This blog is for those interested in exploring the philosophical teachings of Taoism from a Mormon or LDS point of view. To be clear, in interpreting Taoist writings using a Mormon lens, I am not concerned with what the original writers intended, nor will I satisfy those who have an orientation towards Taoism either from a religious or purely philosophical point of view.
I start with a remarkable and completely unsustainable hypothesis: that something or someone reveals to the heart and mind of holy people the way to live and be happy, and in some cases, holy people write these thoughts down or create oral traditions that uplift and inspire people. In the LDS faith, we call this "revelation", and it can and should happen personally, as well as within the context of formal and 'true' religion.
The Judeo-Christian-Muslim traditions revere scripture as being the word of God. Of course, the word varies from religion to religion, and the actual texts of scripture are often less prosaic than revealed word, but rather, writings and oral traditions of people with a religious opinion that ultimately gets written down, and accepted as Canon. The reality of all scripture, and what Mormons believe, is that scripture is reflective of inspiration from god through the mind and heart of people called to receive such: prophets. The prophet Mohammed was that as well. But if God supposedly reveals his Word to the mind and heart of prophets in the West, then what about the majority of individuals that live in the East, in Africa, or in the isles of the sea.
Mormonism uniquely defines that scripture is an ongoing, universal process. Our scripture declares about scripture:
The idea that there might be truth out there besides the "Standard Works of the Church" became my quest for the past 30 years. 20 years ago, I encountered Lao Tzu, and had exactly the same spiritual experience reading it as I did with the Book of Mormon. Yet I became dissatisfied with the translations of the text, because they often spoke from a Zen Buddhist or other asian tradition that differed in part from the actual words of the text. My dissatisfaction drove me to learn classical Chinese, so that I could understand the texts for myself.
In the process of 'translating' texts, I discovered that ancient Chinese is a heavily symbolic language, with only about 2000 characters (words) in active use. Unlike modern chinese, which typically requires two characters to make up a word, classical Chinese only uses one character, and its meaning is quite broad. This requires an understanding of context, as well as a lot of speculation about what the original writers meant. Because the texts are vague, each translation, today, is subject to a wide degree of interpretation, and that interpretation inherently incorporates the point of view of the translator.
Good translations, today, are either scholarly, in which case the interpretation is minimized or carefully contextualized in terms of what little is known of the original writers, or is interpretive, often yielding beautiful translations, but biased to the translator's intent. As I am not a trained scholar, I can only reflect what these marvelous texts have meant within the context of my LDS background and upbringing.
As an LDS, I recognize that our founder and first Prophet Joseph Smith believed himself to be a 'translator' of ancient scripture. We accept this premise on our faith, but in reality, he was not trained nor even remotely knowledgeable in the language of the texts he translated. Instead, he relied on methods more common to spiritualism or scrying in order to discern the meaning of the texts: instead of translating, therefore, he revealed the meaning through direct revelation. As well, Joseph Smith "translated" the bible into what became known as the "Inspired Version", or in the case of the creation account, he interpreted the first books of Genesis into the Book of Moses. Joseph did not know hebrew when he started his "inspired version", nor did he know it when he revealed the Book of Moses. He later took hebrew lessons from Joshua Seixas, and his hebrew instruction is evident in his 'translation' of the book of abraham, as well as his theological speculations in the King Follett discourse. What I learn from Joseph Smith is that 'translation' can be an inspired interpretation of a text -- and at the extreme, the 'translation' may have nothing to do with the original text.
Joseph Smith's translations inspired me to think in terms of how to translate the texts of Taoism. I hope to remain as true to the texts as possible, but I will interpret them in LDS terms, as much as the broadness of ancient chinese texts allow.
I will be writing one post per week, potentially as well a podcast with the material. I will start with Lao Tzu's Tao Te Ching.
Enjoy.
-wayfarer - The Wayfaring Fool
傻子道人
I start with a remarkable and completely unsustainable hypothesis: that something or someone reveals to the heart and mind of holy people the way to live and be happy, and in some cases, holy people write these thoughts down or create oral traditions that uplift and inspire people. In the LDS faith, we call this "revelation", and it can and should happen personally, as well as within the context of formal and 'true' religion.
The Judeo-Christian-Muslim traditions revere scripture as being the word of God. Of course, the word varies from religion to religion, and the actual texts of scripture are often less prosaic than revealed word, but rather, writings and oral traditions of people with a religious opinion that ultimately gets written down, and accepted as Canon. The reality of all scripture, and what Mormons believe, is that scripture is reflective of inspiration from god through the mind and heart of people called to receive such: prophets. The prophet Mohammed was that as well. But if God supposedly reveals his Word to the mind and heart of prophets in the West, then what about the majority of individuals that live in the East, in Africa, or in the isles of the sea.
Mormonism uniquely defines that scripture is an ongoing, universal process. Our scripture declares about scripture:
For I command all men, both in the east and in the west, and in the north, and in the south, and in the islands of the sea, that they shall write the words which I speak unto them; for out of the books which shall be written I will judge the world, every man according to their works, according to that which is written.LDS believe that the above was written in approximately 580 BCE. As it turns out, Lao Tzu, Confucius, Gautama Siddhartha (the Buddha), Cyrus the Great, and many other founders of asian systems of thought were all contemporaries of Nephi, or lived shortly thereafter. It's as if LDS scripture is telling us to look for wisdom from god out of the core texts of the great religions.
For behold, I shall speak unto the Jews and they shall write it; and I shall also speak unto the Nephites and they shall write it; and I shall also speak unto the other tribes of the house of Israel, which I have led away, and they shall write it; and I shall also speak unto all nations of the earth and they shall write it.
And it shall come to pass that the Jews shall have the words of the Nephites, and the Nephites shall have the words of the Jews; and the Nephites and the Jews shall have the words of the lost tribes of Israel; and the lost tribes of Israel shall have the words of the Nephites and the Jews. (2 Nephi 29:11-13)
The idea that there might be truth out there besides the "Standard Works of the Church" became my quest for the past 30 years. 20 years ago, I encountered Lao Tzu, and had exactly the same spiritual experience reading it as I did with the Book of Mormon. Yet I became dissatisfied with the translations of the text, because they often spoke from a Zen Buddhist or other asian tradition that differed in part from the actual words of the text. My dissatisfaction drove me to learn classical Chinese, so that I could understand the texts for myself.
In the process of 'translating' texts, I discovered that ancient Chinese is a heavily symbolic language, with only about 2000 characters (words) in active use. Unlike modern chinese, which typically requires two characters to make up a word, classical Chinese only uses one character, and its meaning is quite broad. This requires an understanding of context, as well as a lot of speculation about what the original writers meant. Because the texts are vague, each translation, today, is subject to a wide degree of interpretation, and that interpretation inherently incorporates the point of view of the translator.
Good translations, today, are either scholarly, in which case the interpretation is minimized or carefully contextualized in terms of what little is known of the original writers, or is interpretive, often yielding beautiful translations, but biased to the translator's intent. As I am not a trained scholar, I can only reflect what these marvelous texts have meant within the context of my LDS background and upbringing.
As an LDS, I recognize that our founder and first Prophet Joseph Smith believed himself to be a 'translator' of ancient scripture. We accept this premise on our faith, but in reality, he was not trained nor even remotely knowledgeable in the language of the texts he translated. Instead, he relied on methods more common to spiritualism or scrying in order to discern the meaning of the texts: instead of translating, therefore, he revealed the meaning through direct revelation. As well, Joseph Smith "translated" the bible into what became known as the "Inspired Version", or in the case of the creation account, he interpreted the first books of Genesis into the Book of Moses. Joseph did not know hebrew when he started his "inspired version", nor did he know it when he revealed the Book of Moses. He later took hebrew lessons from Joshua Seixas, and his hebrew instruction is evident in his 'translation' of the book of abraham, as well as his theological speculations in the King Follett discourse. What I learn from Joseph Smith is that 'translation' can be an inspired interpretation of a text -- and at the extreme, the 'translation' may have nothing to do with the original text.
Joseph Smith's translations inspired me to think in terms of how to translate the texts of Taoism. I hope to remain as true to the texts as possible, but I will interpret them in LDS terms, as much as the broadness of ancient chinese texts allow.
I will be writing one post per week, potentially as well a podcast with the material. I will start with Lao Tzu's Tao Te Ching.
Enjoy.
-wayfarer - The Wayfaring Fool
傻子道人
No comments:
Post a Comment