Comments on: Guodian Laozi 甲:1: original or altered?

By: baopu

baopu — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 01:45:30 +0000

The simplified answer is that it is the oldest version, and perhaps closer to the original wording.

By: wes

wes — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 18:07:26 +0000

What is the simplified answer as to why the Guodian find is an important version?

By: baopu

baopu — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 18:30:57 +0000

Hi jiaxiang,

When I have a moment, I’ll try to read Giles article. Alot has transpired in the past 125 years since he wrote that. In the meantime, you might be interested in reading a “biography” on Laozi I wrote a few years ago and published at the China History Forum:
http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/index.php?showtopic=25025&st=0&p=4936661&#entry4936661

(You might have to scroll on the page to find it.)

By: jiaxiang

jiaxiang — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 13:23:59 +0000

A few references for you regarding H. Giles’ thoughts on the Daode Jing:

http://sunzi1.lib.hku.hk/hkjo/view/26/2601733.pdf

http://sunzi1.lib.hku.hk/hkjo/view/26/2601757.pdf

Argh! Sorry about that! I think I’ve mixed up the newly discovered cosmological text (太一生水) with the Daode Jing. (I’m still waiting for my Guodian Laozi monograph report, so I’ll shut up until I get that and absorb it.)

Do you think the Guodian discoveries would have changed his opinion? Why or why not?

Thanks!

By: baopu

baopu — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 14:23:54 +0000

hello jiaxiang,

There is no lost/new chapter. I’m not sure what you’re referring to.

I am not familiar with Giles’ theory about the Laozi being a forgery, but the Mawangdui and Guodian finds prove him wrong. Unless Giles meant that the Laozi we have today was not written by Lao Dan of the 6th century BCE. Most scholars in the West still do not place much credence in that story. Even Sima Qian didn’t know if it was true.

By: jiaxiang

jiaxiang — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 14:01:32 +0000

While I’m still waiting for my copy of the Guodian Laozi monograph report, there was mention of the “lost” chapter. I think the fact that a completely new chapter was “discovered” makes the entire document suspect. How could an entire chapter of a text be lost and then not lead someone to question if the “new” chapter was genuine and then, subsequently, whether or not the entire find is a fraud??

(Giles wrote at length with evidences that the Dao De Jing / Laozi text itself was a forgery.)

What are your thoughts on whether or not the Dao De Jing itself is a forgery?