Lie and interpretations!

I wrote at the time why she could by no means be considered as such but a single argument will suffice here: Stephen Mitchell admits he does not speak Chinese! Given the polysemic nature of Chinese characters, how can we seriously consider a translation without addressing a minimum of the characters?

The vision of Stephen Mitchell is so light years of the depth of the original text. One example: in Section 3, Mitchell moved "The Master leads by emptying people's minds and filling their heart". Against obvious sense since the original text says the opposite: "Empty the mind / heart but fill their bellies." The Chinese have in fact one character to signify heart, thoughts, feelings, intentions, etc ...

So obviously, it is more poetic than fill the heart to empty and Americans have probably not need to "fill their belly" but by multiplying such facilities, Mitchell offers a version that is what Taoism that McDonalds is to fine dining.

In short, an understandable release (since it is not the Tao of Lao Zi but that of Mitchell) but humbug given the number of more serious translations (Marcel Conche Catherine Despeux, Jean Levi, Henning Strom) that have been published recently.

Sincerely,