Other Laozi Parallels in the Hanfeizi - Sino-Platonic Papers

Tae Hyun KIM, “Other Laozi Parallels in the Hanfeizi”
Sino-Platonic Papers, 199 (March 2010)
as the Laozi, based on extant evidence, arranging them consecutively, finding comparable
sections in the MWD and GD, grouping the quotations according to the given sections by other
editions, and numbering the groups. Regarding this reconstruction, I refer to two potentially
arguable points: First, since it is done for convenient comparison and easy understanding of their
differences, this numbering of the JYL PL does not aim to substantialize the section division of
received Laozi text. No chapter, whether JL or YL, provides sufficient grounds to be sure that
their quotations were substantially divided. Interestingly, MWD A De and Dao PL do not show
that they could not be completely divided by sections. Nevertheless, since I actually attempt to
reconstruct and give numbers to the quotation groups, it may cause or strengthen some
misunderstandings that the text that we have recognized as the Laozi in the late Warring States
period was already divided, or that, more importantly, the sentences that were originally distinct
could be believed to be grouped as one with a single meaning through this reconstruction based
on the given sections. The latter point is important enough to discuss in more detail. 66 Being
carefully aware of these limitations, I emphasize that one cannot find any clue to determine that
the quoted Laozi PL of the JYL was divided by sections or chapters.
Second, in order to avoid unnecessary dispute, I consider conservatively the matter of the
sentences in the JYL as quotations from an ancient Laozi PL, and I exclude the sentences that
may be understood as repeated references to the original text. Let me take the example of Jie Lao
1. The text of the Jie Lao says, “Thus [it = the book] says ‘obeying orders was intended as
simplicity’ 禮薄也.” Since this statement obviously indicates by the signal characters ‘thus… (it)
says’ (guyue 故曰) that the saying was quoted from an early Laozi PL, it could justifiably be
suggested that the saying was included in the author’s edition, even though the extant editions do
not have it any more. 67 Nevertheless, taking a conservative view, I excluded it from the original
66 In fact, in a discussion of Jie Lao 5 (see 3-2-1 and its footnotes), I examine a possible problem, mentioning Ning
Zhenjiang’s suggestion.
67
It seems difficult to determine definitely what an abridged and extremely simple statement, like this sentence, 禮
薄也, was for in the JYL text and in the original text quoted by the authors of JYL. Rigorously speaking, it seems
not impossible for such a statement to be included in the original text, and even justifiable to guess that the sentence
in the extant Laozi, 夫禮者, 忠信之薄也, which I number as JL 1-9, could have been an expanded explanation of
34