聞分館君 Ask BunKanKun

道德真經註 (蘇轍)

8 min read

Text ID
KR5c0074
Date
1100–1108
Dynasty
宋

Dàodé zhēn jīng zhù 道德真經註 (Sū Zhé)

Commentary on the True Scripture of the Way and Its Virtue — Sū Zhé

by 蘇轍 (Sū Zhé, zì Zǐ yóu 子由, hào Luán chéng 欒城, Yǐng bīn yí lǎo 穎濱遺老; 1039–1112) — younger brother of Sū Shì 蘇軾 (1037–1101); one of the “Three Sūs” (Sān Sū 三蘇) of the Northern Sòng literary pantheon

An important Northern-Sòng commentary on the Dàodé jīng ([[KR5c0045|Dàodé zhēn jīng]]) by Sū Zhé 蘇轍 — the younger Sū brother, distinguished poet-statesman, and one of the foundational figures of mature Northern-Sòng literary culture. Preserved in the Zhèngtǒng Dàozàng as DZ 691 / CT 691 (Dòngshén bù, Yù jué lèi 洞神部玉訣類) in four juàn; circulated in some Sòng editions as two juàn (per VDL 107). Independently preserved in the Wén yuān gé Sìkù quánshū 文淵閣四庫全書 under the title 老子解 Lǎozǐ jiě. Dated to 1100 on the evidence of a dated postface; Sū Zhé composed a fuller postface in 1108.

About the work

Isabelle Robinet’s notice in Schipper & Verellen eds., The Taoist Canon (2004, 2:646, DZ 691) gives the authoritative modern framing.

The “fundamental unity of the Three Teachings”

Sū Zhé’s explicit programmatic aim — articulated in his postface of 1108 — is to illustrate the fundamental unity linking Daoism, Confucianism, and Buddhism. In the postface, Sū Zhé states that he had undertaken the commentary in order to prove to a Buddhist monk (named Dào chéng 道全 in the fuller version of the postface preserved in other editions) that the teachings of Confucianism were akin to those of Buddhism — and, by extension, to the Dàodé jīng. The commentary’s Buddhist-oriented philosophical approach reflects this polemical origin: it is an attempt to make the Lǎozǐ speak directly to Buddhist categories.

Philosophical character

The commentary’s dominant concept is fù xìng 復性 (“return to one’s intrinsic nature”). Though the expression has a long history in both Confucianism and Daoism, Sū Zhé — in association with Tiāntái 天台 Buddhist thought — gives it unusual prominence. Key interpretive moves:

  • The Neo-Confucian-Buddhist formula. Like Wáng Pōu 王雱 (1042–1076, whose commentary survives in DZ 706 and 714), Sū Zhé uses a line from the Yì jīng Shuō guà 說卦 to epitomise individual spiritual cultivation: qióng lǐ jìn xìng yǐ zhì yú mìng 窮理盡性以至於命 (“By exploring the order of the world to its limits and examining their own nature, they arrived at [an understanding of] the decree [of Heaven]”). Through this formula, the expression fù xìng connects with fù mìng 復命 (“to restore the decree of Heaven”, Lǎozǐ 16) and a Buddhist concept (fù xìng via bhūtatathatā) is directly linked to the Yì jīng.

  • The metaphysics of xìng 性 (“intrinsic nature”). For Sū Zhé, xìng is the ultimate reality, understood with the transcendental connotation that Buddhism attaches to it. It is “the seat of the Dao in humanity” (1.10a), “so vast that it fills all Heaven and Earth; neither life nor death have power to alter it, nor can they in any way increase or diminish it” (1.14b). Xìng is the primary source through which the senses experience the world and whence all beings originate (1.15a; 2.4a). Xìng is attained not by a quietism leading to the immobility of “withered wood” (gǎo mù 槁木) but by a “kind of immobility, a quiescence, that is radiant action” (1.17b–18a).

  • The relation of xìng and mìng. Mìng 命 (“decree of Heaven”) is the transcendent, miào 妙 (“wondrous”) aspect of xìng; xìng remains in the realm of the word, mìng transcends the word (1.19a).

  • The metaphysical / phenomenal distinction. Sū Zhé distinguishes the metaphysical world (of the immeasurable, ineffable Dao, 2.12a, 4.10b, where there is neither wú 無 nor yǒu 有) from the world of forms (xíng 形; that which can be spoken of and measured, 1.2a, 7b, 12b; that which “encompasses Heaven and Earth beyond the ten thousand beings” yet is finite, 1.20a; and that which is not self-engendered, 1.8a).

Relation to Wáng Pōu

Sū Zhé’s commentary was influenced by Wáng Pōu 王雱 (1042–1076, son of Wáng Ānshí) — especially in the use of the Yì jīng’s qióng lǐ jìn xìng formula as the governing hermeneutical principle. Robinet notes the influence both in the shared Northern-Sòng vocabulary and in direct echoes of Wáng Pōu’s specific phrasing (see DZ 706 Dàodé zhēn jīng jí zhù 5.15a). The commentary is also plausibly in dialogue with Sīmǎ Guāng’s 司馬光 commentary (KR5c0072), though Sū Zhé’s orientation is considerably more Buddhist-influenced.

Prefaces

The text carries a postface dated 1108, in which Sū Zhé articulates the polemical-Buddhist origin of the commentary: “I undertook to write this commentary on the Lǎozǐ in order to prove to the Buddhist monk Dào chéng that the teachings of Confucius were akin to those of the Buddha.” A fuller version of this postface is preserved in other editions (including the Wén yuān gé Sìkù recension Lǎozǐ jiě).

Abstract

The commentary is one of the most influential Northern-Sòng literary-intellectual readings of the Dàodé jīng, bringing Sū Zhé’s mature poet-philosopher’s voice to bear on the text. Its Buddhist-Confucian-Daoist synthesis — the foregrounding of fù xìng, the integration of Tiāntái Buddhist vocabulary with Yì jīng Confucian cosmology, and the sustained xìngmìng 性命 metaphysical framework — had substantial influence on Sòng Neo-Confucian philosophical discourse.

Dating. The commentary has a postface dated 1108 but the body of the text (per DZ 721 Dàodé zhēn jīng jí yì dà zhǐ 道德真經集義大旨 1.9b) dates to 1100. Composition must span this decade. Per the project’s dating rule, the frontmatter gives 1100–1108 as the composition window. Dynasty 宋.

Transmission. The text had a rich pre-modern transmission history. Two now-lost 13th-century editions are attested:

  • A calligraphic edition by Zhāng Jízhī 張即之 in 1218 (see Sòng rén zhuàn jì zī liào suǒ yǐn 宋人傳記資料索引 2398).
  • A Sìchuān edition produced in 1255 by the Daoist master Wáng Dàolǐ 王道鯉 (Bó xiū 伯秀), revised by his grandson in 1290 (see Bì sòng lóu cáng shū zhì 皕宋樓藏書志 66.3a).

Neither of these 13th-century editions survives, but their attestation confirms the commentary’s wide circulation in Southern-Sòng Daoist circles.

Translations and research

  • Schipper, Kristofer, and Franciscus Verellen, eds. The Taoist Canon: A Historical Companion to the Daozang. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2004, 2:646 (DZ 691, I. Robinet). Primary reference.
  • Egan, Ronald C. Word, Image, and Deed in the Life of Su Shi. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Asia Center, 1994. For the Sū brothers’ intellectual world.
  • Grant, Beata. Mount Lu Revisited: Buddhism in the Life and Writings of Su Shih. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, 1994. For the Sū-brothers’ Buddhist engagement (Sū Shì’s story parallels Sū Zhé’s).
  • Bol, Peter K. “This Culture of Ours”: Intellectual Transitions in T’ang and Sung China. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1992. For the Sū brothers’ intellectual context.
  • Chaffee, John W. Branches of Heaven: A History of the Imperial Clan of Song China. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Asia Center, 1999.
  • Sòng shǐ 宋史 339.10821. Biographical notice on Sū Zhé.
  • Sū Zhé 蘇轍. Luán chéng jí 欒城集 (collected works, 50 juàn).

Other points of interest

Sū Zhé’s literary standing — as one of the Three Sūs and a member of the canonical TángSòng bā dà jiā 唐宋八大家 (Eight Great Writers of Táng and Sòng) — gives his Daoist commentary an unusual cultural importance. Where Sīmǎ Guāng’s DZ 689 (KR5c0072) is a statesman-historian’s reading and Lǚ Huìqīng’s DZ 686 (KR5c0069) is a reformer-politician’s reading, Sū Zhé’s is a major literary figure’s reading — reflecting the fact that the Northern-Sòng Lǎozǐ tradition was taken up by virtually every category of elite intellectual engagement.

The commentary’s Buddhist-polemical origin — explicitly framed in the 1108 postface as a demonstration to a Buddhist monk — is unusual among the surviving Daoist commentaries. Most Sòng commentaries treat Buddhist philosophical vocabulary as a useful resource; Sū Zhé’s explicitly aims to reach across to Buddhist interlocutors and to demonstrate the fundamental unity of the Three Teachings. This ecumenical orientation distinguishes DZ 691 in the Sòng commentary tradition.

The relationship of Sū Zhé’s DZ 691 to his brother Sū Shì’s (1037–1101) own Lǎozǐ work — Sū Shì is known to have composed a short commentary on the Dàodé jīng, now preserved only in fragments — deserves further study. The two brothers worked in close intellectual dialogue throughout their careers, and DZ 691’s composition period (1100–1108) straddles the year of Sū Shì’s death (1101). The commentary may embody elements of their shared thought on the Lǎozǐ.

Graph View

Backlinks