Yes. This is a big problem. I have at least one really bad translation. On interpreting this text, my view is that when the meaning coincides with the rest of the world's mystics then this is pretty secure interpretation, and when it is incoherent it is not at all secure. This narrows down the options, but still leaves room for error.

I have three or four translations of the Bhagavad Gita. They're all different, but the main difference is aesthetic, i.e. the poetry and cadence. The information content does not differ in any way that makes me wonder which is the most accurate. To be sure reading combinations of them feels better than just reading one alone.

The problem seems particulary bad for the Lao-tsu.

I've noticed that with the Dao De Jing as well.

But part of the problem is that there are just some conceptually untranslatable words. I mean how do you translate Dao? The concept contained within it is just so much more elusive than anything the word "way" or "path" could convey.

What is more profound, more stunning, more beautiful than this? (from chapter 11)

Thirty spokes converge on a hub
but it's the emptiness
that makes a wheel work

Pots are fashioned from clay
but it's the hollow
that makes a pot work

windows and doors are carved for a house
but it's the spaces
that make a house work

existence makes something useful
but nonexistence makes it work

Hi,

There are all kinds of questions with the Dao De Jing, as there are with all ancient texts that I have looked at particularly in the source of the information. Often, translations sit on translations which sit on translations. On top of this, the language has changed over the hundreds of years so the translator almost has to intuit the meaning from symbols and such. It is tough, but it is fun.

Rich

I mean how do you translate Dao? The concept contained within it is just so much more elusive than anything the word "way" or "path" could convey.

It's not a huge problem, though, for it's quite easy to find a good translation.

Maybe translations are particularly a problem for this text because of its brevity and rigour, and (what I imagine is) the beauty and evocativeness of its original language. If it was ten times as long perhaps there'd probably be fewer inadequate translations. It as a work of mathematics, and translating with precision between symbol systems requires a complete understanding of the intended meaning. It seems particulary vulnerable to translators in love with the language and the mystery but lacking a full grasp of the mathematics. Any translator who has managed to convey something of the language while maintaining rigour has my total admiration. Who they are is just my opinion.

How do you decide what is a reasonable translation if you don't understand it well enough to find any answers in it?

He says that 'cogito ergo sum' is not found in Descartes, in any language, but that this is almost what he said and clearly what he meant. I have no view on this.

Can you share the last time you remembered you were awake and what you remembered? Also, how do you know that you were dreaming when you remembered that you are awake?

That's not quite what I said. I said that I can remember my waking life while I am dreaming. While dreaming, I can recall things from my time awake.

This happens nearly every time I dream. It is pretty common.

For example, last night, while dreaming, I remembered where to find my case of Icehouse beer (the refrigerator) and I remembered that when I went to bed there were more beer in the case than there were when I found the beer in my dream.

While dreaming you dreamed you remembered things. You did not remember anything. Just as when you dream your house is on fire, you dream your house is on fire; even if it is on fire while you dream it is on fire.

There's a difference that I think counters your analogy. A housefire is an event external to your consciousness. Both memories and dreams are within your consciousness, however. The state of being asleep and dreaming is not a nullification of all aspects of the conscious self -- both in terms of a dream's contents (i.e. you always know who you are in a dream) and in terms of the neurological process. I don't see why we'd draw a distinction between a memory experienced during consciousness versus one experienced during dreaming, except insofar as your state of consciousness modulates how you apprehend and process a given memory.

The memory in all likelihood, insofar as we can know about these things, is the same content coming from the same real life experience, and it's neurologically the exact same phenomenon. Memory is not ONLY an experience. The experiential element of it is all we can say differs.

Nothing that happens in dreams is true.