hiepph reviewed Tao te ching by Laozi
Review of 'Tao te ching' on 'Goodreads'
4 stars
I reread once every year. There's always things to discover and reflect.
107 pages
English language
Published Jan. 4, 1989 by Vintage Books.
Tao te ching
by Laozi
4 stars
(60 reviews)
Taylor reviewed Tao te ching by Laozi
Review of 'Tao te ching' on 'Goodreads'
4 stars
One that can mean very little one day and a lot the next.
Reading it slowly over time helped my experience.
The majority was surprisingly tangible and useful advice.
Inky reviewed Tao te ching by Laozi (Equinox ;)
Review of 'Tao te ching' on 'GoodReads'
5 stars
Not as good as Stephen Mitchell’s translation, but it was insightful to read it alongside his book.
Mahdi reviewed Tao te ching by Laozi
Review of 'Tao te ching' on 'Goodreads'
نسخه‌ای که من مطالعه کردم ترجمه فارسی از روی ترجمه انگلیسی آقای استیون میچل بود که برداشتی ساده و امروزی از متن کتاب بود، که آقای فرشید قهرمانی زحمت ترجمه به فارسی رو کشیده بودند.
احساس میکنم شاید ۲۰ درصد از روح اثر بعد از دوباره ترجمه باقی مونده بود و نمیتونم بگم منظوری که به من منتقل شد خیلی نزدیک باشه با منظوری که نویسنده داشت.
دلیل اینکه به خوندن ادامه دادم همون ۲۰ درصد بود، کتاب پر از حرف‌های متناقضی است که به شکل عجیبی درست بنظر میان، پر از پندهای جالبی است که ارزش بازشنوی داره.
واقعا توصیه میکنم یک بار مطالعه کنید، وقت زیادی نمیبره
Ben E P reviewed Tao te ching by Laozi
Review of 'Tao te ching' on 'GoodReads'
3 stars
I found the intro and commentary to be indispensable here. I say that not to praise either, as I think Needleman could have kept the former brief and expanded the latter, but because the text itself is incredibly obtuse. To be honest, I'm still not sure what to take away from it, apart from the concept (found in spiritual and philosophical texts of all description) that one cannot know a thing without experiencing its inverse, and that those dichotomies, while convenient for communication, are emphasized to too great a degree.
I'm glad I read this--it's a short read, and I have a better reference point for Taoism than I did before--but I doubt I'll revisit the text itself much.
