Other Laozi Parallels in the Hanfeizi - Sino-Platonic Papers

Tae Hyun KIM, “Other Laozi Parallels in the Hanfeizi”
Sino-Platonic Papers, 199 (March 2010)
could also have been a potential source for the 5,000-word Laozi, and the complete exclusion of
the Taiyi Sheng Shui implies that there were diverse potential sources to be included in the later
text of the Laozi, and through several stages of compiling and revisions, a substantial number of
sources could have been lost, excluded, replaced, or incorporated in the establishment of the
Laozi. Interestingly, despite the relatively small number, compared to the Taiyi Sheng Shui, some
sentences quoted in the JL PL were also deleted or lost in a later process of text establishment, as
was all of the Taiyi Sheng Shui. 45
Secondly, what is to be paid attention to is that the date creation of the GD PL is not
unchallengeable. As the Guodian texts themselves do not give any clue for determining their date,
the estimation necessarily relies on the creation date of the Guodian first tomb from which the
documents were excavated. Unfortunately, the tomb did not offer up any clues either, and the
archaeologists of the GD had to estimate the date of the tomb creation indirectly by comparing
the remains of the tomb with those of another nearby tomb, which has a similar style and
appearance. 46 The Baoshan second tomb was employed to determine the date of the GD first
tomb, and, since the date of the BS had already been agreed to be the late stage of the middle
Warring States, the date of the GD first tomb and its documents was also understood as formed
around 300 B.C.E. Scholars generally and inevitably regard this estimation as acceptable. There
are critical opinions against this settled view, however. Sharply criticizing the premise that the
remains of Guodian and Baoshan were free from the influence of Qin cultural style, Wang
Baoxuan claims that after the fall of Ying 郢, the capital city of the Chu state, the culture was not
immediately and completely taken over by the Qin, and suggests that the date was not the late
45
Asano Yuichi concludes that there is a different understanding of Dao between the extant Laozi and the Taiyi
Sheng Shui. His explanation could justifiably offer a reason the Taiyi Sheng Shui was thoroughly excluded by the
compilers during the establishment of the Laozi. However, in order to analyze the difference, he presupposes the
earlier presence of the complete Laozi, and this seems not easy to defend with extant evidence. See Asano Yuichi 淺
野裕一, Kodai Chugoku no uchyulon 古代中國の宇宙論 (Tokyo: Iwanami, 2006), and Asano Yuichi 淺野裕一, ed.
2005, 287–292.
46 For information on the date estimation and methodology, see three papers by Li Boqian, Liu Zuxin, and Peng Hao
in Sarah Allan and Crispin Williams 2000, 9–37.
24