Rosenthal's isn't even close! It says:

Merel brings int he allegory of a carpenter which I will bet isn't in the original text.

Muller's is closer to Legge's.

In fact Crowley translation of 27 (and I generally don't like Crowley) is almost exactly like Legge's!

If I had more of my books here I would do more comparisons but Im convinced that Mitchell is way off

DC

I fail to see how the following differ in meaning.....

"What is a good man but a bad man's teacher? What is a bad man but a good man's job?" - translation by Stephen Mitchell

"Hence, the good are the teachers of the not-so-good.
And the not-so-good are the charges of the good." - translation by Charles Muller

"Therefore the man of skill is a master (to be looked up to) by him
who has not the skill; and he who has not the skill is the helper of
(the reputation of) him who has the skill." - translation by James Legge

"Hence those who are worthy are the instructors of the unworthy. The unworthy
are the stuff of the worthy." - translation by Chad Hansen.

All of these express the same basic idea.

If you twist the meaning to please you I suppose.

I simply don't see it that way and I think some translations are better than others.

DC

As do I, and I prefer the Stephen Mitchell translation. I don't know why you want to quibble with me about this... you are free to use whichever translation you wish.

I would rather the translation be internally consistent and somewhat faithful to the original. I don't read Chinese but it seems Mitchell is divergent from many others which gives one pause.

Legge's was one of the first and it is literalist at points but it has been commented on much more than others. If its way divergent from Legge's its likely to be wrong as far as I can see.

I suppose I could make a translation and not even read Chinese and see how far it goes.

DC

Mitchell's translation has not been criticized, as far as I know. I don't think it is divergent... that is your opinion, to which you are entitled, of course.

How do any of these translations relate to the moral imperative to help one's fellow man?

They don't.

Let's get back on target:

I am under the impression that for the majority of the pagan religions, there is no 'imperative' to help or support your fellow man.

It is more 'expected' that you will not see another way.

There is the 'threefold rule' (or the 'rule of sevens', depending on who you talk to) but that is not a 'law' but a guidline. While many pagans will tell you it is an 'automatic fact', that is illogical when you look at the deities and history. If it were automatic (like going to hell when you die ) then there would not have been goddesses and gods in charge of retribution who needed to be invoked in order to have the 'rule' work. But some people use it as a 'I help them, I get karma points'--- which sparked a discussion on a pagan board I had been on about whether or not deliberatly doing something for the karma negates the karmic return...


Anyway, while there is no apparent reason to take responsiblility for others or to help others, it is a larger part of the culture (which had developed from the older ideas of charity and hospitality). You are supposed to help out, and be hospitable, and not let a fellow creature suffer (not just human)--- because that is rude, not because it is wrong.

OTOH, there are many holidays which have as part of them the donation of food and clothing to those less fortunante. The three harvest celebrations, for example, and the recnet holiday for Sheila Na Gig. The offerings are 'made to the gods' but given to the poor.

This does not mean that all modern pagans do this, just that it is traditional.

I am looking forward to the rest of the responses which aren't nitpicking translations. I thought I was on a Christian board for a second...

(ANSIMC)

jess, I think the two verses I offered from the Tao do suggest that, while it is not an imperative, it is preferable to help our fellow man if we want to be a Master of The Way.

When I posted those verses, I had no intention of becoming embroiled in a pissing contest about whose translation was preferable, however, I am unwilling to bend over and take what I consider to be an undeserved spanking.

I unnerstand...

Maybe you and DC can start your own thread? Perhaps: The Importance of Translational Differences in the Tao Te Ching? Then we can keep the two threads clear...

of course, that is just an idea... it is not a 'moral imperative'...

(Above Not Said In Moderator Capacity)