======================================================================
=                            Tao_Te_Ching                            =
======================================================================

                            Introduction
======================================================================
The 'Tao Te Ching' or 'Dào Dé Jīng', () often 'Laozi' in Chinese and
scholarship, is an ancient Chinese classic text, becoming a
foundational work of Taoism. It is traditionally credited to the sage
Laozi, though with some several early versions recovered, the texts'
authorship and dates of composition and compilation are debated. The
oldest excavated portion dates to the late 4th century BCE. While
tradition places Laozi earlier, modern versions of the text could more
conservatively be estimated to date back to the late Warring States
period (475 - 221 BCE), not having been recovered that early.

The 'Tao Te Ching' is central to both philosophical and religious
Taoism, and has been highly influential on Chinese philosophy and
religious practice in general. It is generally taken as preceding the
'Zhuangzi', the other core Taoist text. Terminology originating within
the text has been reinterpreted and elaborated upon by Legalist
thinkers, Confucianists, and particularly Chinese Buddhists,
introduced to China significantly after the initial solidification of
Taoist thought. One of the most translated texts in world literature,
the text is well known in the West.


                               Title
======================================================================
In English, the title is commonly rendered 'Tao Te Ching', following
the Wade-Giles romanization, or as 'Daodejing', following pinyin. It
can be translated as 'The Classic of the Way and its Power', 'The Book
of the Tao and Its Virtue', 'The Book of the Way and of Virtue', 'The
Tao and its Characteristics', 'The Canon of Reason and Virtue', 'The
Classic Book of Integrity and the Way', or 'A Treatise on the
Principle and Its Action'.

Ancient Chinese books were commonly referenced by the name of their
real or supposed author, in this case the "Old Master", Laozi. As
such, the 'Tao Te Ching' is also sometimes called the 'Laozi',
especially in Chinese sources. The term dao-de itself was not used in
the time of Mencius; it emerges in the late Warring States period.

The title 'Tao Te Ching', designating the work's status as a classic,
was first applied during the reign of Emperor Jing of Han (157-141
BCE). Other titles for the work include the honorific 'Sutra of the
Way and Its Power' () and the descriptive 'Five Thousand Character
Classic' ().


                             Authorship
======================================================================
The 'Tao Te Ching' is traditionally ascribed to Laozi, whose
historical existence has been a matter of scholarly debate. His name,
which means "Old Master", has only fueled controversy on this issue.
Legends claim variously that Laozi was "born old" and that he lived
for 996 years, with 12 previous incarnations starting around the time
of the Three Sovereigns before the 13th as Laozi. Some scholars have
expressed doubts about Laozi's historicity.


The first biographical reference to Laozi is in the 'Records of the
Grand Historian', by Chinese historian Sima Qian (), which combines
three stories. In the first, Laozi was a contemporary of Confucius
(551-479 BCE). His surname was Li (), and his personal name was Er ()
or Dan (). He was an official in the imperial archives, and wrote a
book in two parts before departing to the West; at the request of the
keeper of the Han-ku Pass, Yinxi, Laozi composed the 'Tao Te Ching'.
In the second story, Laozi, also a contemporary of Confucius, was Lao
Laizi (), who wrote a book in 15 parts. Third, Laozi was the grand
historian and astrologer Lao Dan (), who lived during the reign of
Duke Xian of Qin ().

Feng Youlan believed the Tao te Ching was a late work, but did not
consider it a significant issue for tradition if the Tao te Ching
turned out to be a much later work than the traditional Laozi. He did
not believe the traditional account required Laozi to personally write
the book named for him, or that this would therefore void him having
been a real person.


Principal versions
====================
Among the many transmitted editions of the 'Tao Te Ching' text, the
three primary ones are named after early commentaries. The "Yan Zun
Version", which is only extant for the 'Te Ching', derives from a
commentary attributed to Han dynasty scholar Yan Zun (, ). The
"Heshang Gong" version is named after the legendary Heshang Gong
("legendary sage"), who supposedly lived during the reign of Emperor
Wen of Han (180-157 BCE). This commentary has a preface written by Ge
Xuan (164-244 CE), granduncle of Ge Hong, and scholarship dates this
version to . The origins of the "Wang Bi" version have greater
verification than either of the above. Wang Bi (226-249 CE) was a
Three Kingdoms-period philosopher and commentator on the 'Tao Te
Ching' and 'I Ching'.


Archaeologically recovered manuscripts
========================================
'Tao Te Ching' scholarship has advanced from archaeological
discoveries of manuscripts, some of which are older than any of the
received texts. Beginning in the 1920s and 1930s, Marc Aurel Stein and
others found thousands of scrolls in the Mogao Caves near Dunhuang.
They included more than 50 partial and complete manuscripts. Another
partial manuscript has the 'Xiang'er' commentary, which had previously
been lost.

In 1973, archaeologists discovered copies of early Chinese books,
known as the Mawangdui Silk Texts, in a tomb dated to 168 BCE. They
included two nearly complete copies of the text, referred to as Text A
() and Text B (), both of which reverse the traditional ordering and
put the 'Te Ching' section before the 'Tao Ching', which is why the
Henricks translation of them is named "Te-Tao Ching". Based on
calligraphic styles and imperial naming taboo avoidances, scholars
believe that Text A can be dated to about the first decade and Text B
to about the third decade of the 2nd century BCE.

In 1993, the oldest known version of the text, written on bamboo
slips, was found in a tomb near the town of Guodian () in Jingmen,
Hubei, and dated prior to 300 BCE. The Guodian Chu Slips comprise
around 800 slips of bamboo with a total of over 13,000 characters,
about 2,000 of which correspond with the 'Tao Te Ching.' Both the
Mawangdui and Guodian versions are generally consistent with the
received texts, excepting differences in chapter sequence and graphic
variants. Several recent 'Tao Te Ching' translations utilise these two
versions, sometimes with the verses reordered to synthesize the new
finds.


Structure and style
=====================
The 'Tao Te Ching' is a text of around 5,162 to 5,450 Chinese
characters in 81 brief chapters or sections (). There is some evidence
that the chapter divisions were later additions--for commentary, or as
aids to rote memorisation--and that the original text was more fluidly
organised. It has two parts, the 'Tao Ching' (; chapters 1-37) and the
'Te Ching' (; chapters 38-81), which may have been edited together
into the received text, possibly reversed from an original 'Te Tao
Ching'.

Contrasting with Confucianism, its general statements are free of
narration or reference to "any 'particular' persons, times, or
places." The written style is laconic, with few grammatical particles.
While the ideas are singular, the style is poetic, combining two major
strategies: short, declarative statements, and intentional
contradictions, encouraging varied, contradictory interpretations. The
first of these strategies creates memorable phrases, while the second
forces the reader to reconcile supposed contradictions.  With a
partial reconstruction of the pronunciation of Old Chinese spoken
during the 'Tao Te Ching's' composition, approximately three-quarters
rhymed in the original language.

The Chinese characters in the earliest versions were written in seal
script, while later versions were written in clerical script and
regular script styles.


                       Chronological theories
======================================================================
Although debated more in early scholarship, early modern scholars like
Feng Youlan and Herrlee G. Creel still considered the work a
compilation; Gu Jiegang believed it to have been written over three
centuries. Most modern scholarship holds the text to be a compilation,
as typical for long-form early Chinese texts. Discussing concepts of
names and realities, the early scholarship of Feng Youlan theorized
the school of names as preceding the work, and therefore, as opposed
to the tradition of an early dating, believed it came after Gongsun
Long or Hui Shi. But it does not demonstrate school of names influence
the way the 'Zhuangzi' does.

Derived of Sima Qian's perspective in the mid-early Han dynasty, the
term Daoist would typically bring Laozi and Zhuangzi to mind.
Alongside the Han Feizi, the Tao Te Ching was likely becoming more
influential than the Zhuangzi and Shen Buhai by Sima Qian's time, if
they were not already influential going back to the late Warring
States period. Sima Qian discusses them together, but names the
chapter "Biographies of Laozi and Han Fei". Though influencing the Han
Feizi and Huangdi Sijing, Shen Dao, associated with the Jixia Academy,
does not appear to maintain the influence of Shang Yang and Shen Buhai
going into the Han dynasty.

Earlier more influential, based on Shen Dao there were at least some
Laozi-like currents by the early mid Warring States period. Benjamin
I. Schwartz viewed Shen Dao as still naturalist but less "primitivist"
than Laozi, seeing high civilization as part of nature rather than
rejecting it. But if Shen Dao was influenced by 4th century bce Laozi
material, much of his other beliefs are still more archaic compared
with Laozi and Zhuangzi. He has less developed views of Dao, with a
view of human disposition as self-interested aligning more with
Zhuangzi. But he was more fatalist and did not believe human
disposition could change. The Zhuangzi and Tao te Ching both come to
believe mankind can change their dispositions.

Despite Shen Dao's early heyday, Guanzi currents would seem more
theoretically dominant among late Warring States period nobles. The
Huangdi Sijing has some few Shen Dao passages, but Guanzi passages are
most dominant in it. It has an introduction resembling the Tao te
Ching, but doesn't provide it as a source. It is easier to suggest a
modern Tao te Ching, with a more marked increase in influence, closer
to the end of Warring States period, with Laozi mentioned in the Lushi
Chunqiu, and commentaries in the Han Feizi.

Though scholar Pei Wang primarily treats the similarities and
differences of Laozi, the Huangdi Sijing and Han Feizi, at least in
review with Pei Wang, Yuri Pines 'Dao Companion to China's fa
tradition' has expressed openness to the "indebtedness" of early
Warring States thinkers like Shen Buhai to Laozi.


Huangdi Sijing
================
Compared with Laozi by Sima Qian, the Tao te Ching would traditionally
be taken as preceding Shen Buhai. Questioning their chronology, Creel
proposed that Shen Buhai may have preceded it as well, but Shen Buhai
does bear a "striking" resemblance to Laozi. Though not enough to
eliminate a late dating, discovery of the early Mawangdui silk texts
and Guodian Chu Slips again made a dating before the third-century BCE
at least more probable.

Included in the Mawangdui tomb with ten similar passages, Yates did
treat the Huangdi Sijing as quoting from the Tao te Ching even though
the it doesn't provide it as a source. The Sijing can contribute to
debate for an early Tao te Ching. Admittedly, Yates considered the
Sijing a late compilation, but does have earlier material like Shen
Dao, increasing the theoretical likelihood of prominent Laozi and
similar currents dating back to the late Warring States period if not
earlier.

Leo S Chang 'theorized' potential Laozi influences for the Sijing,
with some passages similar to the Zhuangzi. It's introduction
resembles the Tao te Ching. But it does not actually quote the Tao te
Ching. As Chang notes, there are "no lengthy parallel expressions
between" the Sijing and Laozi, and Guanzi passages are dominant. The
Sijing has similar ideas to Laozi of strategically "assuming feminine
conduct", but the ruler switches to an active posture at "the right
moment", countervailing against Laozi's passivity. In Laozi, the Dao
gives birth to the One; in the Sijing, they are the same. Laozi
disparages law; the Sijing's law 'derives from Dao'.


Before Zhuangzi
=================
Linguistic studies of the 'Tao Te Ching's' vocabulary and rime scheme
point to a date of composition after the early 'Classic of Poetry' (or
Book of Songs), but before the 'Zhuangzi', and would generally be
taken as preceding the 'Zhuangzi'. This is the traditional "before
Zhuangzi" theory. Although the Book of Songs is a diverse work, they
do not bear any 'especial' resemblance. Xiagan Liu argued that the Tao
Te Ching's poetic structure resembles the Book of Songs more than the
later, Warring States period Songs of Chu.

Upholding the traditional early dating of Sima Qian, Sinologist
Xiaogan Liu (Dao Companion series) criticized late theories as based
in negative rather than positive evidence, and the idea that Laozi
could be contemporary with later parts of the Zhuangzi, which refer to
him as "Great True man of Ancient Time". Not considering Laozi an
exceedingly difficult text, he moreover questions why the Han Feizi
would feel the need to annotate Laozi if it's author was contemporary
to him.

As one suggestion the work is an ancient text, ancient texts are
arguably divided in two parts. The Mawangdui versions divide the text
in two parts, and one version also didn't have chapters yet. When the
Tao te Ching did get chapters, they weren't given titles. Alongside
the Huangdi Sijing, late Warring States texts Xunzi and Han Feizi are
the first to give titles to chapters. While the Han Feizi is Laozi's
first preserved commentary, Laozi was naturalist, adapting to nature.
The late Xun Kuang and Han Feizi enter into the philosophical age of
trying to control nature.

As another criticism of late theories for the work, although the
earliest recovered versions are from late in the range of possible
dating, their language is already "coherent and natural". Benjamin I.
Schwartz considered the Tao Te Ching remarkably unified by the time of
the Mawangdui, even if these versions swap the two halves of the text.
While the Han Feizi itself may not the most effective example of
Daoistic 'syncretism', translator W.K. Liao considered the Han Feizi's
Chapter 20 "Commentaries on Lao Tzŭ's Teachings" academically
thorough.


After Zhuangzi
================
The late Warring States period Han Feizi includes the Tao te Ching's
earliest known commentaries. As A.C. Graham argued, the Han Feizi does
make a "sustained effort" to use the Tao te Ching, but is not the most
effective example of Daoistic 'syncretism', and is limited to a few
chapters. Its Laozi arguments had likely not been around long, or it
would likely have tried to use it better and more comprehensively. Its
"Interpreting Laozi" is again comparable with the Guanzi.

Essentially Graham's dating, the Stanford Encyclopedia (Laozi)
supposes compilation of the 'current' text as dating back to the late
Warring States period circa 250 BCE, drawing on a wide range of
versions further dating back a century or two. Termed the "After
Zhuangzi" theory, representative of Ch'ien Mu and Graham, a lack of
early references contributes to Graham's late dating. While the
Zhuangzi is the first 'reference' for the Tao Te Ching, its Inner
Chapters do not demonstrate familiarity with it. Thus, an early
stratum representative of the 'Zhuangzi's' core Inner Chapters may
have preceded it.

As argued by Creel, as a work which includes discussion of government,
the 'Tao te Chings more governmentally complex ideas of Dao or wu wei
could well be expected to come after some early ideas of them
represented in the Zhuangzi, which didn't as much involve government.
The Analects have wu wei as an idea of government, but one of virtue,
not a technique of governmental control like the 'Tao te Ching'.

Discussed in the Outer 'Zhuangzi's' after Mozi but before Laozi and
Zhuangzi, Shen Dao shares content with the Inner 'Zhuangzi', and can
also be directly compared with the Tao Te Ching. Less technically
complex than Shen Buhai, while Shen Dao's current probably does not go
back to the Spring and Autumn period, some such content could
reasonably precede his figure, back to the early fourth century BCE.

Sinologist Xiaogan Liu did not regard the Zhuangzi's placement of
Laozi chronological, with Laozi "already reaching the ultimate"
anciently before Zhuangzi; nor did Sinologist Chad Hansen the consider
Outer 'Zhuangzi' entirely accurate chronologically. But it is
plausibly chronological, and Hansen positioned Shen Dao under
"Pre-Laozi Daoist Theory" for the theoretical framework of the
Stanford Encyclopedia of Daoism's 2024 edition (2025 defines Daoism
more philosophically). With Shen Dao being comparable, his time could
theoretically form a grounding for its development, or 'might' have
been finished by his time, if the Zhuangzi's (and other) indications
are not chronologically accurate.


                            Translation
======================================================================
The 'Tao Te Ching' has been translated into Western languages over 250
times, mostly to English, German, and French. According to Holmes
Welch, "It is a famous puzzle which everyone would like to feel he had
solved." The first English translation of the 'Tao Te Ching' was
produced in 1868 by the Scottish Protestant missionary John Chalmers,
entitled 'The Speculations on Metaphysics, Polity, and Morality of the
"Old Philosopher" Lau-tsze'. It was heavily indebted to Julien's
French translation and dedicated to James Legge, who later produced
his own translation for Oxford's 'Sacred Books of the East'.

Other notable English translations of the 'Tao Te Ching' are those
produced by Chinese scholars and teachers: a 1948 translation by
linguist Lin Yutang, a 1961 translation by author John Ching Hsiung
Wu, a 1963 translation by sinologist Din Cheuk Lau, another 1963
translation by professor Wing-tsit Chan, and a 1972 translation by
Taoist teacher Gia-Fu Feng together with his wife Jane English.

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 claim that their translators 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. Other Taoism scholars, such as Michael LaFargue and
Jonathan Herman, argue that while they do not pretend to scholarship,
they meet a real spiritual need in the West. These Westernized
versions aim to make the wisdom of the Tao Te Ching more accessible to
modern English-speaking readers by, typically, employing more familiar
cultural and temporal references.


Challenges in translation
===========================
The 'Tao Te Ching' is written in Classical Chinese, which generally
poses a number of challenges for interpreters and translators. As
Holmes Welch notes, the written language "has no active or passive, no
singular or plural, no case, no person, no tense, no mood." Moreover,
the received text lacks many grammatical particles which are preserved
in the older Mawangdui and Beida texts, which permit the text to be
more precise. Lastly, many passages of the 'Tao Te Ching' are
deliberately ambiguous.

Since there is very little punctuation in Classical Chinese,
determining the precise boundaries between words and sentences is not
always trivial. Deciding where these phrasal boundaries are must be
done by the interpreter. Some translators have argued that the
received text is so corrupted due to its original medium being bamboo
strips linked with silk threads--that it is impossible to understand
some passages without some transposition of characters.


Notable translations
======================
*
*
*
* .
*
*
* .
*
*  '(Based on rectified and rearranged Chinese text, divide into 180
verses/stanzas)'
*
*
*
*
* Houang, François and Leyris, Pierre (1979), 'La Voie et sa vertu:
Tao-tê-king' (in French), Paris: Éditions du Seuil
* .
*
*
* .
*
* Addiss, Stephen and Lombardo, Stanley (1991) 'Tao Te Ching,'
Indianapolis/Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Company.
* Ursula K. Le Guin .
* David Hinton, .
* Chad Hansen, 'Laozi: Tao Te Ching on The Art of Harmony,' Duncan
Baird Publications, 2009
* Red Pine,
* Sinedino, Giorgio (2015), 'Dao De Jing' (in Portuguese), São Paulo:
Editora Unesp


                              See also
======================================================================
* Bogar
* Ecclesiastes
* 'Huahujing'
* 'Huainanzi'
* 'Huangdi Yinfujing'
* 'Qingjing Jing'
* 'Sanhuangjing'
* Straw dog
* 'Taiping Jing'
* 'Xishengjing'
* Four Books and Five Classics


Sources
=========
*
*
* .
* .
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
**
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
**
*
*
*
*
**
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*


                           External links
======================================================================
*
**
**
*
*
* [http://www.yellowbridge.com/onlinelit/daodejing.php Legge, Suzuki,
and Goddard's translations side-by-side, along with the original text]


License
=========
All content on Gopherpedia comes from Wikipedia, and is licensed under CC-BY-SA
License URL: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
Original Article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tao_Te_Ching

You are viewing proxied material from gopherpedia.com. The copyright of proxied material belongs to its original authors. Any comments or complaints in relation to proxied material should be directed to the original authors of the content concerned. Please see the disclaimer for more details.