Page "Tao Te Ching" Paragraph 73

Many translations are written by people with a foundation in Chinese language and philosophy who are trying to render the original meaning of the text as faithfully as possible into English.

Some of the more popular translations are written from a less scholarly perspective, giving an individual author's interpretation.

Critics of these versions, such as Taoism scholar Eugene Eoyang, claim that translators like Stephen Mitchell produce readings of the Tao Te Ching that deviate from the text and are incompatible with the history of Chinese thought.

Russell Kirkland goes further to argue that these versions are based on Western Orientalist fantasies, and represent the colonial appropriation of Chinese culture.

In contrast, Huston Smith, scholar of world religions, said of the Mitchell version, " This translation comes as close to being definitive for our time as any I can imagine.

It embodies the virtues its translator credits to the Chinese original: a gemlike lucidity that is radiant with humor, grace, largeheartedness, and deep wisdom.

" — Other Taoism scholars, such as Michael LaFargue and Jonathan Herman, argue that while they are poor scholarship they meet a real spiritual need in the West.

The most recent translation is by Bill Porter ( Red Pine ) ( Copper Canyon Press, 2009 ) and distinguishes itself in its extensive commentary by scores of poets, monks, and Chinese scholars.

There are a handful of sites on the web that compare chapters translated by various authors such as TaoTeChingMe. com and Wayist. org.