老子「德經ㄧ」第三十八章 中英文互解

「德經ㄧ」

此章為「德經」第一章,特別重要,原因有二: 1. 老子的「道德經」,其實是「德經」在前,「道經」在後,因而真正的順序,這是「道德經」的第一篇。

開宗明義,此章將幾個概念做了層次上的區分,讓讀者瞭解,老子認為這些概念的高下,作為他思想的主軸。圍繞在最高境界的「道」周圍,老子從這裡開始闡述ㄧ個「失道」的世界,人們該如何看待「德」,「仁」,「義」,「禮」,他們的層次高低如何。

英文版本有三,並都是以普及的王弼版為翻譯對象。

 

 
「三十八章」

上德不德,是以有德;下德不失德,是以無德。上德無為而無以為;下德為之而有以為。上仁為之而無以為;上義為之而有以為。上禮為之而莫之應,則攘臂而扔之。故失道而後德,失德而後仁,失仁而後義,失義而後禮。夫禮者,忠信之薄,而亂之首。前識者,道之華,而愚之始。是以大丈夫處其厚,不居其薄;處其實,不居其華。故去彼取此。(王弼版)

「德」,三個英文版的翻譯都不同,分別為:
Virtue  2. Harmony  3. The attributes (of the Dao)

英文版三,是我認為最囉唆,卻也最詳實解釋老子的版本,於此,它特別解釋了「德」=「道」的性質(屬性),但如此即避開了以ㄧ個簡單的英文單字翻譯「德」,實在令人生厭。

反觀Virtue就乾脆多了,意即德行,美德。
再看 Harmony,意即和諧,融洽。

「上德不德,是以有德;下德不失德,是以無德」

這第一句對中國人而言,其實已經讀得很吃力,坦白說,就是看不懂。那麼英文版如何解釋呢?
英版ㄧ:

True virtue is not virtuous
Therefore it has virtue.
Superficial virtue never fails to be virtuous
Therefore it has no virtue.

真正的美德,不是有品德或善良的,因此,才能稱為美德。
膚淺的美德,不遺餘力地去符合善良與品德的標準,所以,不是真美德。

我想信老外讀這段,也是疑惑滿腹。

英版二:

Harmony does not care for harmony, and so is naturally attained;
But ritual is intent upon harmony, and so can not attain it

其實沒敢翻譯第一句,而是從「禮」的角度,來解釋「德」。

真正的和諧,是沒有達到和諧意圖的,因為沒有刻意,所以才是真和諧。反觀「禮」,是有達到和諧意圖的,所以反而不能達到真和諧的目的。

同樣,老外讀得也是ㄧ頭霧水吧。只好往下讀,看能不能理解。

英版三.

(Those who) possessed in highest degree the attributes (of the Dao) did not (seek) to show them, and therefore they possessed them (in fullest measure). (Those who) possessed in a lower degree those attributes (sought how) not to lose them, and therefore they did not possess them (in fullest measure).

這就囉唆了,但比較認真解釋。

最高境界的「德」(道的性質),是無意展示德行的,因而才能真正融入「德」的境界。低層次的「德」,小心翼翼地務求符合「德」的要求,反而無法進入「德」的境界。

以下是我的解釋:

真正的「德」,不會刻意去迎合任何標準,而有意圖給「德」定下準則,那只是表面而膚淺的「德」,反而不是真「德」。

是不是,其實很簡單呢?

所以你若讀那些中翻中的解釋,往往霧裡看花,其實不是真懂,有時看中翻英,反而容易理解,英譯其實一點也不深奧。而我認為老子原來的思想,正是簡單易懂的,我們之所以覺得它深奧,都是後人錦上添花,加油添醋的結果。

上德無為而無以為;下德為之而有以為。上仁為之而無以為;上義為之而有以為。上禮為之而莫之應,則攘臂而扔之。

這一段也是挺不好理解,而且歷來有著不同的解釋,為什麼能?因為我們其實將太多的意涵灌入「無為」這詞了。

英版ㄧ

True virtue does not “act"
And has no intentions.
Superficial virtue “acts"
And always has intentions.
True jen “acts"
But has no intentions.
True righteousness “acts"
But but has intentions.
True propriety “acts" and if you don’t respond
,they will roll up their sleeves and threaten you.

真正的美德,既沒有具體行動,也沒有意圖。膚淺的美德總是有所行動,以及意圖。
真正的「仁」,是在沒有任何意圖下的自然行動。
真正的公義,是有意圖下的行動。
真正的禮節,不但要求要有所行動,而且如果你不回應不行動,它會捲起袖子恫嚇你。

這是相當接近又簡單的解釋。

「無為」= does not “act" = 不作為
「無以為」= has no intentions = 沒有意圖
「仁」= Jen (不敢翻,純音譯)
「義」= righteousness =正義,公平
「禮」= propriety = 禮節

英版二

Harmony neither acts nor reasons;
Love acts, but without reason;
Justice acts to serve reason;
But ritual acts to enforce reason.

和諧,既沒有行動,也沒有目的
愛,有行動但沒有目的
正義,為了目的而行動
禮儀,強迫執行達到目的的行動

超簡單解釋,只是以「仁」為「愛」,有點彆扭。

「無為」= 不解釋
「無以為」= 不解釋
「無為」+「無以為」= neither acts nor reasons
「仁」= Love = 愛
「義」= Justice =正義
「禮」= Ritual = 禮儀

英版三

(Those who) possessed in the highest degree those attributes did nothing (with a purpose), and had no need to do anything.(Those who) possessed them in a lower degree were (always) doing, and had need to be so doing.
(Those who) possessed the highest benevolence were (always seeking) to carry it out, and had no need to be doing so. (Those who) possessed the highest righteousness were (always seeking) to carry it out, and had need to be so doing.
(Those who) possessed the highest (sense of) propriety were (always seeking) to show it, and when men did not respond to it, they bared the arm and marched up to them.

最高境界的「德」,不為任何目的而有所行動,而且也沒有行動的需要。
膚淺表面的「德」,總是有所行動,而且需要行動。
最高境界的慈悲,總是以行動實現,但不需要刻意行動。
最高境界的正義,總是以行動實現,而且需要刻意的行動。
最高境界的禮節,總是刻意於行動中展現,而如果有人不這麼做,它會露出臂膀恫嚇他。

婆婆媽媽,囉囉唆唆。

「無為」= did nothing (with a purpose) = 無所作為
「無以為」= had no need to do anything = 沒有行動的需要
「仁」= Benevolence = 慈悲,善行
「義」= Righteousness =正義,公平
「禮」= Propriety = 禮節

以下是我的解釋:

真正的「德」,沒有行動,因為沒有被刻意標舉的行為準則。膚淺表面的「德」,是有行為標準下的行動。真正的「仁」,是沒有行為準則,而發乎人性善念的行動。真正的「義」,是依據行為準則所展開的行動。「禮」,是製定強迫性的行為準則,並要求人們依此行動,否則會被懲罰。

「故失道而後德,失德而後仁,失仁而後義,失義而後禮。夫禮者,忠信之薄,而亂之首。」

這一段淺白易懂也最重要,「禮」之產生乃因人類社會已朵落到要用「禮」明文規範。

英版ㄧ.

Thus, when the Tao is lost there is virtue
When virtue is lost there is jen
When jen is lost there is Justice
And when Justice is lost there is propriety.

英版二.

When the Way is lost, there remains harmony;
When harmony is lost, there remains love;
When love is lost, there remains justice;
But when justice is lost, there remains ritual.

英版三.

Thus it was that when the Dao was lost, its attributes appeared; when its attributes were lost, benevolence appeared; when benevolence was lost, righteousness appeared; and when righteousness was lost, the proprieties appeared.

三種英文版以三種不同的文辭處理這等而下之的過程:
There is  =「有」,不做過多聯想
There remains  = 剩餘
Appeared = 「出現」

以3 為較準確的翻譯。

以下是我的解釋:

「德」的產生是因應「道」的消逝,「仁」的產生是因應「德」的消逝,「義」的產生是因應「仁」的消逝,「禮」的產生是因應「義」的消逝。

「前識者,道之華,而愚之始。是以大丈夫處其厚,不居其薄;處其實,不居其華。故去彼取此。」

最後一句較為難解的是「前識者」與 「道之華」

英版ㄧ.

Now “propriety" is the external appearance of loyalty and sincerity
And the beginning of disorder.

Occult abilities are just flowers of the Tao
And the beginning of foolishness.

Therefore the Master dwells in the substantial
And not in the superficial.
Rests in the fruit and not in the flower.

So let go of that and grasp this.

禮節是忠貞與誠實的外在表現,也是混亂的開始。神秘的能力只是「道」之花,也只是愚昧的開始。因此,高人懂得處於事物的本質中,而非其表象,並棲息於果實而非棲息於花,故有所取捨。

前識者= Occult abilities = 神秘的能力
道之華= Flowers of the Tao = 道之花

英版二.

Ritual is the end of compassion and honesty,
The beginning of confusion;
Belief is a colourful hope or fear,
The beginning of folly.

The sage goes by harmony, not by hope;
He dwells in the fruit, not the flower;
He accepts substance, and ignores abstraction.

禮儀是同情心(同理心)與誠實的結束,混亂的開始。信念是華美的期望或恐懼,以及愚昧的開始。哲人遵循的途徑是和諧,而非期望,棲息於果實而非棲息於花,重實質而無視抽象的表面。

前識者= 閃過不譯
道之華= a colourful hope or fear = 華美的期望或恐懼

英版三

Now propriety is the attenuated form of leal-heartedness and good faith, and is also the commencement of disorder; swift apprehension is (only) a flower of the Dao, and is the beginning of stupidity.

Thus it is that the Great man abides by what is solid, and eschews what is flimsy; dwells with the fruit and not with the flower. It is thus that he puts away the one and makes choice of the other.

禮節是誠實之心與信仰淡薄後的產物,也是混亂的開始。迅速的憂慮只是道之花,也是愚蠢的開始。所以偉大的人只走堅實路線,避開薄弱路線,取果捨花,也就是有所取捨。

前識者= 閃過不譯
道之華= A flower of the Dao = 道之花

我不明白這裏為什麼要放 swift apprehension,看不懂。

以下是我的解釋:

規範人的禮儀,是膚淺的「道」,也最愚昧的事,所以大丈夫篤實而不做表面功夫。

「前識者」其實難考,並有多種說法,如有先見者,胡亂預測者,或預設禮儀規範。我認為承接上文,最後應是以批判「禮」為結論,因而「前識者」離不開「禮」。
「道之華」,ㄧ般解為「虛華」之意,而非「花」的借字。

由於「厚」,「薄」,「實」,「華」都是解釋度很大的詞語,因而很難翻成英文。不過只要承接上文的意思,厚實與薄華只需要看做「核心」與「邊緣」,或「篤實」與「虛華」的對比即可。

總結:
這一章主要就在批判「禮」,老子認為當人類社會需要「禮」來指導人的行為時,就已是非常墮落的狀態。從更高的角度看,老子批判ㄧ切「形式化」與「刻意」的事物,「無為」才是原始人類社會的原貌,而從失「道」,失「德」,失「仁」,到失「義」,一個以「禮」為尊的社會,整個過程就是社會墮落史。人們在此過程裡不斷建立起ㄧ個ㄧ個的規範,樹立ㄧ道ㄧ道的高牆,緊縛人的心靈,阻絕並疏離人們。而透過價值觀建造的禮儀,禮節,其實得不到人的真心信仰,最後淪偽善的社會。

以下是帛書老子,比王弼版更接近老子原意:

上德不德,是以有德;下德不失德,是以無德。上德無為而無以為也。上仁為之而無以為也;上義為之而有以為也。上禮為之而莫之應也,則攘臂而扔之。故失道而後德,失德而後仁,失仁而後義,失義而後禮。夫禮者,忠信之薄,而亂之首。前識者,道之華也,而愚之首也。是以大丈夫居其厚,不居其薄;居其實,不居其華。故去彼而取此。

真正的「德」,不會刻意去迎合任何標準。而有意圖給「德」定下準則,那只是表面而膚淺的「德」,反而不是真「德」。

真正的「德」,沒有行動,因為沒有被刻意標舉的行為準則。真正的「仁」,是沒有行為準則,而發乎人性善念的行動。真正的「義」,是依據行為準則所展開的行動。「禮」,是製定強迫性的行為準則,並要求人們依此行動,否則會被懲罰。

「德」的產生是因應「道」的消逝,「仁」的產生是因應「德」的消逝,「義」的產生是因應「仁」的消逝,「禮」的產生是因應「義」的消逝。

規範人的禮儀,是膚淺的「道」,也最愚昧的事,所以大丈夫篤實而不做表面功夫。

也就不會流於偽善。

以下三種英文版原文:

True virtue is not virtuous
Therefore it has virtue.
Superficial virtue never fails to be virtuous
Therefore it has no virtue.

True virtue does not “act"
And has no intentions.
Superficial virtue “acts"
And always has intentions.
True jen “acts"
But has no intentions.
True righteousness “acts"
But but has intentions.
True propriety “acts" and if you don’t respond

They will roll up their sleeves and threaten you.

Thus, when the Tao is lost there is virtue
When virtue is lost there is jen
When jen is lost there is Justice
And when Justice is lost there is propriety.

Now “propriety" is the external appearance of loyalty and sincerity
And the beginning of disorder.

Occult abilities are just flowers of the Tao
And the beginning of foolishness.

Therefore the Master dwells in the substantial
And not in the superficial.
Rests in the fruit and not in the flower.

So let go of that and grasp this.

Ritual

Well established hierarchies are not easily uprooted;
Closely held beliefs are not easily released;
So ritual enthralls generation after generation.
Harmony does not care for harmony, and so is naturally attained;
But ritual is intent upon harmony, and so can not attain it.

Harmony neither acts nor reasons;
Love acts, but without reason;
Justice acts to serve reason;
But ritual acts to enforce reason.

When the Way is lost, there remains harmony;
When harmony is lost, there remains love;
When love is lost, there remains justice;
But when justice is lost, there remains ritual.

Ritual is the end of compassion and honesty,
The beginning of confusion;
Belief is a colourful hope or fear,
The beginning of folly.

The sage goes by harmony, not by hope;
He dwells in the fruit, not the flower;
He accepts substance, and ignores abstraction.

(About the attributes of the Dao)
(Those who) possessed in highest degree the attributes (of the Dao) did not (seek) to show them, and therefore they possessed them (in fullest measure). (Those who) possessed in a lower degree those attributes (sought how) not to lose them, and therefore they did not possess them (in fullest measure).
(Those who) possessed in the highest degree those attributes did nothing (with a purpose), and had no need to do anything. (Those who) possessed them in a lower degree were (always) doing, and had need to be so doing.
(Those who) possessed the highest benevolence were (always seeking) to carry it out, and had no need to be doing so. (Those who) possessed the highest righteousness were (always seeking) to carry it out, and had need to be so doing.
(Those who) possessed the highest (sense of) propriety were (always seeking) to show it, and when men did not respond to it, they bared the arm and marched up to them.
Thus it was that when the Dao was lost, its attributes appeared; when its attributes were lost, benevolence appeared; when benevolence was lost, righteousness appeared; and when righteousness was lost, the proprieties appeared.
Now propriety is the attenuated form of leal-heartedness and good faith, and is also the commencement of disorder; swift apprehension is (only) a flower of the Dao, and is the beginning of stupidity.
Thus it is that the Great man abides by what is solid, and eschews what is flimsy; dwells with the fruit and not with the flower. It is thus that he puts away the one and makes choice of the other.

 

 

雁默 2015.4.20

發表留言

Filed under 老子的老子

發表迴響

在下方填入你的資料或按右方圖示以社群網站登入:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / 變更 )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / 變更 )

Facebook照片

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / 變更 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / 變更 )

連結到 %s