DDJ Ch. 70-81 a later addition?

[Cobie]

Some think Lao Tzu  was essentially summarising the collected wisdom of the previous few thousand years. Then the DDJ was edited by various sages. Chapters 70–81 of the DDJ were not yet composed at the time the Guodian slips were copied. The DDJ was finally declared 'finished' and definitive with the Wang Bi of about 1800 years ago (the received text).

 

[Sahaja]

I am curious if there are any commentaries on Laozi that don’t mix Confucianism into it. Mixing traditions adds coloring that has some obscuring effect. 
 

I wonder if there were any Daoists that reinterpreted Analects from a Daoist (Laozi, Zhuang xi , Liezi) philosophical  perspective. it might be interesting to see the coloring the other way. 

[Taoist Texts]

On 8/31/2024 at 1:29 AM, Cobie said:

. Chapters 70–81 of the DDJ were not yet composed at the time the Guodian slips were copied.

may be they were, just not included into GD

2 hours ago, Sahaja said:

I am curious if there are any commentaries on Laozi that don’t mix Confucianism into it

that would be buddhist commentary

https://www.academia.edu/26284677/Exploring_the_Common_Ground_Buddhist_Commentaries_on_the_Taoist_Classic_Laozi

and even those will probably have Conf undertones just by virtue of being chinese which equates being confucian

 

2 hours ago, Sahaja said:

I wonder if there were any Daoists that reinterpreted Analects from a Daoist (Laozi, Zhuang xi , Liezi) philosophical  perspective

There are stories about Conf in ZZ, so thats one interpretation. But such reinterping strictly Analects per se was not not possible since those Daoists and their perspective ended before the received Analects were put together.

(besides it is generally not recognized that Confucianism=Daoism. two sides of the same coin)

Edited September 4 by Taoist Texts

[Sahaja]

I realize Wang Bi made a valiant effort (emphasizing self so and wuwei) but still the two views are so different. Buddhism adds  coloring that seems similar to Confucianism’s coloring to me. I guess all we really have outside these three texts (maybe add in a fourth, Nei Yeh)  is Xuanxue. 

 

[Cobie]

36 minutes ago, Taoist Texts said:

may be …

palaeography.

[Taoist Texts]

27 minutes ago, Cobie said:

palaeography.

just one Guodian find is inconclusive

55 minutes ago, Sahaja said:

I guess all we really have outside these three texts (maybe add in a fourth, Nei Yeh)  is Xuanxue. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xiang'er         

[Cobie]

43 minutes ago, Taoist Texts said:

... one Guodian …

Paleography e.g. looks at the differences (e.g. in characters/style/contents) of all existing Ch.^s 70-81 with the rest of the chapters.

 

 

Edited September 4 by Cobie

[forestofclarity]

6 hours ago, Sahaja said:

any commentaries

 

Doesn't the Heshang commentary fit the bill? 

[dawei]

It doesn't mean they were not composed... we can only say they were not a part of what was found. 

 

Wang Bi, for all his youthful merits of contribution, was a confucian !

 

And Xiang'er (Celestial Masters) and HSG (practice oriented) commentaries are mentioned... but the earliest DDJ commentary was by a legalist !   

 

Everybody was trying to claim some land to grab here... 

 

 

[Sahaja]

Yes there is a famous Saiva scholar who said - absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.  Given what happened in 213BC (and again later) we have been given a great opportunity to exercise our abilities to develop creative plausible theories balanced with common sense. The likely reason we even have these tomb texts to study today  is because  Emperor  Qin apparently  didn’t think to check closed tombs for more books to burn.