From Laozi to Lao-Zhuang and Huang-Lao Daoism: The Two Paths of Oneness in the Development of Early Daoist Thought

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I read the abstract and corrected almost every sentence, attached. There is major work required to make this comprehensible.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English is extremely problematic. Extensive editing will be necessary to render this coherent. Plus there is much redundancy, even in the abstract.

Author Response

Thank you so much for the suggestions. The language of this article is very carefully revised and improved by an English native speaker.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review: From Laozi to Huang-Lao Daoism: The Two Paths of Oneness in the Development of Early Daoist Thought

 

This paper, as suggested by the author in the introduction, “examining the evolution and development of oneness and its related verbs in different texts” indeed fulfills its purpose of “improving our understanding of the rich theoretical aspects of oneness in early Daoism and deepens our understanding of the development of early Daoist thought.”

Much research on oneness in Daoist thought has been done by scholars of Daoism, as noted by the author in their wide coverage of previous research and two millennia of commentary. Hence, to contribute something new, a new perspective which encompasses textual history, philology, and the course of development of Daoism from the Laozi to Huang-Lao and “religious” texts of cultivation, is indeed a challenge. The author succeeds this challenge and offers new insight to a long known and researched field. As a scholar of Daoism, I attest that I learned from this paper, and gained a new perspective on the development of Daoism through the different meanings of oneness.

The paper is widely based on textual analysis which includes a large corpus of ancient documents and commentaries, in addition to contemporary scholarship in China and abroad. The choice of the author to use Ziporyn’s translation of the Laozi exhibits that the author is up to date with major Western contributions to the field in both research and translations. A quick look at the references shows the author is aware of research on their field in both the English and Chinese speaking worlds.

What is especially remarkable about this paper is the continuous thread: the author reveals the different meanings of Oneness in the Laozi which include both cultivation and political philosophy. Then the author shows how thinkers of the Daoist tradition following the Laozi selected and expanded one of the meanings. As shown in the paper, the followers of oneness as a method of cultivation is exhibited in the Zhuangzi and Baopuzi through an ontological meaning of oneness-unity of body and mind, while those who emphasized oneness in terms of political philosophy such as the Huang-Lao tradition, later developed oneness into a governmental practice of a unifying rule or law. Interestingly, both routes simultaneously offer their understanding of Dao, they redefine Dao through their different interpretations of oneness, which in turn strengthens Laozi’s usage of oneness in chapter 39—another name for dao.

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Language: Minor English revisions:

Overall, this paper is clearly articulated, yet there are a few places in the paper that have minor grammatical errors, so I recommend the author to perhaps consider letting a native English speaker edit this paper.  Below are a few examples from the Abstract and how I suggest revising the original:

 

Abstract: “the objective in this paper is to research the important notion of Oneness in Daoist thought and offers an analysis on oneness through the central texts and manuscripts of the Daoist tradition, the Laozi, Zhuangzi, and Huang-Lao sources.”

Stylistic and grammatical suggestion: This paper proposes to examine the central notion of Oneness in Daoist thought by offering an analysis of oneness in the central writings of the Daoist tradition. Beginning with the Laozi and the Zhuangzi, to Huang-Lao manuscripts and Daoist religious sources.

Comment: In the abstract you do not mention religious sources, but since you use the Baopuzi and do discuss spiritual-mental-physical cultivation in Daoism of the Han and after—I suggest you mention this in the abstract—if I understood correctly that the Baopuzi is not a Huang-Lao text?

“Building upon an analysis of the concept of Oneness in these sources, I compare between the different notions of Oneness and the verbs attached to the concept of oneness such as embracing, maintaining, holding onto and others to uncover the two distinct paths of the development of Oneness in Daoist thought.” 

·      Page 4 end and beginning of 5 repeat the same passage. I assume it is a pure editorial mistake—so just delete one of them.

·      The Chinese characters are not consistent, some in traditional and some in simplified—the author should decide which one they want to use throughout the entire paper. Same regarding titles of texts—usage of English/Chinese should be consistent.

Author Response

Thank you so much for the suggestions which are extremely helpful.

1.

Abstract: “the objective in this paper is to research the important notion of Oneness in Daoist thought and offers an analysis on oneness through the central texts and manuscripts of the Daoist tradition, the Laozi, Zhuangzi, and Huang-Lao sources.”

Stylistic and grammatical suggestion: This paper proposes to examine the central notion of Oneness in Daoist thought by offering an analysis of oneness in the central writings of the Daoist tradition. Beginning with the Laozi and the Zhuangzi, to Huang-Lao manuscripts and Daoist religious sources.

--has been revised according to the suggestion.

2.

Comment: In the abstract you do not mention religious sources, but since you use the Baopuzi and do discuss spiritual-mental-physical cultivation in Daoism of the Han and after—I suggest you mention this in the abstract—if I understood correctly that the Baopuzi is not a Huang-Lao text?

--Exactly, the Baopuzi is not a Huang-Lao text. The Daoist religious sources have been mentioned in the abstract as suggested.

3.

“Building upon an analysis of the concept of Oneness in these sources, I compare between the different notions of Oneness and the verbs attached to the concept of oneness such as embracing, maintaining, holding onto and others to uncover the two distinct paths of the development of Oneness in Daoist thought.” 

• Page 4 end and beginning of 5 repeat the same passage. I assume it is a pure editorial mistake—so just delete one of them.
• The Chinese characters are not consistent, some in traditional and some in simplified—the author should decide which one they want to use throughout the entire paper. Same regarding titles of texts—usage of English/Chinese should be consistent.

-- the repeat passage has been deleted. All the Chinese characters are consistent now.

Thank you so much.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The subject of this article is fascinating, and it is a very complex and scholarly topic.

I think the most valuable point of the article is about Oneness linking Dao and Law.

However, I am sorry to say that the article is too immaturity and does not meet the requirements for publication. The article does not go far enough into the subject matter, and the author’s knowledge of early Daoist literatures seems inadequate.

 

Some of the detailed problems and suggestions for revisions are as follows:

1. The abstract is too long. The first paragraph of the abstract could be deleted.

2. The primary sources quoted in the article are sometimes wordy (e.g., chapters 14 and 39 of Laozi), and some of them could be presented in more abbreviated language.

The paragraph “天得一以清” appears twice in the article as the independent quotation. This could be simplified by technical treatment.

When quoting important Daoist literature, it is recommended that the Chinese version should be given at the same time, so that it is easier for professional scholars to read and correct improper translations.

3. Some names are misspelled. For example, 庚桑楚 is generally written as, not Geng Shang Chu; 河上公 is generally written as Heshang gong, not He Shanggong; 韩非子 is generally written as Han Fei zi/Han Fei tzu, not Han Feizi; and the two Laozi in the conclusion should be italicized.

In addition, there are some formatting errors. For example, the requirement of “article title in quotation marks and book title in italics” has not been fully implemented.

4. There are some mistakes in the understanding of the original sources. For example, the word 式 translated as “microcosmic model” refers to 式（盘）(noun, a tool for simulating the universe). The interpretation of 式 in Shuowen Jiezi refers to the original meaning of the character 式, not 式(盘). The two meanings are confused in the article.

There are some misunderstandings of the original documents, which may come from the English translations quoted by the author. For example, the phrase “万物与我为一” is not properly translated as “the ten thousand things and I are one,” but should be read in context as “there is no distinction between the ten thousand things and I (we are the same).” The emphasis is not on “为一,” but “齐物.” And so on.

5. The article quotes the 《抱朴子内篇》 to argue for the development of 守一 in Daoism. But in fact, 《太平经》 and other contemporaneous or earlier Daoist texts already showed many very detailed discussions of 守一. These discussions even subdivided the 守一 into守真一、守玄一、守三一 and etc. The neglect of these materials shows that the author is not aware of the development of "keep one" in Taoism. The neglect of these materials shows that the author’s understanding of the early Daoism seems to be inadequate.

6. Regarding the significance of Oneness in the Huang Lao Daoism, I think it is perhaps more complicated. Oneness may still be synonymous with Dao, but Dao does not have the same connotation as in Laozi. In fact, during the pre-Qin and Han dynasties, the meanings of Dao were very varied, and was discussed by different theorists. Graham’s Disputers of the Tao may be helpful to your study.

7. Finally, the article’s argumentation is weak with many missing links in the logic, and this results in it cannot be able to present a special aspect of the early Daoist thought as it should be, by presenting the multiple interpretations and development course of Oneness.

Although the article seems to be a bit rough, it shows that the author has already developed some interesting thoughts. Thus, I hope that the author can further elaborate this topic and produce very profound research results in the future.

Author Response

Thank you so much for the suggestions, which are extremely helpful for the improvement of this article. 

1. The abstract is too long. The first paragraph of the abstract could be deleted.   --the abstract is shortened and much clearer now.
2. The primary sources quoted in the article are sometimes wordy (e.g., chapters 14 and 39 of Laozi), and some of them could be presented in more abbreviated language. -some of the quotes such as chapters 14 and 39 of the laozi and some passages from the Zhuangzi are shortened.

The paragraph “天得一以清” appears twice in the article as the independent quotation. This could be simplified by technical treatment.   --one of the paragraphs has been deleted.

When quoting important Daoist literature, it is recommended that the Chinese version should be given at the same time, so that it is easier for professional scholars to read and correct improper translations.   --the Chinese version of the quotes has been added.

3. Some names are misspelled. For example, 庚桑楚 is generally written as, not Geng Shang Chu; 河上公 is generally written as Heshang gong, not He Shanggong; 韩非子 is generally written as Han Fei zi/Han Fei tzu, not Han Feizi; and the two Laozi in the conclusion should be italicized.

In addition, there are some formatting errors. For example, the requirement of “article title in quotation marks and book title in italics” has not been fully implemented.    --all the errors are corrected very carefully.

4. There are some mistakes in the understanding of the original sources. For example, the word 式 translated as “microcosmic model” refers to 式（盘）(noun, a tool for simulating the universe). The interpretation of 式 in Shuowen Jiezi refers to the original meaning of the character 式, not 式(盘). The two meanings are confused in the article.

There are some misunderstandings of the original documents, which may come from the English translations quoted by the author. For example, the phrase “万物与我为一” is not properly translated as “the ten thousand things and I are one,” but should be read in context as “there is no distinction between the ten thousand things and I (we are the same).” The emphasis is not on “为一,” but “齐物.” And so on.

--the translation of shi式 has been corrected as the "pointer", and is consistent now. some translations of the “为一”、“齐一” have also been changed.

5. The article quotes the 《抱朴子内篇》 to argue for the development of 守一 in Daoism. But in fact, 《太平经》 and other contemporaneous or earlier Daoist texts already showed many very detailed discussions of 守一. These discussions even subdivided the 守一 into守真一、守玄一、守三一 and etc. The neglect of these materials shows that the author is not aware of the development of "keep one" in Taoism. The neglect of these materials shows that the author’s understanding of the early Daoism seems to be inadequate.     --thank you so much for the knowledge of the Taiping Jing. Due to the length of the article, I mentioned "Daoist religious sources" without giving detailed examples, which is problematic, so I added the Taiping Jing in the article.
6. Regarding the significance of Oneness in the Huang Lao Daoism, I think it is perhaps more complicated. Oneness may still be synonymous with Dao, but Dao does not have the same connotation as in Laozi. In fact, during the pre-Qin and Han dynasties, the meanings of Dao were very varied, and was discussed by different theorists. Graham’s Disputers of the Tao may be helpful to your study.  -- I totally agree that the connotation of Dao is varied in the Huang-Lao texts, the first part of the Huang-Lao section in this article gives a very detailed discussion on this.
7. Finally, the article’s argumentation is weak with many missing links in the logic, and this results in it cannot be able to present a special aspect of the early Daoist thought as it should be, by presenting the multiple interpretations and development course of Oneness.  --after the revisions, I hope the argumentation will look stronger, thanks a lot!

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The introduction should be extended slightly, in terms of both contextualizing the issue in the classics, as well as in modern discourse. 

The conclusion can also be made more clear—again I think adding more explanation here is necessary.

 

Throughout the paper the author uses many long quotes. These should be introduced with more detail, and then also explained with more detail. 

 

The author relies on many key passages quoted at length. Considering that the paper is somewhat short, and that these passages are important for the argument, I suggest the author includes the original Chinese for all block quotations. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Just some small edits, nothing major at all.

Author Response

Thank you so much for the suggestions!

1.the abstract, the introduction and the conclusion are all revised very carefully, some of the contents which seems to be tedious have been deleted or shortened.

2. Some quotes are shortened, and the Chinese version of the quotes have been added.

Thank you so much.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is almost incoherent. The English is extremely problematic. Sometimes I have no idea what is being said. And there are claims of ontological positions taken by Zhuangzi, for instance, that don't appear to be supported by the quotations provided. It is also problematic that all the quotations from Laozi and Zhuangzi are from Ziporyn's translations. I think they are reasonable translations, but the paper seems over-reliant on them.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English is virtually incoherent. Very redundant and vague, with grammatical and other issues. If this goes to publication it will need extensive revision.

Author Response

Thank you so much for your comments and suggestions, which are very helpful for the improvement of the paper.

1. Thank you for pointing out that using the term “ontology” to examine “Oneness” in the Zhuangzi might be problematic and confusing. To make it more accurate and clearer, alternative expressions are used.
2. Just as you and the academic editor pointed out, Ziporyn’s literary and poetic translationsare not suitable for citation in a philosophical paper. Therefore, for the Laozi, I used Thomas Michael’s translation instead. And for the Zhuangzi, I used Burton Watson’s translation. I think these translations have helped a lot in claying the language of the paper’s argument. 
3. This paper has been revised very carefully by two native speakers respectively. I believe the language is much clearer and easier to understand after their hard work.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. I must apologize. In my previous comments, I inadvertently misspelled the English name of 庚桑楚, which should be correctly spelled as Gengsang Chu. This wrong spelling has misled the author to revise the paper.

2. After this revision, the paper has corrected the various details I pointed out, which is very commendable!

3, However, the thesis still seems to be less than ideal. Of the problems I pointed out, the most difficult to revise are the entire logical chain and the argument. They are very difficult to be improved with detailed revisions. In Chinese, they require the revision of “傷筋動骨” rather than “縫縫補補.”

4. In addition, the author seems to be relatively unfamiliar with “religious Daoism,” and makes insufficient use of the important early Daoist literatures on the same subject. In my last review, I mentioned the Taiping Jing. However, there are also some important sources that deserve attention such as the Daoist scriptures that can reflect the early Taiqing太清 tradition, as well as the Nüqing Ghost Laws女青鬼律 which partially inherited the Heavenly Master Daoist doctrine from 2^nd. century. The lack of attention to these materials and making a chain from Lao-Zhuang and Huang-Lao directly to the Baopu zi (even with the addition of the Taiping jing), makes the history of thought described in the paper appear to be somewhat jumpy. As a matter of fact, the neglect of “religious Daoist” materials is, to a certain extent, one of the misunderstandings in the study of 道家 (the so-called “philosophy Daoism”) for a long time. Therefore, although this problem should not be attributed to the author, this paper shows the same misunderstanding.

5. Finally, the article’s references to existing works on “one” or “keeping one” are not adequate.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

1. I must apologize. In my previous comments, I inadvertently misspelled the English name of 庚桑楚, which should be correctly spelled as Gengsang Chu. This wrong spelling has misled the author to revise the paper.

2. After this revision, the paper has corrected the various details I pointed out, which is very commendable!

3, However, the thesis still seems to be less than ideal. Of the problems I pointed out, the most difficult to revise are the entire logical chain and the argument. They are very difficult to be improved with detailed revisions. In Chinese, they require the revision of “傷筋動骨” rather than “縫縫補補.”

4. In addition, the author seems to be relatively unfamiliar with “religious Daoism,” and makes insufficient use of the important early Daoist literatures on the same subject. In my last review, I mentioned the Taiping Jing. However, there are also some important sources that deserve attention such as the Daoist scriptures that can reflect the early Taiqing太清 tradition, as well as the Nüqing Ghost Laws女青鬼律 which partially inherited the Heavenly Master Daoist doctrine from 2^nd. century. The lack of attention to these materials and making a chain from Lao-Zhuang and Huang-Lao directly to the Baopu zi (even with the addition of the Taiping jing), makes the history of thought described in the paper appear to be somewhat jumpy. As a matter of fact, the neglect of “religious Daoist” materials is, to a certain extent, one of the misunderstandings in the study of 道家 (the so-called “philosophy Daoism”) for a long time. Therefore, although this problem should not be attributed to the author, this paper shows the same misunderstanding.

5. Finally, the article’s references to existing works on “one” or “keeping one” are not adequate.

Author Response

Thank you so much for your comments and suggestions, which are very helpful for the improvement of the paper.

Regarding the neglect of religious Daoism in the article you mentioned, the reason is that this article mainly focuses on pre-Qin Daoism, and through the evolution of the concept of “Oneness”, it examines the different streams of thinking of the two lines of pre-Qin Daoism, Lao-zhuang and Huang-lao. It is true that the article mentioned the Baopuzi, but it is mainly in the context of Lao-zhuang Daoism. Without any doubt, Oneness in religious Daoism is a very interesting topic (and thank you so much for the knowledgeable about it), however, it is not the main subject of this article.

In any case, the problems you pointed out are indicative of the article’s failure to be clear on this point. Therefore, some content has been added in the introduction section to clarify the scope and intent of this article. With this clarification, the article should appear much clearer. Also, in section 2 and 3, by comprising Oneness in the Lao-zhuang and Huang-lao texts, the distinction between them is emphasized.  With this clarification and comparison, the logical chain of the article should be much clearer. We also look forward to extending this study in the field of religious Daoist later on.

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Problems with clarity have been resolved. I am somewhat concerned about translating yi (一) as "Oneness," even when it clearly refers simply to the number one or "single." But this is a nit pick. Though I disagree with the metaphysical approach, the paper covers a topic that is important. Not much new is introduced, but it is a good historical overview or the development of the idea.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

First of all, I would like to express my sincere appreciation for the author's spirit of excellence!

With this spirit and working ability, he/she will surely accomplish the great research in the future!

 

However, this paper is still not good enough. As I mentioned earlier, the biggest problem is that the logical links or arguments are too loose, and this problem can hardly be improved through detailed revisions. In fact, unless it is drastically restructured (which would be tantamount to a rewrite), it would be difficult to correct such problem.

In this revision, the author points out that the main purpose of the article is to study pre-Qin (as well as the Han dynasty) Daoist道家 thought and Huang-Lao, and does not want to focus on religion-Daoism. It is therefore possible to give up for the time being much attention to Daoist道教 materials. However, the author's choice to pay great attention to the later 抱朴子 is too subjective and confusing. At the same time, the author's understanding of the relationship between "philosophical Daoism" and "religious Daoism" is relatively outdated. There has been much discussions about the relationship between them, which may be widely referenced.

Changing the title to "from Laozi to Lao-Zhuang," does not make the topic more relevant. Is there a semantic overlap between Laozi and the Lao of Lao-Zhuang? Does the revised text correspond to the new title?

On the whole, I think this paper has some academic value, but it is still not mature enough in terms of writing style and depth of study. Therefore, I still choose to reject the paper.

 

I am very sorry that the above comments may seem a bit harsh, but they are sincere expressions of my understanding of this field.

Perhaps other reviewers may have different opinions, so please ask the editor to decide whether to accept the paper or not.