Dao de jing/Talk

< Dao de jing

HomePage | Recent changes | View source | Discuss this page | Page history | Log in |

Printable version | Disclaimers | Privacy policy

COMMENT: The historical existance of Lao Tzu in unconfirmed according to the Encyclopaedia Britannica. What is your source for the statement that the existence of Lao Tzu is historically confirmed? That the Tao Teh Ching is not the work of one man is generally accepted.

I'd suggest you simply make the change that you believe is necessary; this will save time, and if the author doesn't like it, he can always change it back (and then you could discuss the problem). Just my suggestion. -- Larry Sanger

COMMENT: There is no justification for any such categorical statement. To take but the matter of Ssu-ma Ch'ien, I quote:

 Even the 'biography of Lao Tzu' which may be found
 in the 'Historical Records' (Shih-chi) of Ssu-ma Ch'ien (second
 century B.C.) is not without its inconsistencies. This record 
 describes Lao Tzu as having been an archivist of the Court of 
 Chou, and further states that he is said to have 
 personally instructed Kung Fu Tzu (Confucius). (Which is
 inconsistent with other supposed information about Lao Tzu.)

Indeed, the author of the 'Historical Records' himself expresses doubt about the authenticity of the available information. Thus, although you may of course personally hold the opinion that Lao Tzu existed and the Tao Te Ching is the work of one man, it is altogether inappropriate to present these views as accepted fact.