Chap wrote:Maybe we should not use the words 'accurate translation' here, since there is much dispute about exactly what the ancient writer of those words intended to convey, so we do not know what target we are trying to hit with our translation. How about 'definitive'?
But as you know, one quite well supported rendering of the phrase you quote is 'The Way that can be spoken of is not the constant Way". I rather like that one, since it renders pretty provisional all the rest of the Book of Five Thousand Characters that follows it, and gives us license to treat with levity and skepticism any text or person who takes it upon themselves to explain to the rest of us what the Dao is. (Of course that does not mean there is any rule against talking about the Dao, if you feel like it. But no-one gets to speak authoritatively about it, including me for a start.)
So refreshingly different from The Gospel!
Ah, someone who is familiar with the texts... of course, Zhuangzi wanted to find someone who had forgotten the words so that he could have a real conversation!
I don't believe it's different from the "Gospel", provided we understand the gospel as being simply "Truth". In translating laozi, I found, essentially, the phrase "health to the naval, marrow to the bones" sorted into the text. One might think that Laozi was familiar with western scripture...or not.
As for 'spoken' or 'followed', or even the idea that there might be a definitive translation of laozi. the usage of 'dao' as a verb is rare, but laozi uses it in dao ke DAO fei chang dao. No one really knows what this meaning might be. Later, the idea of 'dao' being someone's doctrine -- as in Confucius' dao -- implies that you might be talking about doctrine, hence there is a common (but not definitive) translation that the second DAO is 'spoken'. But I find this a stretch.
Bear in mind that in 1912, confucian learning, and especially study of the Yi Jing, was essentially disfavored. Then, in 1947, it was all but eliminated. Modern translations and commentaries after Wilhelm no longer reflected direct experience with sages who lived their lives studying the changes. When we understand laozi in light of the Yi, the concept of a fixed, immovable "dao" is impossible. There is no such thing as "chang dao"/"constant/eternal/unchanging way". Dao is a flow -- it is in the motion of things, in the use of things, never some constant ideal as in what the west describes in plato's forms and universals. Dao is 'tendency' -- the 'way things work' -- absolutely -- and yet, the way things work is ALWAYS in a state of change, albeit in some cases, very very slowly.
I do reject the 'dao that can be spoken is not a constant/the eternal way' translation, especially as it implies that 'dao' is so beyond understanding that you cannot talk about it. While that which we speak is only a finger pointing to the moon, the direction is important. The idea you can't talk about it is harmful, because (1) it implies an ideal (as in plato's forms) not present in chinese philosophy, (2) sort of re-inforces that only an ordained daoist/buddhist priest can really take you there (b***s***), and (3) it leads at least in zen-buddhism to the koan/dharma combat technique, which I find does not help understanding for the vast majority of people.
You don't get into the ineffibility of dao until the neo-taoist movement 4-7 centuries after the texts were written. The daoist texts essentially started maturing during the jixia academy in around 300 BCE, and then fully matured during the reign of Wen and Jing in the early Han. It's illustrative to see how the Huanglao movement during the early han applied the texts: as practical imperatives for governing -- essentially laissez-faire (wuwei) libertarianism. And after 50 years of this type of governing, the country had a professional, competent civil service, 3% taxation rate, universal healthcare and social security, peace with the huns, and a prosperity so bountiful that the grain was rotting in the granaries. This is seriously true, and completely amusing as to how they achieved peace with the huns. taoism, particularly, huanglao taoism actually worked quite well. And no one was going around saying that you couldn't talk about it. It was practical political philosophy.
So to me, it's a lot about the 'gospel' -- all truth. If it is in the category of all true things existing, then it should be part of the gospel.