[30] See 老子志略 in the 十字全書. Also compare the similar legends about the Buddha in Hardy’s Manual of Buddhism, pages 367–8–9.
[31] See his Mémoire sur la vie &c., de Lao-tseu, ps. 5 & 6.
[32] One author, however, represents him as travelling far away to the West and becoming again incarnate as Gotama Buddha—see Yuan-chien &c., ch. 317.
CHAPTER III.
THE TAO-TÊ CHING 道德經.
Lao-tzŭ is said to have died at the age of eighty-one years in B.C. 523,[1] though, as has been seen, nothing is known positively about the time or manner of his decease. He had, according to historical tradition, on leaving the Hanku Pass, consigned his writings on Tao and Tê to Yin-hsi, the guardian of the Pass. This latter seems to have transmitted his doctrines to others, more especially to Wên-tzŭ (文子), who probably published the first edition of this work known to the public. Some indeed suppose that Lao-tzŭ did not himself commit anything to writing, and that Yin-hsi merely related orally to Wên-tzŭ and others what he had been taught orally by the sage. This opinion will not seem unlikely, if we consider that the use of paper was at this time unknown and that there were very few facilities of any kind for publishing a book. Others suppose that Wen-tzŭ was an immediate disciple of Lao-tzŭ and that he published an account of his master’s doctrines after the decease of the latter.[2]
In any case, however, it appears certain that for a considerable time after the death of its author the work which is now known as the Tao-tê ching remained in at least partial obscurity. Mencius does not allude by name to Lao-tzŭ or his teachings, though he refers on several occasions, and rather unfavourably, to Yang-chu (楊朱), who is supposed to have been a disciple of the sage. The philosophers Chwang (莊) and Lie (列), however, contemporaries of Mencius, seem to have been aware of the existence and contents of the Tao-tê ching. The latter expressly quotes its words, and both make mention of Lao-tan.
It has not been ascertained when or by whom its present title was imposed on this book. We find early writers quoting its teachings as those of Hwang-Lao (黃老), that is, of the Emperor Hwang and Lao-tzŭ. The former lived, or is supposed to have lived, about B.C. 2600, and some parts of the Tao-tê ching are expressly ascribed to him, for example, Chapter VI is quoted as his.[3] Another title under which this book is referred to by old authors is Lao-tzŭ-shu (老子書), that is, the writings of Lao-tzŭ,[4] and it is not until the time of Emperor Wên (文帝) of the Han dynasty, or about B.C. 160, that we find the term Tao-tê used. We must remember also that the use of these two words does not indicate that the book treats only of what is meant by them,[5] nor are we to imagine that the former part of the work refers exclusively to Tê. The first word of the former part of the book is Tao, and the first important word of the latter portion is Tê, and these two were simply combined in order to form a designation for the whole, according to the usual Chinese custom.[6] Hiüan-tsung (玄宗), an Emperor of the Tʽang dynasty, who reigned in the early part of the 8th century of our era, besides several other innovations, gave a separate name to each part of this book, calling the former part the Tao-ching and the latter the Tê-ching.[7] These appellations, however, are seldom, if ever, used, and the work is now universally known as the Tao-tê ching. From the words of Confucius it might even with some degree of probability be inferred that already in his time the name Tao-tê was used, the term Ching or classic, being, of course, a much later addition and given by way of respect.
From the naming of the book I now proceed to the considerations of the way in which it has been divided. Szŭ Ma-chien simply says that Lao-tzŭ made a book in two parts, containing more than five thousand characters, and setting forth the signification of Tao and Tê. Chʽao, however, says that the work contained 5,748 words in eighty-one chapters. The original division was probably only one into two parts; afterwards, however, these were subdivided into chapters. The number of these latter composing the entire book varies considerably.[8] Some editors make fifty-five chapters; some make sixty-four; some, and notably Wu-chʽêng, make sixty-eight; and some seventy-two. The most usual number, however, is eighty-one, and this is said to be sanctioned by the old and venerable authority of Ho-shang-kung (河上公) of the Han dynasty. The Taoists are very fond of the number three and its multiples, and this particular multiple, eighty-one, is associated in tradition with Lao-tzŭ’s birth and the years of his life, and there is perhaps no greater reason for preferring this to any other division.
To Ho-shang-kung is ascribed also the addition of a title to each of the eighty-one chapters. These titles consist of two characters each, giving an epitome of the contents of the chapter, and they resemble the headings of chapters and sections in our own books. Many editors, however, reject these inventions of Ho-shang-kung, and use the ordinary Chinese method of distinguishing each chapter by its first two characters. This is considered the more decorous method, as the other seems to be supplementing the author.
I come now to the text of the Tao-tê ching, and here the most bewildering uncertainty and confusion are found. Some editors, wishing to have the number of characters as little as possible beyond five thousand, have cut them off apparently at pleasure, and without much regard for the sense of the author. Others have pursued a contrary course, and retained or added characters in order apparently to make out what they deemed to be the true meaning of any particular passage. This conduct has occasioned great variations in the text, and consequently great uncertainty as to what Lao-tzŭ actually wrote or taught. Sometimes one editor, by the suppression of, a negative particle or a word of interrogation, gives to a passage a meaning unlike or even opposed to that which another editor by the insertion of this character gives to the same passage. But not only do different editions of this book vary as to insertion and rejection of words: they also differ as to the mode of writing many of those actually employed. Words written in similar manners, or of similar sound, but with widely different significations, frequently replace one another; and not unfrequently characters totally different in sound, appearance, and meaning are found substituted one for another in the same passage. Hence the number of various readings is exceedingly great, and the meaning of many passages at least very doubtful. One edition gives in the introduction an account of some of the variations in the text, which occupies a considerable number of pages; while another edition gives only a text accompanied by various readings.