The Tao Te Ching

There are however, other problems for any translator/interpreter of this work. The first is the number of changes in the form of written Chinese characters since the original work was written. At least one such change occurred prior to the arrangement of the text by Wang Bih, and at least another three have been implemented since his time.

The source of another problem has been described by Dr. L. Wieger (please see bibliography/reference section below) as, ".... the ignorance of scribes who continually brought to light faulty forms which were .... reproduced by posterity ....".

Another problem related to those mentioned immediately above is the change in writing instruments used by Chinese scribes. With the invention of the paint brush, the efficient 'fibre tipped pen' (made from vegetable fibre soaked in ink, and held in a hollow bamboo tube) fell into disuse. The resultant change in writing style was due to the fact that the writer had less control over the stroke of a brush than of an instrument with a fine, firm tip. Despite this handicap, the brush could be used to paint on silk, and was considered to produce a more 'artistic' form of calligraphy than the earlier instrument. Furthermore, it became almost a 'hallmark of a gentleman' to write in a free, flowing and virtually illegible style. There can be no doubt that this was the cause of many errors which were made and subsequently compounded.

A further problem is the possibility of confusion, caused in part by the multiple meanings of some of the limited number of characters said to have been used in the original text, this being attributed to the cryptic style of Lao Tzu. It is also in part a result of the nature of early Chinese grammatical structure itself. Even if a literal translation were desirable, it would make little sense to the reader schooled only in Western grammar, who would therefore be unfairly presented with the problem of 'guessing the missing words', which, it may be said, is a primary function of the translator of any work such as this.

Having discussed the problems which exist for the translator of such a work as the Tao Te Ching, it is only reasonable to mention briefly the problem which exists for the reader, concerning the significance of various influences upon a translator.

There are already at least forty-two English translations of this work (listed by Clark Melling of the University of New Mexico), each, I am sure, carried out as ably and honestly as was possible. However, it is difficult, if not impossible, for any person not to be influenced by the philosophy, beliefs, culture and politics of their own society, historical period and education system.

Even a brief glance at various translations of the work of Lao Tzu will illustrate how such a 'hidden curriculum' surreptitiously imposes itself upon even the most honest of men, thus creating a major problem for the reader. This is the case even for the reader who merely hopes to see an accurate English rendering of the work, but the reader's problems are compounded if he or she seeks a translation which presents a reasonably accurate description of Taoism (Tao Chia), the 'system' of which the Tao Te Ching is a major work. It must be said of the existing English translations, that most treat the Tao Te Ching as a literary or poetic work, whilst many others treat it as a work of mysticism, rather than a work of classical scholarship, which I believe it to be, describing the key concepts of Taoist philosophy (tao chia) expressed in a poetic manner. My intention here has been to provide a translation suitable for those readers wishing to discover something of that philosophy, as described in one of its major works.

On the matter of 'translation', I should state that I consider the term to be a misnomer when applied to an English rendering of this classical Chinese work. For the reasons mentioned above, I believe that any such work is at least as much, and probably more a matter of interpretation than of literal translation. This problem is admirably expressed by Arthur Hummel, former Head of the Division of Orientalia at the Library of Congress when he writes in his foreword to Dr. C.H. Wu's translation (referenced), "Any translation is an interpretation .... for the language of one tradition does not provide exact verbal equivalents for all the creative ideas of another tradition."

'Tao Te Ching', translated by Gia-Fu Feng and Jane English, is published by Wildwood House. It concerns itself with the 'spiritual level of being', and contains Chinese characters written in a cursive form which although not always easy to read, are certainly aesthetically pleasing. However, the photographs which illustrate this edition are also pleasing to the eye, and it is as much for the illustrations as for the translation that this edition is recommended.

'Lao Tzu Tao Te Ching' is translated by D.C. Lau, and published by Penguin Books in their 'Penguin Classics' series. It is currently in its seventeenth printing, the first edition dating from nineteen sixty-three. Although this translation is written in a style which I find rather too literal for my own taste, it carries a very lucid introduction, as well as footnotes, a glossary and a reference section, all of which recommend it to the reader who wishes to check reference sources.

'Truth and Nature', by Cheng Lin, published in Hong Kong, does not claim to be a translation, but interprets the Tao Te Ching in a very interesting manner. Two arrangements of the Chinese text are included, one according to the arrangement of Wang Bih. The reader wishing to use the original language as a source will find the Chinese text in this edition of value. It must be emphasized however, that there are a number of Chinese texts available. Whilst these usually conform to Wang Bih's arrangment of the text, they do vary in detail.

'The Simple Way of Lao Tsze' (sic) is a very pleasant analysis of the Tao Te Ching first published by 'The Shrine of Wisdom' in London some sixty years ago. It contains many footnotes, and is an interpretation rather than a direct translation, attempting to describe the 'spirit' of Taoism, and doing so without pretence. However, some readers may find the nomenclature somewhat esoteric (although it is only reasonable to expect that the same criticism might be levelled at my own interpretation).

'Lao-Tzu: "My Words are very easy to understand" ' by Man-jan Cheng, translated by Tam C.Gibbs, and published by North Atlantic Books, is a Confucionist (rather than Taoist) rendering. It therefore contains material of value to the student who wishes to 'see both sides of the coin'. This edition consists of a series of lectures by Man-jan Cheng, and includes the Chinese texts of both the Tao Te Ching and the lectures. The printing of the Chinese characters is large and clearly printed, which commends it to the student requiring a text in the 'original' language, although it must be emphasized that there are a number of differences between the Chinese text in this edition and that of Dr. Wu, mentioned immediately below.

The translation by Dr. J.C.H. Wu is in its eighteenth printing, a fact which will not surprise any reader of this delightful little edition. Small in size, and containing an excellently drafted Chinese text, this translation is likely to appeal to the reader who is of the Catholic faith.

'The Way and Its Power' is the title of the translation by Arthur Waley, published as 'A Mandala Book' by Unwin Paperbacks. As the translator himself says, it "represents a compromise...", but even so it is possibly the most widely read translation in the U.K. It is for this reason that it is included it as a reference work worthy of reading. The use of the word 'power' in the title of this translation provides a clue to the style of the translator, who employs very strong academic (but non-Taoist) arguments, which are made in his copious introduction.

The translation entitled 'Tao Te Ching by Lao Tzu', translated by A.J. Bahm, and published by Frederick Ungar is well supported by notes in an 'afterword'. The translation itself is written in a very pleasant and easy-to-read style, which is (unfortunately) unusual for the work of a professor of philosophy.

'Tao: A New Way of Thinking' by Chang Chung-yuan, published by Harper and Row, is a translation which contains excellent commentaries and footnotes. The translator undoubtedly has expert historical and philosophical knowledge which he puts to good use in this excellent edition, in which he compares various aspects of Taoist philosophy with that of European philosophers.

The tenth translation used for my own researches is 'The Tao Te Ching of Lao Tzu' translated by James Legge as one of a two volume set of 'The Texts of Taoism', published by Dover Publications. Although written in eighteen-ninety, this translation withstands the test of time extremely well. The translator was very knowledegable in his subject, as well as of Chinese philosophy, literature and religions, and does not hesitate to state his opinions, arguing a strong case where these differ from those of other translators from the Chinese.

Because of the changes in calligraphic style mentioned earlier, any student wishing to conduct their own research into the Chinese text of the Tao Te Ching will need to be at least familiar with the relationship between modern and classical Chinese characters.

An outstanding book covering the 'middle period' is the 'Ch'ien Tzu Wen' (Thousand Character Classic) of Chou Hsing-szu, written some time between 507 and 521 A.D., an excellent English language edition being that edited by F. W. Paar, with calligraphy by Fong-Chih Lui, and published by Frederick Ungar in 1963. This edition also carries translations in French, German and Latin. Although it is not a rendering of the Tao Te Ching, it contains many passages from that work.

'Chinese Characters' by L. Wieger, translated from the French by L. Davrout (mentioned previously) is a lexicon with etymological lessons, but also contains both a phonetic dictionary and a dictionary of characters arranged by 'radicals' (the means by which it is possible to 'find' a character written in 'Kanji', the root form of both Chinese and Japanese writing in a dictionary). This book also contains a number of examples of 'early period' characters which will be of value to those readers interested in the calligraphy and other graphic communication.

In similar vein, 'Analysis of Chinese Characters', by G.D. Wilder and J.H. Ingram, published by Dover Publications, complements the work of Wieger, listing one thousand and two characters, together with derivations and modern alternatives.

Chang Hsuan's work on 'The Etymologies of 3000 Chinese Characters in Common Usage', published by Hong Kong University Press, also shows the derivations of many Chinese characters, from the 'small seal' script. Unfortunately however, this book contains virtually no English and is therefore intended primarily for the student who is already proficient in the Chinese language.

The earliest form of Chinese writing predates even the Tao Te Ching, and possibly originates from the same period as the original I Ching of Fu Hsi. This writing consists of characters inscribed on bone, shell and antler horn, the collection being known as 'The Couling-Chalfant Collection of Inscribed Oracle Bones'. The collection has long been dissipated, some pieces being in the Royal Scottish Museum (Edinburgh), some in the Carnegie Museum (Pittsburg), other pieces in the British Museum (London), and the remainder in the Field Museum of Natural History (Chicago). Fortunately though, an excellent catalogue exists, drawn by F.H. Chalfant, edited by R.S. Britton, and published by the Commercial Press, Shanghai, in 1935. This book illustrates each of the pieces, showing the characters inscribed on the original material. It is a particularly valuable work for those interested in tracing the origins of many of the Chinese characters in use to this day. Translations are not provided.

The philosopher Chuang Tzu, a follower of Lao Tzu, did much to clarify the somewhat criptic style of his teacher. The book 'Chuang Tzu' translated by H.A. Giles, published by Unwin Paperbacks, renders the sayings of the later master into English in a clear and fine literary style. This book, said to have been originally written by Chuang Tzu himself sometime between the fourth and third centuries before the Christian era, contains a number of references to the Tao Te Ching. For this reason it is a valuable book, but its value is increased by the humour and depth inherent in Chuang Tzu's writing.

It may be of interest to some readers that the dictionaries I have used are Lin Yutang's 'Chinese English Dictionary of Modern Usage', published by the Chinese University of Hong Kong, and Andrew Nelson's 'The Modern Reader's Japanese-English Character Dictionary', published by Charles E. Tuttle.

Since I have acknowledged the work of other translators and interpreters, it would be remiss of me not to acknowledge the help I received from my own teachers, each of whom attempted to aid my understanding and development in his own unique manner. The reason why I refrain from mentioning them by name in print is not due to disrespect, but rather out of respect for the Taoist belief that,

"To boast of one's teachers
is to try to give credence
to one's own words."

The earliest of these is Philosophical Taoism (Tao-chia), which is believed to have developed between the sixth to the second century before the Christian era, from the earlier 'Yin-Yang' school of philosophy, whose teachings it inherited and integrated into its own 'philosophical system' through the 'I Ching', now (unfortunately) most widely known as a work of 'divination'.

Philosophical Taoism is generally thought to have been based on the 'Tao Te Ching' of the possibly legendary Lao Tzu, and the work of his follower, Chuang Tzu, which is known through the book which bears his name, and is otherwise without title.

The major development and establishment of Religious Taoism (Tao-chiao) took place during the two Han dynasties (from 206 B.C. to 220 A.D.), and considered the Tao Te Ching as divine teaching, using specific interpretations of Lao Tzu's work as one of its own primary scriptures. The Religious Taoists deified Lao Tzu, describing him as the 'T'ai Shang Lao-chun'. In later centuries, Religious Taoism was to become a very powerful movement throughout China, where it was widely practiced, at least until the middle of the twentieth century.

The earliest known reference to Alchemy (in Eastern and Western Literature) is in the 'Shi-chi', written about eighty-five B.C., but the 'Chou'-i ts'an t'ung ch'i' of Wei Po-yang (c.200 A.D.) was probably the first major alchemical text to use a Taoist work to this end, some auhorities believeing the treatise to be a derivation of the I Ching. This form of alchemy was referred to by the Philosophical Taoists as 'debased Taoism'.

Of these three 'forms' of Taoism (or practices which called themselves Taoist), Religious and Alchemical Taoism are not mentioned in the text of this work, other than where they, and similar practices, were referred to, usually indirectly, in the Chinese text (and then usually in a derisory manner).

Readers of both the I Ching and the Tao Te Ching will readily apppreciate from many of Lao Tzu's statements, that he was certainly well versed in the concepts explained in the earlier work, and accepted its major precept, that all things are always in a state (or process) of change ('I Ching' means 'Book of Changes'). However, even allowing for the age of the I Ching, and the certainty that its concepts were well known in China at the time of Lao Tzu, it would seem, from historical records, that the Tao Te Ching was considered to be a perplexing book, even in the period in which it was written. Although not mentioning either Lao Tzu or the Tao Te Ching (nor the I Ching) by name, many of Chuang Tzu's stories (which are probably apocryphal) serve to illustrate and explain points from the Tao Te Ching. If there were no confusion or doubt, presumably such explanatory material would not have been required.

In its original form, the Tao Te Ching (as it is now known) is believed to have consisted of eighty-one short chapters, these being arranged in two sections, known as the 'Tao Ching' and the 'Te Ching'. The first of these was comprised of thirty-seven chapters, and the second of forty-four chapters. The length of the original work is said to have been approximately five- thousand characters, and it is probable that these were written on bamboo strips or slats, which would then have been bound together to form two scrolls, each appearing somewhat like a venitian blind with vertical slats. These were a common form of 'record' in the period of Lao Tzu, this being known as 'The Period of the Warring States'.

Since it is not known with absolute certainty that a person named 'Lao Tzu' actually lived during the period of the warring states, to catagorically describe the Tao Te Ching as the work of Lao Tzu would be without sufficiently valid historical foundation. Even the 'biography of Lao Tzu' which may be found in the 'Historical Records' (Shih-chi) of Ssu-ma Ch'ien (second century B.C.) is not without its inconsistencies. This record describes Lao Tzu as having been an archivist of the Court of Chou, and further states that he is said to have personally instructed Kung Fu Tzu (Confucius).

It is in this last statement that one inconsistency may be found, for other chronicles state the date of the death of Lao Tzu to precede that of the birth of Kung Fu Tzu by nearly half a century. Even the author of the 'Historical Records' states his doubts as to the authenticity of the information available regarding Lao Tzu, and some scholars maintain that the Tao Te Ching does not present a distinctive or single point of view. They argue that it is probably a compilation or anthology of sayings from various writers and schools of thought, reaching its present form in the third century B.C.

Conversly, according to legend, it is said that on his retirement from public office, Lao Tzu headed west, and that the guardian of the pass to the state of Ch'in requested that he write a treatise on the Tao before departing. It is then that Lao Tzu is supposed to have sat for two days, in which time he wrote the Tao Te Ching, after which he left, some writers stating that he was never heard of again, others describing his ascent to heaven in the form of a magnificent dragon.

Whichever story we believe concerning the existence of Lao Tzu, we may reasonably conclude (at least) that there is much contradictory evidence. Although I cannot offer conclusive proof that he did exist, I do not believe that the contradictions prove that such a person did not exist, and neither do I believe they prove the Tao Te Ching to have been written by more than one person. As I have stated, the reasons for my beliefs are admittedly without sufficient 'hard evidence' to withstand strong philosophical questioning, but they are offered here for those who might wish to know of an argument contrary to current academic opinion.

Since one meaning of the words 'Lao Tzu' is 'Old Man', it is very unlikely that they were used as an ordinary (or 'proper') name, but could well have been a 'nickname'. Some authorities claim that this was so in the case of the person in question, the nickname possibly being derived from the fact (?) that he was born with white hair, like that of an old man. This theory seems to borne out by the fact that the second character, can also be used to mean 'child'. However, in the context of teaching and learning, it also means 'master' or 'scholar' (compared with 'pupil' or 'student'). Furthermore, and for the purpose of this discussion, more importantly, the same two characters which form the Chinese 'Lao Tzu' form the words 'old scholar', pronounced as 'roshi' in Japanese, a title usually reserved in that language for a master of Zen teaching.

This means that 'Lao Tzu' is the Chinese equivalent to the Japanese 'Roshi'. For this reason I believe there probably was a person called Lao Tzu, but that Lao Tzu was his title, rather than his name. It may of course be that there were many 'old scholars', all known by that title, but the existence of many has never been considered proof of the non-existence of one.

At this juncture it is perhaps necessary to mention briefly the historical and philosophical relationship between Taoism, Ch'an and Zen. The word 'Zen' is the Japanese pronunciation of the Chinese 'Ch'an', the system attributed to the 'Bodhidharma' (in Japanese 'Daruma'), described by followers of Zen Buddhism as the twenty-eighth Buddhist Patriarch, who is said to have arrived in China in 526 A.D. Although well known to followers of Zen, it is not always known to others that the Bodhidharma then spent nine years in the earliest Chinese Buddhist temple, which had by that time been in existence for over four hundred years. Furthermore, during that period, the original Buddhism of India had undergone many changes in China, much of its teaching having been adapted (Tibetan Buddhists might claim, 'adulterated') by its proximity to Taoism.

Today, in the West at least, the most widely known sects of Zen are Buddhist. However, even before its acceptance by Buddhists, Ch'an (or 'Zen') was accepted by the Chinese followers of Philosophical Taoism (Tao Chia) as an adjunct to their own philosophy and practices. So it was that the 'non-religious' aspects of Zen and Taoism became integrated into the system known in China as 'Ch'an Tao-chia'.

It is probable that we will never know all the reasons for this two-way integration which occurred between Tao-chia and Ch'an, but some of the reasons become apparent when we learn something of the similarities between the philosophies underlying the two systems. It will hopefully suffice to mention that the practitioners of each group probably felt an affinity with the 'fluidity' of thought and action of the practitioners of the other, recognizing this as stemming from the same philosophical source as their own. Similarly, it is very likely that the members of both groups appreciated the 'ethics' of the other, since both philosophies emphasize the development of the individual as a prerequisite to the development of society.

Notwithstanding any inaccuracies in my own interpretation of events, of even greater historical significance is the fact that from about six hundred A.D., the survival of Philosophical Taoism was made possible only through its adoption by Ch'an. Had it not been for this fact, the antagonistic attitude of the Religious Taoists, combined with their growing governmental power, might easily have resulted in the forceful demise of Taoist Philosophy as it is known today.

As to the continued integration and co-existence of Taoism and Zen, we fortunately need look no further than the words of the great Zen scholar, Professor D.T. Suzuki, who said,

"To ask a question about Zen is to ask a question about the Tao."

If this was the case, it could have been either for reasons of personal safety on the part of the author, or out of deference to his own teachers. Any reader who has knowledge of the history of China during the peiod of the warring states will readily appreciate, and hopefully sympathise with the first of these reasons, but the second reason perhaps requires some explanation. This is now offered.

Carrying out one's work in an unostentatious manner is an important aspect of Taoist teaching, as is respect for one's teachers. In some instances these two principles were adhered to so rigorously that a writer or painter might either not sign his work at all, or use a pseudonym compiled (possibly as an anagram) from the names of his most revered teachers. It is therefore possible that the author of the Tao Te Ching used the pseudonym 'Lao Tzu' as an acknowledgement of his own teacher, using the title 'old scholar' to refer to that teacher as he might have been known and referred to by his own students.

It is quite likely that the title 'Roshi', used in Zen (Japanese Ch'an) developed as an 'official title' from its earlier Chinese usage. In Zen, it is thought to be rank bad manners to use the real name of one's own teacher in a published work, at least in the context of he or she being one's own teacher (for reasons which I have attempted to explain in the 'Acknowledgements' section), but it is quite acceptable to refer to him (or her) by an honorary title. Combine any of these possibilties with the fact that one's own teacher may have been given or have chosen a 'teaching name' (a pseudonym under which a teacher may work) and it becomes easier to understand why it is impossible to be definitive regarding the 'real name' of the author or authors of the Tao Te Ching. For the purposes of this discussion however, I wish to continue from the assumption that the Tao Te Ching did have an author, and that we may, without too much 'licence', refer to him as Lao Tzu.

The second factor which causes me to believe that we should not completely disregard the legend of the writing of the Tao Te Ching concerns its cryptic style. The basis of my belief is twofold. In the first instance, if, as legend tells us, Lao Tzu completed his writing in two days, it is not surprising that it was cryptic, since this would have required him to write at a rate of two and one half thousand words each day. It may therefore be that he wrote as succinctly as possible in order to complete his task as quickly as possible, so that he could continue on his journey into retirement.

Those who know the Tao Te Ching will also know that Lao Tzu did not teach that a task should be rushed; rather, he taught that all things should occur in their natural time. This leads to my second point regarding the cryptic style of the original work.

We know that the keeper of the pass, who made the request for a written copy of Lao Tzu's thoughts, was a well known Taoist of the period named Yin Hsi, also referred to as 'Kwan Yin'. As a Taoist, he would certainly have been familiar with the teachings of Lao Tzu, even though, as he himself is supposed to have told the old philosopher, because of the nature of his work, he had not been able to avail himself of personal tuition from the master. It could be that the 'vagueness' (or seemingly esoteric nature of the first chapter) is due to the fact that Lao Tzu would have had no reason to explain the Tao to someone who was already versed in Tao-chia.

I believe we can assume that, although possibly not nationally famous, Lao Tzu would certainly have been well known in his own province. This would certainly seem to be the case, since Yin Hsi either recognised the figure of Lao Tzu, or his name, otherwise he would not have made his request to that particular traveller.

Assuming the keeper of the pass to know something of the teaching of Lao Tzu, his request could have been made in the form of a list of questions, to which Lao Tzu might have written the answers in the form of brief (or cryptic) notes, as an 'aide memoire'. This might of course also account for the apparent discontinuity of the completed work. If the text were written in answer to a number of questions, the sequence of the text would conform to that of the questions, which might easily have been prepared by Yin Hsi over a period of time, in the hope that the occasion might arise when he would meet with a scholar such as Lao Tzu, with whom he could then discuss his questions. This could account for the apparent repetitions in the text, for two questions both phrased in a similar manner, would presumably be answered in a similar manner.

The Chinese characters employed as chapter headings are written in a style approximating to the period in which the original text was written. The style is commonly known as 'small seal script'. Readers wishing to use modern Chinese characters for their own researches may of course refer to any or each of the Chinese texts mentioned earlier, and there are of course many others.

'Small seal script' is by no means the earliest written form of Chinese, but it is certainly one of the most aesthetically pleasing and easiest to read. Being more pictographic than later forms, the symbolism of the images contained within the small seal characters is easier to understand than it is in later forms. Modern Chinese script is virtually always more stylized, and (if hand written) frequently more 'freehand', and therefore sometimes difficult for the inexperienced reader to decipher.

Each small seal script chapter heading provides an approximate rendering of either the English title beneath or beside which it appears, or of the key concept or concepts embodied in the text of that chapter. As with the Chinese text itself, there are a number of different 'authentic' chapter headings. In most instances I have used a 'traditional' heading, but where even the traditional meaning is unclear I have used the heading I believe to be most appropriate to the contents of the chapter. Following the usual conventions, horizontally presented script should be read from left to right, and vertically presented script should be read from top to bottom, the right hand column first.

As I have stated earlier, because of the cryptic nature of the original text, and also because of the difference between the structure of English and Chinese grammar, a completely literal translation of the Chinese text would make little if any sense to the reader not versed in both the written Chinese language and the concepts of Taoism. This means that virtually any intelligible English rendering of the Tao Te Ching is bound to be longer than the original Chinese text. The variation in the length of many English (and Chinese) texts of the Tao Te Ching will be readily apparent to the reader of those translations listed in the reference section.

There are many valid arguments for and against the inclusion of commentaries on the text in any edition of the Tao Te Ching, but in this instance I hope that the English rendering will 'speak for itself', thus serving the purpose for which it is intended. It is for this reason that no separate commentaries are included.

The text in this edition is somewhat longer than that found in most other translations. There are two reasons for this, the first being that it includes certain expansions resulting from points raised in discussion by my own students. In those instances where there was apparent lack of clarity in my original drafts, additions have been made to clarify the concepts involved. (Where additions have been made to the most commonly available Chinese and English editions, the addition and the reason for its inclusion are annotated in the appendix at the end of the book.) The second reason is the form of interpretation employed, the rationale of which is now briefly described.

I do not believe it is by accident that the Tao Te Ching can be interpreted at many different levels without contradiction. The actual interpretation placed upon the text by any translator will depend on many factors, as has already been discussed. However, there is no doubt that Tao-chia and Ch'an are both very much concerned with individual development, maintaining that this is essential to a healthy society.

It is from this particular viewpoint that the rationale for this interpretation has developed. Although other translators have certainly raised this issue, to the best of my knowledge this is the first rendering to give priority to this aspect of the Tao Te Ching. It was because my own students requested such an interpretation in English, and because we were unable to find such an interpretation that I undertook the translation and interpretation presented here.