[bigstrat2003]

> If this is true, we should expect translations to be vastly different from one another. But despite the Daodejing being the second most translated book in history after the Bible, most translations keep the feel and content of the others.

I'm not really familiar with the Tao Te Ching. But isn't the straightforward explanation here that Wang Bi was wrong?

[MarceColl]

I've dabbled in classical chinese as well. The language is quite ambiguous and the text is as well, you could look at it with very many angles. The straightforward explanation is that other translators probably influenced each other a lot and that caused the translation similarities

[qazxcvbnm]

I believe the best answer may be to read the original text. Given the style of the text and the mentioned incredibly contextual structure of Classical Chinese, its very difficult to believe a single definitive reading was intended, or even possible.

[ziggyzecat]

> difficult to believe a single definitive reading was intended

Agreed, it rarely is with these kinds of stories and teachings. The Iliad comes to mind. I tried multiple translations but they all feel (horribly) off. I put some of them side by side and started "cherry picking" sentences that felt better together.

The challenge and beauty of these kinds of writing is the brutal subjective experience of (personal) horror and enlightenment which can be destroyed with a few words that don't fit the 'phenomenal' flow of the reader, who is tracking through the writers narration of the readers (personal) space-time experience and his perception of (inter-personal) life. It's (sorry) fucking insane to translate these books, I'd finish and start again over and over.