. I have read scores of translations of the Tao Te Ching, and Mitchell's work does not even deserve to be called a translation. While Mitchell may be a poet of sorts, and knows how to impart a fuzzy touchy-feely sensation to the reader, he has not shown any ability to transmit knowledge (let alone wisdom) to his readers.

Rating:
Summary: This book changed my life.
Review: Between the pages of are rare treasures indeed. The original text of the Tao could never be translated directly to English without sacrificing it's inherent simplicity; Mitchell accomplishes this impossible task with ease. While other translations of this work appeal to the high intellect -- and as such have different merit -- this one speaks (quite simply) to the soul.

Rating:
Summary: Something is missing...
Review: I wonder about the influence of Christianity in Mr. Mitchell's translation. This version is too closely translated into Western language to appear as genuine. It is just too obvious. It is easy and it is accessible, but something is lacking.

Rating:
Summary: translation
Review: I was rather disturbed by many enthusiastic reviews. By now it is no secret that Mitchell does not know Chinese and his translation is not literal. Knowing this, most of those readers still think very highly of this translation, because they seem to have a sort of "if it is good enough for me it is good enough" attitude. Relevance is stressed above all, and what the original was like is of little importance. Who cares about a text written thousands of years ago in a completely foreign language? What nowadays the Americans want is Lao-tze served up quick and easy, like a cheeseburger. Well, I beg to differ. What if the Tao has no relevance for these readers whatsoever? What if, after they have learned to read the original, they find that it does not speak wisdom to them? What if the sage is really Mr. Mitchell, our Californian poet? What then? Will these readers still learn from the text? Perhaps not. But surely the assumption, or rather the demand, that a classic from another culture ought to "speak" to you immediately, and that the more immediately it speaks to you the better it is, is an exceptionally stupid one. It is laziness. Unfortunately cultural differences cannot be so easily overcome, dear reader.