NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/alt/pagan/15869

Text File | 1993-01-25 | 7.1 KB | 140 lines

Newsgroups: alt.pagan
Path: sparky!uunet!decwrl!csus.edu!nextnet!altheimm
From: [e-mail] (Murray Altheim)
Subject: Re: Chinese Religion
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Keywords: Lao Tzu, Chuang Tzu, Confucius
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: California State University Sacramento
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 02:55:20 GMT
Lines: 127

In article <[e-mail]>
    [e-mail] (Corun MacAnndra) writes:
>
>Murray,
>
>Thanks for a very concise explanation of Lao Tzu vs. The Lao Tzu. I've had
>the Wu translation for years, but the Cleary sounds interesting, as does
>Hendricks.
>
>BTW, do you ever use I Ching? I use it, but have never really talked to
>anyone else who has. Since you have researched so many translations on
>Taoist writings, perhaps you've done the same with the I Ching. I have
>the Wilhelm translation, but will admit that it's the only one I've used.
>
>Bb,
>Corun

Corun,

I suppose I should don the asbestos suit on this one, as many people
consider the Wilhelm/Baynes translation as their bible, which I did for
many years. While researching information on _The Secret of the Golden
Flower_, an alchemical text, I chanced upon Thomas Cleary's new translation,
and particularly his introduction. I would steer anyone wishing to counter
what I say here to please read this first. I'm not interesting in
arguing the finer points of this issue, just giving my opinion.

Cleary is IMO probably the best translator of this century. His grasp of
language and the issues involved in translation from Chinese, Arabic, or
other non-Latin languages is without equal, and his sensitivity to both
Buddhist and Taoist issues is shown in his diligence in translating many
of the lesser-known Taoist texts; texts never before translated into
modern English.

Cleary is also extremely critical of the Wilhelm/Baynes edition of the
I Ching, and after re-reading the text, I see many of his points. His
main criticism is that Wilhelm, while very enthusiastic and interested
in Chinese issues (as well as positioning himself as an expert), is part
of a group of people who would today be laughed off as "new-agers" by
more serious scholars. Even Carl Jung fit into this crowd, as his
primary interest was not in Sinology, but in making Chinese religion
and philosophy fit into his over-arching ideas of humanity, especially
as it related to psychology and symbology. As I stated earlier, I'm not
particularly interested in arguing the point -- just read Cleary's intro
to the Golden Flower.

Remember one thing -- Wilhelm spoke far less than passible technical
Chinese, and relied on "help" from native speakers. He wrote in German,
which was translated into English by Cary Baynes. Between the ancient
Chinese of the text and the translation in English lies a gulf of
unknown error. And errors in a book like the I Ching are errors that
flow through the ENTIRE text, as it mirrors itself so completely.

If that pretty grey hardcover with the yellow rectangle, that well-
laid out and Princeton-published tome has always seemed so authoritive,
tear off the cover, smear the ink and dirty the pages. Is the text itself
that good? It is only a question you can answer. Personally, I went out
and bought a copy of Cleary's _The Taoist I Ching_, which I sent off to
have hardcover-bound in a pretty cover of my own design. It sits next to
my Princeton edition. I like the presentation of the Princeton, but the
text of Cleary. Not that Shambala did a poor job of Cleary's.

I do like the center section in Wilhelm/Baynes for its organization and
exposition of some of the trigrams and hexagrams' orientations.

Also, Cleary published three versions of the I Ching: The Taoist I Ching,
the Buddhist I Ching, and the I Ching of Organization (? on the last one).
In each case, he followed a common Chinese tradition in embodying a text
commentary along with the translation, which lends effectiveness to the
text.

Corun, my use of the I Ching is limited to certain occasions and circum-
stances. I have a healthy respect and a sort of "relationship" with the
book. You may have experienced the same thing. It becomes a living voice,
and with me at least, I wouldn't ask a sage a stupid question that I
should responsibly answer myself, so I don't ask the I Ching. Some people
ask questions all the time. My experience is that the meaningfulness (ie.,
the "quality") of the answer is in direct proportion to the earnestness of
the seeker.

On a final note, someone posted a reply to my comments on The Tao of Pooh
and the Te of Piglet, that Taoism is for the people and scholarly texts
are best left to scholars. Sorry to paraphrase. You'll get no argument from
me on Taoism being a people's religion. As to Taoist philosophy, that is
very arguable. Reread the Tao Te Ching and see how many of your friends
are rulers of a kingdom. And no, it is not meant metaphorically.

As to Pooh and Piglet and scholarly texts, do you think Christians would
approve of using a text that did not reflect the true nature of their
religion? I hope my point is obvious. If one wants Taoism, read Taoism.
If one wants neo-Taoism, regurgitated Taoism, new-age Taoism, sanitized
Taoism, or Westernized Taoism, then read 95% of books on Taoism and you'll
get exactly that. Scholarly texts are not designed to be complicated, they
are an attempt at the most concise and accurate translation possible, with
notes and commentaries to enable the reader to understand the various issues
involved in word choices and other translation decisions.

If interested in Taoist religion, I recommend Henri Maspero's _Taoism and
Chinese Religion_, which is considered a monument to Western Sinology of this
century.

I've posted my opinions on Taoism to guide people to various texts I found
helpful. And I am happy to continue to answer questions as I can. But I make
no claims to authority. My Chinese is pretty slim when looking at the
incredible complexity and subtlety of technical Chinese. There is MUCH more
to a Chinese phrase from the Tao Te Ching than can be translated into
English -- the text rings with hidden meanings, many of which are lost with
the ancient culture. I hope the Lao Tzu, Chuang Tzu and I Ching texts (as
well as many other principle texts) provide as much meaning for you as
they have for me.

Blessings,

Murray

p.p.p.p.p.p.p.p.p.s. (ya I know I'm long-winded) If you have the Shambala-
published Wu text, don't spend the money on the Hendricks or Cleary translation
unless you want the book for _further_ information. Wu is a good one. Hendricks
will give you a little idea of what the text looks like in Chinese and a little
handle on the difficulty of translating it accurately. The Wang Pi commentary
is probably the best Chinese transliteration and commentary, but hard to find.

--
Murray M. Altheim      "Ils ont l'orteil de Bouc, & d'un Chevreil l'oreille,
Instructional Consultant    La corne d'un Chamois, & la face vermeille
CSU, Sacramento          Comme un rouge Croissant: & dancent toute nuict
[e-mail]       Dedans un carrefour, ou pres d'une eau qui bruict."