Commentary on the Laozi · Zhouyi lüeli · Laozi zhilüe
Commentary on the Laozi · Zhouyi lüeli · Laozi zhilüe
Tradition: Wei-Jin Xuanxue / classical exegesis and the ground of being｜Main texts: Commentary on the Laozi (Laozi Daodejing zhu), Zhouyi lüeli; Laozi zhilüe (T2)
Core original-text marks｜凡有皆始於無。 / 道以無形無名始成萬物。 / 物無妄然，必由其理。 / 得意而忘象。 (“All that has being begins from non-being.” / “The Dao, being without form and without name, begins and completes the myriad things.” / “Things are never so at random; they must follow their principle.” / “Grasp the meaning and forget the image.”)
The core original-text marks are drawn from this archive’s main evidence; for sources, text levels and the limits of interpretation see the corresponding E cards. The marks serve only to identify the figure and cannot replace the evidence in the body.
Wang Bi does not treat “non-being” (wu) merely as a mysterious entity. His Commentary on the Laozi uses “being begins from non-being”, “following the self-so of things” and “honouring the root to still the branches” to account for the common ground of existence and of governance;
the Zhouyi lüeli, through the “one” that unifies the myriad changes and through the interpretive relation of word—image—meaning, stipulates how to return from complex text to its main purport. The two works deal respectively with substance—function and with interpretation—grasping meaning, and cannot without argument be regarded as one and the same structure of ultimate completion.
The current placement is ③ “Inquiring into the Ground” (B): the main task is not to take an already given ground and regulate phenomena with it (④), but actively to define how “non-being”, “the one” and “principle” serve as the ground and to explain the meaning of the classic’s words. The explanation of the myriad things and of politics is an application of this inquiry. “Grasp the meaning and forget the image” is the criterion of exegetical completion (B), but whether it becomes a necessary final relation of rightly cognizing the ground of existence remains C; the complete positive self-inclusion and the passing of the deletion test that ① requires have also not yet received double proof.
This archive keeps two sets of grades apart: T1—T4 measure a text’s date, authorial attribution, stability of transmission and representativeness;
A—D measure the strength of the judgment drawn from the text. A = the original text says it directly; B = a strong structural inference supported by several original passages; C = grounded, but with an equally reasonable alternative reading; D = an opposing stress test / a hypothesis awaiting verification. An A-grade original text only proves that “the text really says this”; it does not mean that a philosophical interpretation based on it is also A.
Direction marks: supports = supports the current six-position judgment; limits = shows a possible load or limit; disputed = there is a competing interpretation; neutral = does not for now form core classificatory evidence. Each item’s T level and interpretive grade are recorded separately; not addressed ≠ resolved; if cognition at the level of the path is a non-deletable condition of completion, it is still structural load.
T1: Wang Bi’s commentary in the received Commentary on the Laozi, together with the “Ming tuan” and “Ming xiang” chapters of the Zhouyi lüeli, are the core texts for Wang Bi’s thought. The text of the Laozi (the text commented on) is strictly distinguished from Wang Bi’s commentary (direct evidence of the author); the classic’s text itself may not be counted directly as Wang Bi’s independent claim.
T2: the Laozi zhilüe (Laozi weizhi lilüe) is traditionally attributed to Wang Bi; it is recorded relatively early in the Jingdian shiwen, and today survives in the Zhengtong Daozang edition and in excerpts in the Yunji qiqian. It can serve for mutual corroboration, but the collation notes and variants of the extant Daozang text have not been fully checked, and it cannot serve as a witness in Wang Bi’s own hand equivalent to T1.
T3: reports in historical biographies and later collected fragments whose attribution is still disputed. T4: Han Kangbo, Kong Yingda and later Xuanxue elaborations, none of which can prove anything on Wang Bi’s behalf in reverse. The Laozi text commented on is an earlier antecedent background text, not “later T4”, nor independent evidence for Wang Bi himself. No word-by-word collation of the old editions through the ages has been done.
Methodological limit: the six positions measure the functional mediation of the complete ultimate structure of a thought, not the greatness or historical influence of the thought. ① requires both positive internal placement of cognition and of the thought itself and the passing of the complete deletion test; ③ and ④ are judged by the main task of the thought, and not every position is forced into the cognitive test of ① / ②.
Once the myriad things are profuse, once what has form and name and the political institutions have unfolded, how can one understand and explain the ground that makes everything hold, without again making this ground into some limited thing with form? How do the classic’s text and the hexagram images embody their meaning, and how do they avoid clinging to the words and losing the meaning?
1. From the classic’s “being” and “non-being” to the commentator’s “all that has being begins from non-being”.
2. Through formlessness and namelessness, avoiding fixing the ground as some concrete shape or sound.
3. Through being / non-being, root / branches, mother / child, stipulating the origin and persistence of the world of forms.
4. Through non-action and following the self-so of things, bringing the ground back into politics and action.
5. Through “unifying them there is an ancestor” and “holding the one to govern the many”, explaining the organizing principle of the changes of the hexagrams.
6. Through “word—image—meaning” and “grasp the meaning and forget the image”, bringing writing and understanding into an interpretive procedure, while leaving the dispute over the cognitive function of “grasping the meaning”.
This archive states both textual reliability and the strength of structural judgment; the two sets of grades may not be exchanged. T1 = core, relatively early texts with relatively strong attribution and representativeness; T2 = texts whose transmission or authorial layer is still limited but which have important reference value, as well as qualified authorial self-commentary; T3 = texts with considerable dispute over attribution, date, edition or representativeness; T4 = later commentary or traditional development, not direct proof of the original author. A = the original text says it directly, B = a strong structural inference supported by several original passages, C = grounded but with an equally reasonable alternative reading, D = an opposing stress test or a hypothesis awaiting verification. An A-grade quotation does not automatically form an A-grade structural interpretation. Direction marks: supports = supports the current six-position judgment; limits = shows that something still bears load or may form a boundary;
disputed = the direction of the text is not unique; neutral = the text exists but does not for now decide the core deletion test. Each piece of evidence is read in its full context; an isolated sentence cannot stand in for the whole book.
Original text: 凡有皆始於無。All that has being begins from non-being.
Positive evidence: Wang Bi directly uses “non-being” to explain the beginning of all that has being; this is a strong account of the ground of existence.
Limits: This passage does not personify “non-being”, nor does it say the world comes into being only once someone realizes it.
Competing reading / what it does not prove: “Non-being” may also be a negative designation rather than an independently referable entity.
Original text: 道以無形無名始成萬物。The Dao, being without form and without name, begins and completes the myriad things.
Positive evidence: The source does not exist in an objectified or named way, and runs through both beginning and completion.
Limits: One may not infer directly from “without form” that no mediation of any kind exists.
Competing reading / what it does not prove: Whether “begins and completes” is a generative relation or a relation of grounding without temporal sequence needs to be clarified.
Original text: 故常無欲空虛，可以觀其始物之妙。Therefore, constantly without desire, empty and vacant, one can observe the subtlety with which things begin.
Positive evidence: Wang Bi links “emptiness” with observing the subtle, explaining the method of comprehending the ground.
Limits: “Can observe” does not declare that without right cognition there is no Dao.
Competing reading / what it does not prove: Is observing the subtle a load-bearing cognitive completion, or a way of reading / practice?
Original text: 自然已足，為則敗也。The self-so is already sufficient; to act on it is to ruin it.
Positive evidence: At the level of life / political function it rejects forcing, letting things be self-sufficient.
Limits: What is spoken of here is the condition of success or failure of action; it cannot serve directly as proof of self-inclusion for ①.
Competing reading / what it does not prove: “The self-so is sufficient” can be understood as a ① candidate, or as a norm derived from a ③ theory.
Original text: 有之以為利，無之以為用。Being is what makes things beneficial; non-being is what makes them useful.
Positive evidence: The classic’s text is used as the problem-background of Wang Bi’s commentary: benefit with form depends on function without form.
Limits: This sentence is the original text of the Laozi, and cannot serve as independent T1 evidence for Wang Bi’s direct claim.
Competing reading / what it does not prove: It should be read across with Wang Bi’s root / branches commentary and the Zhilüe, and bears no independent load.
Original text: 夫衆不能治衆，治衆者，至寡者也。The many cannot govern the many;
what governs the many is the utmost few.
Positive evidence: Wang Bi requires one to discern, among the many lines, what can unify the many, explaining an interpretive principle of unity.
Limits: “The one” cannot without argument be wholly identified with the “non-being” of the Commentary on the Laozi.
Competing reading / what it does not prove: The “one” that unifies the many can be a rule of interpretation, or can be expanded into an ontology.
Original text: 物无妄然，必由其理。統之有宗，會之有元。
Things are never so at random; they must follow their principle. Unifying them there is an ancestor; gathering them there is an origin.
Positive evidence: Diverse changes have reasons and structures that can be explained.
Limits: “Principle” as a condition of explanation is not the same as a final state that holds only once realized.
Competing reading / what it does not prove: Whether principle equals non-being, this archive does not presuppose.
Original text: 崇本以息末，守母以存子。Honour the root so as to still the branches; keep to the mother so as to preserve the child.
Positive evidence: Explaining the branches by the root and the persistence of the child by the mother is a concise self-commentary on the root–branch structure.
Limits: “Stilling the branches” should not be misread as the disappearance of the world of things.
Competing reading / what it does not prove: This can be a principle of governance / interpretation, not necessarily a hierarchy of metaphysical entities.
Original text: 無形無名者，萬物之宗也。That which is without form and without name is the ancestor of the myriad things.
Positive evidence: The “ancestor” is not a concrete image or name; it argues why the formless can unify the myriad phenomena.
Limits: Nominalizing the word “ancestor” is not substantializing it; but a single sentence cannot directly prove ① either.
Competing reading / what it does not prove: Whether the “ancestor” is a causal source of the world or a principle of explanation leaves room for interpretation.
Original text: 言之者失其常，名之者離其真。Those who speak it lose its constancy; those who name it depart from its truth.
Positive evidence: It sets up an explicit reflexive limit on its own philosophical language.
Limits: This is evidence of self-reflexivity; it does not directly and positively state an internal position in which the propounding of the thought is unified by non-being.
Competing reading / what it does not prove: Together with “Ming xiang” it can form a stronger candidate for self-inclusion.
Original text: 象者所以存意，得意而忘象。The image is that by which the meaning is preserved; grasp the meaning and forget the image.
Positive evidence: Once the meaning of the classic is reached, the image need no longer be held on to; the interpretive process takes “grasping the meaning” as its criterion.
Limits: One may not assert from “forgetting the image” that all cognitive functions have been deleted; nor may one judge ② at once because of “grasping the meaning”.
Competing reading / what it does not prove: Is the meaning the sense / purport of the classic, or a direct realization of the ground of existence? This must be combined with the structure of the two works.
Original text: 言者所以明象，得象而忘言。Words are that by which the image is made clear; grasp the image and forget the words.
Positive evidence: Words make the image clear and the image shows the meaning: the text explicitly assigns each its function in speech and understanding.
Limits: Speech is placed within a chain of interpretation; this is not yet proof that it is “one occurrence within the generation of all existence”.
Competing reading / what it does not prove: Self-inclusion has at least a local B grade; the overall condition remains C.
Original text: 存言者，非得象者也；存象者，非得意者也。One who keeps the words is not one who has grasped the image; one who keeps the image is not one who has grasped the meaning.
Positive evidence: Wang Bi explicitly opposes taking objects at the level of tools as ends in themselves.
Limits: What is opposed is holding on, not that images and words are wholly absent from the interpretive process.
Competing reading / what it does not prove: This relation shows that grasping the meaning is still the criterion of success, but its ultimate level remains to be judged.
Original text: 忘象以求其意，義斯見矣。Forget the image in order to seek its meaning, and the sense then appears.
Positive evidence: “Forgetting” is set beside “seeking the meaning”: removing attachment does not mean that understanding is unnecessary.
Limits: It still belongs to the field of interpreting the Changes, and cannot be pushed across texts to the claim that all existence must have its “sense appear”.
Competing reading / what it does not prove: Whether it can go beyond hermeneutics into ②: C.
Original text: 有之所始，以無為本。將欲全有，必反於無也。That from which being begins has non-being as its root. If one wishes to keep being whole, one must return to non-being.
Positive evidence: To preserve the world of forms one must return to its ground; the return is not limited to talking of emptiness and abandoning things.
Limits: One may not covertly substitute “return” with “cognition must complete an awakening”.
Competing reading / what it does not prove: “Return to non-being” can be political practice, ontological dependence or comprehension, and needs to be separated into layers.
Original text: 務欲反虛無也。It strives to return to empty non-being.
Positive evidence: Continually reducing contrivance is the concrete way of pursuing the Dao.
Limits: For the seeker of the Dao, cognition and action may bear load; for the holding of the myriad things they still bear none.
Competing reading / what it does not prove: Is it a condition of completion of ontological return, or an ethical principle of practice?
Original text: 識物之宗，故雖不見，而是非之理可得而名也。Recognizing the ancestor of things, therefore even without seeing, the principles of right and wrong can be grasped and named.
Positive evidence: Recognizing the ancestor enables one, without seeing, to explain the principles of the myriad things, which proves that cognition has an important methodological status.
Limits: The sentence does not say that the world holds because of cognition.
Competing reading / what it does not prove: If knowing the ancestor is a necessary condition for the sage’s accord with the Dao, it leaves room for ②.
Non-being (wu)｜For Wang Bi the non-concrete, non-objectified ground on which all that has being depends for its beginning, function and unity; not the same as abstract nothingness or a single entity.
Root / branches (ben / mo)｜The relation of ground and derivative, of holding to the root and stilling the branches; the branches are not without value or non-existent.
One / ancestor (yi / zong)｜The principle that explains the many changes and unifies the many items; closely connected with “non-being” but not directly identifiable with it.
Self-so (ziran)｜The way things themselves come into being and are completed; not the same as arbitrary laissez-faire.
Word / image / meaning (yan / xiang / yi)｜Words make the image clear, the image preserves the meaning, and the meaning must be grasped through interpretation; they may not be merged into one layer.
Grasp the meaning and forget the image｜An interpretive method opposed to clinging to images and words; whether grasping the meaning is an ultimate cognitive mediation remains disputed.
Read the thought, not isolated sentences: exhortations, invitations to the reader and path-language must be understood within the author’s overall structure; authorial self-commentary serves to establish intent and should be read against the core original texts; it cannot independently prove a structure.
This archive actively distinguishes: nominalization and substantialization; the cognizing subject and the cognitive function; expression / teaching / path and structure / ending; self-reflexivity and self-inclusion. Where no complete answer has yet been found on some point, it is not written as “the author gave no answer”.
Positive evidence｜the Commentary on the Laozi stipulates “without form and without name” as the beginning of all that has being, and with “being has non-being as its root” explains that being and non-being are not two co-ordinate entities; the Lüeli separately uses “the one” and “the ancestor” to explain the unity by which changing images can be interpreted.
Limiting evidence｜whether non-being is an independent source transcending the world cannot be decided only from nouns such as “ancestor” and “root”; the relation of root and branches must be seen at once in terms of dependence, function and governance.
Disputed reading｜the “non-being”, “one”, “principle” and “meaning” in the two sets of texts may overlap only partly; assembling them into a single abstract system requires authorial evidence from several places.
Safest conclusion at present｜Wang Bi’s main task is to explain how “non-being / one / principle” serves as the ground and how it connects with the myriad changes and with sayable meaning (B); the interpretation of politics and of hexagram changes is its application, and does not automatically turn the main task into ④. The ground holds without awaiting comprehension, but the double proof for ① is still insufficient.
Already withdrawn / de-substantialized｜grasping things with form and name as self-sufficient substances; fixing hexagram images as identical with the classic’s meaning; substituting external clever techniques for understanding root and branches.
Core structural load-bearing point｜being has non-being as its root; unifying the many there is an ancestor; the mediating structure of word, image and meaning.
Disputed functional load-bearing point｜whether “recognizing the ancestor / observing the subtle / grasping the meaning” is a non-deletable cognitive link of ideal comprehension or accord with the Dao.
Nature of the load-bearing point｜a non-substantial interpretive ground and a cognition—text relation; non-deletable does not mean a fixed entity.
What still holds after deletion｜once right comprehension is deleted, the explained relations of root / branches and of the generation and change of the myriad things can still hold within the theory.
Where exactly it breaks after deletion｜if the function of “grasping the meaning” is deleted, Wang Bi’s interpretive criterion of what counts as successful interpretation of the Changes breaks; if “recognizing the ancestor” is deleted, the explanation of the sage knowing the world without going out of doors is also damaged.
Level of the break｜“Grasping the meaning” bears structural load for exegetical success within the interpretive method itself; deleting it breaks the canon of exegesis, which does not mean that the structure of the world’s generation breaks.
For a cognitive relation of complete ultimate completion there is at present no B-grade evidence.
Status in the complete ultimate structure｜The T1 Commentary on the Laozi and Lüeli already show the author continually dealing with the ground and its explicability; ③ (B) does not depend on the T2 Zhilüe. ④ is the world-explaining use within it; ② lacks proof of a condition of completion beyond the aim of exegesis.
Mode of existence after completion (if relevant)｜the question is not whether a practitioner permanently maintains a static seer, but whether interpretation can reach “sense” and “principle”.
Position of the thought itself (self-reflexivity / self-inclusion)｜“Ming xiang” can explain speech and understanding as an interpretive process; the Zhilüe can reflexively constrain its own words; complete ontological self-inclusion is still C.
Return: how the world of differences is explained｜“non-being” returns to governance and to following the self-so of things; “grasping the meaning” returns to the interpretation of hexagrams and lines and to practical discernment.
Another reasonable reading｜one can also maintain that his whole philosophy takes “comprehending the purport” as a necessary completion;
then the competition from ② grows stronger, but it must be shown to go beyond the task of exegesis.
Safest boundary at present｜one may not covertly substitute the hermeneutic “grasping the meaning” for awakening to the ground, nor equate self-reflexivity with complete self-inclusion.
Grade of judgment｜③ as main class B; ④ as functional direction B, with weak competition for the main class; the reading of ② as ultimate cognitive completion C; ① has B-grade positive evidence at the level of the ground’s independence, but the complete double proof does not hold.
Operating note: what is deleted is a function, not just a term. That a step occurs in study, cultivation or practice does not mean it is automatically only deletable teaching / path-language; one must see whether the author uses it to define the complete relation of completion.
Positive evidence｜the word—image—meaning chain of “Ming xiang” gives an internal procedural account of “why this book uses speech to explain principle”;
the Zhilüe describes the text of the Laozi as working by “citing the end to verify the beginning”.
Limiting evidence｜this only says how philosophical expression works, and does not guarantee that “the thought itself, too, as one occurrence of the generation of the myriad things” has been completely proven.
Disputed reading｜is “meaning” simply “non-being”? If the two could be directly identified, self-inclusion would be strengthened; if not, hermeneutics remains local self-inclusion.
Safest conclusion at present｜self-reflexivity B, local self-inclusion B, self-inclusion in the full sense of ① C.
“Grasp the meaning and forget the image” is most easily mistaken either for pure linguistic deconstruction or for the need to awaken to a single true reality. The exegetical “grasping” and the ultimate “seeing” of existence may not be exchanged. In fact: words and images can be discarded, yet rightly grasping the “meaning” constitutes the criterion of exegetical success;
whether it bears load only for the activity of interpretation, or is a necessary cognitive mediation for the completion of the whole thought, is what decides the boundary between ③ and ②.
③｜“Inquiring into the Ground” (B; ④ is the direction of application; the final cognitive condition of completion for ② and the double condition for ① have not been sufficiently proven)
③ has T1 positive evidence: “all that has being begins from non-being”, “things are never so at random; they must follow their principle” and “grasp the meaning and forget the image” respectively investigate the ground of existence, the unifying principle and the explicability of the ground. The politics, hexagram changes and phenomenal order to which ④ refers are explained, but they are not the main task of the whole case. After right cognition is deleted, the generative relation of all that has being does not change, but this does not automatically complete the full-structure deletion and the double proof of self-inclusion for ①; ② must additionally prove that grasping the meaning in exegesis is the ultimate recognition of the ground.
Using “non-being” and “the one”, he linked the ground of the myriad changes with the unifying principle of classical interpretation, and created a reflective method of word, image and meaning, so that philosophy does not merely leave behind an abstract ground but can also explain why commentary and understanding should not cling to words and hexagram images.
Strongest counter-reading: There is indeed strong evidence that the generation of the ground does not await cognition, but complete self-inclusion and the deletability of all cognitive functions have not received double proof.
Reply: Partly accepted; not raised to ① on this basis (B).
Strongest counter-reading: “Grasping the meaning” is the criterion of exegetical success; it has not been shown to be identical with the ultimate completion of the whole of existence.
Reply: The jump of position from a single word is rejected; C is kept.
Strongest counter-reading: Non-being is stipulated as without form and without name; substantialization cannot be confirmed from nominal usage; but there is still interpretive load in root and branches.
Reply: The covert substitution of substantialization is rejected.
Strongest counter-reading: It is classed as T2; the Commentary on the Laozi and the Lüeli already form a preliminary system, so it cannot be deleted entirely; nor can it be upgraded to an independent contemporary witness.
Reply: Partly accepted, with textual reservation.
Strongest counter-reading: It only explains the procedure of interpreting the classic, and does not automatically explain the position of all cognition and speech within the whole of the existence of the myriad things.
Reply: C is maintained.
Strongest counter-reading: Interpreting and choosing “root / branches, word / image / meaning” is itself the author’s activity of philosophical organization; the commentator’s voice should not be merged into the author of the classic.
Reply: Rejected.
No.20 Laozi is a completed independent archive; Wang Bi can be compared with it formally on the texts on the questions of “Dao—names and words”, “non-being—the myriad things” and “pursuing the Dao”, but this archive has not checked the full text of No.20, and the specific six-position comparison is only listed as pending. No.21 Zhuangzi is likewise only used for contrast on the question of “words / meaning”.
Wang Bi withdraws the ontological self-sufficiency of things with form and name, and keeps the functional relation of ground and interpretation; his safest-described task is to explain how the ground unifies the myriad things, the words of the classic and action. Current judgment ③ (B): ④ embodies the application; ② would need evidence of completion beyond the method of exegesis; ① would need both complete positive self-inclusion and evidence from functional deletion.
Wang Bi’s commentary in the Commentary on the Laozi: https://zh.wikisource.org/wiki/道德經_(王弼本)
Laozi zhilüe (Laozi weizhi lilüe): https://zh.wikisource.org/wiki/老子微旨例略
Zhouyi lüeli, “Ming xiang”: https://ctext.org/wiki.pl?chapter=664189&if=zh
Zhouyi lüeli, “Ming tuan”: https://www.shidianguji.com/zh/book/HY6443/chapter/1kusp88otqvqa
1. Check the parallel variants of the Zhilüe in the Daozang and the Yunji qiqian, without letting the “#” collation notes of the Wikisource base text replace the original characters.
2. Check the transmitted editions of the Zhouyi lüeli and the boundary between the commentaries of Wang Bi and Han Kangbo.
3. Compare the ① / ② C boundary in the No.20 Laozi archive, without presupposing Wang Bi by earlier conclusions about Laozi.