Yan Zun and the Lines of Dao: Reading Daodejing Chapter 42 Through Laozi, Heshang Gong, and Wang Bi

Abstract

This study restores the late Western Han thinker Yan Zun to his rightful place in the history of Daoist thought. Despite the deep influence of his Laozi zhigui, its fractured transmission has led to modern neglect. This paper illuminates Yan Zun’s overlooked philosophy through a comparative analysis of four readings of Daodejing Chapter 42, a passage famous for its generative ambiguity. It juxtaposes Laozi’s Yangsheng phenomenology of co-presence, Heshang Gong’s Huang-Lao typological metaphysics, and Wang Bi’s Xuanxue radical metaphysics. Situated against this fully developed philosophical backdrop, Yan Zun’s commentary emerges as a sophisticated synthesis. By distinguishing between xu (emptiness) for an ontological non-being and wu (nothingness) for a generative cosmology, Yan Zun forges a unique “onto-cosmology.” He integrates a transcendent Dao as non-being with an immanent Dao as cosmogonic source, a creative tension his successors would later dissect. This analysis recovers Yan Zun both as a lost Daodejing commentator and as the architect of a pivotal, synthetic path in Daoist philosophy.

1. Redressing a Neglect: Yan Zun and the Lost Synthesis of Daoist Thought

This study centers on Yan Zun 嚴遵,1 a pivotal but scandalously overlooked Daoist thinker of the late Western Han dynasty.2 His commentary to the Daodejing, the Laozi zhigui 老子旨歸, is a foundational text that profoundly influenced the Daodejing’s exegetical tradition. Although consistently ranked among the most important Daodejing commentaries from its appearance until the Song dynasty, the subsequent loss of its “Dao” section caused the surviving “De” section to fade into obscurity, resulting in its scant attention in modern scholarship. This neglect, compounded by the Laozi zhigui’s fractured nature, has led to its philosophy being largely dismissed. This paper seeks to redress this by returning Yan Zun to his proper place in the history of Daoist thought.

To illuminate this overlooked philosophy, the present analysis employs a comparative methodology to analyze four distinct editions of Daodejing Chapter 42. This chapter is uniquely well-suited for such a project, being both cosmogonically foundational and notoriously abstruse, a combination that has invited radically different readings across traditions. I will examine four such readings found in their individual “editions,” each representative of a distinct “version” of the text aligned with their own “line of Dao,” or what can be termed an “interpretive community.”3 The aim is not to judge their correctness but to affirm that each constructs a coherent worldview from its own philosophical standpoint.

This study juxtaposes Yan Zun’s “onto-cosmology” (本體宇宙論 benti yuzhou lun) with the phenomenology of Yangsheng Daoism 飬生道, the typological metaphysics of Huang-Lao Daoism 黄老道, and the radical metaphysics of Xuanxue Daoism 玄学道. I intend to show that his work holds a foundational position in the tradition of Daodejing exegesis, one that embodies the cosmological concerns of Huang-Lao and prefigured the later ontological developments of Xuanxue.

This comparative analysis is structured around three distinct lines of Dao that emerged in early China, each characterized by a specific philosophical orientation toward the core concepts of wu 無and you 有:

• Yangsheng Daoism presents a phenomenology of the Dao within the world, characterized by the constant co-presence of wu and you understood as “nothingness” and “somethingness.”
• Huang-Lao Daoism establishes a typological metaphysics of the Dao above the world, characterized by a cosmological priority of wu over you closely aligned with “formlessness” (無形 wuxing) and “form” (有形 you xing).
• Xuanxue Daoism articulates a radical metaphysics of the Dao outside of the world, characterized by an ontological separation between wu and you understood as “non-being” and “being”.

This study examines these lines of Dao through four key figures. Laozi 老子represents the Yangsheng line; Heshang Gong 河上公, the Huang-Lao; Wang Bi 王弼, the Xuanxue; and Yan Zun, while also a Huang-Lao thinker,4 is treated separately to highlight his unique synthesis.5 The sequence of analysis—Laozi, Heshang Gong, Wang Bi, Yan Zun—is strategic rather than chronological. It traces a conceptual evolution: from Yangsheng’s embedded phenomenology, to Huang-Lao’s cosmogonic metaphysics, to Xuanxue’s radical ontology. Placing Yan Zun last, despite his earlier date, allows his sophisticated onto-cosmology to be read against the fully developed philosophical backdrop of his successors, whose work it deeply influenced and prefigured.

A brief note on Laozi’s Yangsheng interpretation is necessary, as it relies on reconstructing a reading from the excavated Guodian Laozi edition of the Daodejing, which is the only version of the four under consideration that is without a dedicated commentary.6 However, I operate from the established premise that a Yangsheng reading of the text, grounded in a Heideggerian-style phenomenology—“to let that which shows itself be seen from itself”—can be discerned. This reading precludes metaphysical explanations, instead positing that nothingness and somethingness are fundamentally and co-presently embedded within the world, in stark contrast to the other three readings, which systematically transform this co-presence into a metaphysical hierarchy (for Huang-Lao) or a chasm (for Xuanxue).

This comparative analysis focuses on the opening sequence of Chapter 42, a passage famous for its extreme abstraction and generative ambiguity. It states:

The Dao sheng One.

One sheng Two.

Two sheng Three.

Three sheng the myriad entities.7

道生一, 一生二, 二生三, 三生萬物

The text offers no explicit referents for the numerical markers One, Two, and Three, rendering the sequence a hermeneutic blank slate. It is this indeterminacy that makes it an ideal locus for comparing the four interpretations. While the Yangsheng phenomenology, the Huang-Lao typological metaphysics, and the Xuanxue radical metaphysics all agree that the Dao is the source and origin of the sequence and that it articulates a concrete movement from the Dao to the empirical world, their explanations of how this occurs—and what these numbers are—diverge radically, revealing the core differences in their respective philosophical systems.

An initial orientation to these divergences can be found in a single, pivotal word: the verb sheng 生. I deliberately leave this term untranslated because its conceptual weight shifts decisively from one interpretive community to the next. For the Yangsheng line of Dao, it implies an organic “giving birth” that brings something into being from a previously existing source; for Huang-Lao, a mechanistic “generating” that brings something into being from a previously existing condition; for Xuanxue, a logical “producing” that brings something into being that has no inherent connection with a previously existing source or condition. Yan Zun, characteristically, employs it in a synthesized sense. This semantic fluidity is not a flaw but a feature of Daodejing exegesis, signaling the fundamentally different processes—organic, cosmogonic, or ontological—that each line of Dao sees as connecting the source, i.e., the Dao, to the manifestation of the myriad entities (萬物 wanwu).

These differing conceptions of sheng point to a deeper structural dichotomy. The Yangsheng phenomenology constructs a “role-functional model”: a ceaseless, non-linear rhythm of emergence and “return” (反 fan) that is intrinsic to the world itself, eternally cycling between the Dao and the myriad entities. The Huang-Lao and Xuanxue lines, however, despite their differences, both rely on a “staged” model—a unidirectional, foundational sequence (whether temporal-cosmogonic or logical-ontological) that either transpired once at the world’s origin (for Huang-Lao), or that transpires continuously but still in a unidirectional, staged manner (for Xuanxue). It is against this dichotomy of a continuous, embedded back-and-forth process and a one-time, unilinear cosmogonic event or a continuous, unilinear logical process that Yan Zun’s unique onto-cosmology will here be defined.8

The paper will proceed by examining each of these four interpretations in sequence. It begins by reconstructing Laozi’s Yangsheng phenomenology from the Daodejing itself, establishing the baseline of co-present nothingness and somethingness. It then analyzes Heshang Gong’s Huang-Lao commentary, demonstrating the transformation into a staged cosmogony that prioritizes nothingness. Next, it turns to Wang Bi’s Xuanxue reading, which radicalizes this priority into an ontological separation. Finally, with this philosophical backdrop fully established, the analysis turns to Yan Zun’s Laozi zhigui, arguing that his synthesis of Huang-Lao cosmology with a proto-Xuanxue ontology justifies his characterization as an “onto-cosmological” thinker and secures his place as a pivotal, yet neglected, figure in the history of Daoist thought.

2. Laozi’s Reading of Chapter 42: The Phenomenology of Emergence and Return

In contrast to the later commentarial tradition, the Daodejing itself offers no explicit designations for One, Two, and Three. Reconstructing the Yangsheng reading therefore requires piecing together a coherent phenomenology from the text’s internal cues. A compelling interpretation, consistent with the text’s embodied worldview, is that One refers to the undifferentiated, primordial qi and the latent “stuff of life” harbored within the Dao. This is vividly depicted in Chapter 21, which describes the Dao as a realm where “inside there are images… there are substances… there are vitalities” (其中有象… 其中有物, 其中有精 qi zhong you xiang… qi zhong you wu… qi zhong you jing). Here, the Dao is not an empty void but a plenum of potential, a chaos (混沌 hundun) pregnant with existence.

This reading is powerfully reinforced by Laozi’s persistent use of the “Mother” (母 mu) as a metaphor for the Dao. Where later commentators like Yan Zun, Heshang Gong, and Wang Bi minimize this gendered, organic imagery, it is central to the Yangsheng worldview. Chapter 25 explicitly defines the Dao in these terms: “There is a substance in chaos completed… It can be taken as the Mother of Heaven and Earth… I call it the Dao” (有物混成, 先天地生… 可以為天下母… 字之曰道 you wu hun cheng xian tiandi sheng… ke yi wei tianxia mu… zi zhi yue dao). This is not an anomaly but a philosophical cornerstone of the Yangsheng phenomenology, because the Mother embodies a phenomenology of immanence—the Dao does not transcend the world but genetically harbors its potentiality in a state of “chaos” (混 hun) pointing to an endlessly latent gestation that ceaselessly remains in a continuous process of giving birth from within.

Taking One as the undifferentiated plenum of primordial qi, then Two designates the dynamic, non-hierarchical interplay of wu (nothingness) and you (somethingness) in their constant co-presence that constitutes the primordial field of phenomenological existence. This constant co-presence is the starkest differentiator between Laozi’s embedded phenomenology and the later lines of Dao, which would institute a priority of wu over you—whether cosmological (Heshang Gong) or ontological (Wang Bi), where Laozi’s Yangsheng version of the Daodejing roots this co-presence squarely within the experienced world.

Chapter 2 establishes their mutual co-presence: “Somethingness and nothingness exist together” (有無相生 you wu xiang sheng). Chapter 40, in an important pre-Huang-Lao formulation seen in the excavated Guodian Laozi, asserts that “the entities of the world arise from somethingness and from nothingness” (天下之物生於有生於亡 tianxia zhi wu sheng yu you sheng yu wu), presenting a double or shared origin without subordination. Even more starkly, Chapter 11 moves from abstract assertion to tangible phenomenology, demonstrating how a room’s utility emerges from the adaptation of its wu and you: “Cut doors and windows to make a room. Adapting its nothingness and somethingness, it is used as a room” (鑿戶牖以為室, 當其無有, 室之用 zao hu you yi wei shi, dang qi wu you, shi zhi yong). Here, wu and you are not metaphysical principles but functional aspects of a single, concrete reality. They are the inseparable poles of a unified field—the Two—whose ceaseless interaction provides the necessary conditions for the myriad entities to emerge into and recede from phenomenal presence.

The movement to Three represents the moment the undifferentiated potential of One is activated within the relational field of Two. Three is not as a separate, discrete stage, but the active, dynamic configuration of the primordial stuff within the phenomenological field. This emphasizes the role-functional and process-oriented nature of the Yangsheng model. It operates not with a new substance, but the primordial qi, recognizable in the “images, substances, and vitalities” of Chapter 21 that differentiates into dynamic, relational modes to directly support the coming-into-presence of the myriad entities, their physical manifestation in the lived world. Chapter 42 itself identifies these three modes at the very instant of an entity’s emergence: “yin… yang… and overflowing qi” (陰… 陽… 沖氣 yin… yang… chong qi). This is not a distant cosmogony but a continuous phenomenology of birth, illustrated by the image of an infant who comes into existence precisely as it is “upheld by yin and embraces yang, and their harmony is achieved with overflowing qi” (萬物負陰而抱陽, 沖氣以為和 wanwu fu yin er bao yang chong qi yi wei he). Here, yin, yang, and chong qi are not staged, substantial entities but the three concurrent aspects of a single, harmonious event of manifestation. They are the active configuration of life itself, the final phenomenological condition through which the latent becomes patent, and, as Chapter16 graphically puts it, the myriad entities “burst forth” (並作 bing zuo) into the world.

For Laozi, however, the birthing sequence from Dao to One to the myriad entities is only half of a greater, ceaseless rhythm. Chapter 50 says, “We emerge into life and go into death” (出生入死 chu sheng ru si), and the movement of the Dao is fundamentally cyclical, characterized by a constant process of “emerging” (出 chu) into phenomenal presence and submerging or “going into” (入 ru) latent non-presence. While Chapter 42 outlines the “forth” journey of manifestation, the text insistently couples this with a “back” journey of return. This principle of “reversion” (反 fan) is not an addendum but the natural and necessary complement to birth, completing the phenomenological process. As Chapter 40 declares with axiomatic clarity: “Reversion is the movement of the Dao” (反者道之動 fan zhe dao zhi dong). This is not a different action, but rather the same process seen from the other side. Chapter 16 vividly captures this single, oscillating motion at the very moment that the myriad entities emerge into existence: “The myriad entities come bursting forth, and by this I see their reversion. Everything flourishes and flourishes, and each again returns to its root” (萬物並作, 吾以觀復, 夫物芸芸, 各復歸其根 wanwu bing zuo wu yi guan qi fu, fu wu yun yun, ge fugui qi gen). The “root” (根 gen) is the Dao itself, the state of undifferentiated potentiality. Thus, the path from the myriad entities back through Three, Two, and One to the Dao is not a historical regression but a perpetual path of return; it is the cosmic respiration that sustains the world’s continuous unfolding and infolding.

This rhythm of emergence and return finds its most definitive and sequential expression in Chapter 25. After characterizing the Dao as “Great” (大 da), the text articulates a penetrating chain of movement: “Great means that it penetrates; penetrating means that it reaches; reaching means that it reverts” (大曰逝, 逝曰遠, 遠曰反 da yue zhe zhe yue yuan yuan yue fan). This sequence—Great (Dao) → Penetrating into the world (逝 zhe) → Reaching full manifestation (遠 yuan) → Reverting back to the source (反 fan)—is the strict correlate to the role-functional sequence of Yangsheng’s reading of Chapter 42, concisely laying out the Dao’s complete trajectory. This is not a journey to a place outside the world, as the passage is commonly understood, but the very pulsation of the world’s primordiality. The same process is mirrored in Chapter 14, which concludes its description of the “boundless, boundless” (繩繩 sheng sheng) Dao by stating that it “returns to the state of non-substantiality’’ (復歸於無物 fugui yu wu wu), and which is echoed in Chapter 34’s affirmation that while “the myriad entities depend on it for their birth… the myriad entities return to it” (萬物恃之而生… 萬物歸焉 wanwu shi zhi er sheng… wanwu gui yan). Together, these passages frame the entire cosmic process as a grand, perpetual cycle of which the sage’s “return to the Mother” is the human instantiation.

This ceaseless, cyclical process finds its ultimate expression in the figure of the sage, who consciously aligns with the Dao’s rhythm of emanation and return. That “returning to the root” (歸根 guigen) is an attainable mode of being, and not just a cosmic principle, is articulated with succinct clarity in Chapter 52, which powerfully redeploys the metaphor of the Dao as Mother, binding the text’s cosmology to its soteriology:

The world had a beginning, which can be taken as the Mother of the world.

Having attained the Mother, one uses it to know her children.

Having known her children, if one again returns to preserve the Mother,

Then to the end of one’s life one will not be endangered.

天下有始, 以為天下母. 既得其母, 以知其子, 既知其子, 復守其母, 沒身不殆

Here, the entire phenomenological landscape is crystallized. The Mother is the Dao as the birthing, undifferentiated source; the “children” are the myriad entities in their concrete, manifested existence. The sage’s wisdom lies in a dynamic, non-attached engagement with the world, metaphorically given as “knowing the children” (知其子 zhi qi zi) while perpetually “returning to preserve” (復守 fu shou) the foundational, nurturing source. This is the conscious embodiment of the Dao’s own movement of “reversion.” It is a foundational way of residing within the world, not a rejection of it, by remaining rooted in the primordial stillness of the Mother whereby the sage navigates the fluctuations of existence without being consumed by them.

Thus, Laozi’s Yangsheng reading of Chapter 42 presents a vision of reality not as a hierarchy of being or a one-time creation, but as a single, unified field in constant, rhythmic transformation. The sequence “Dao, One, Two, Three, myriad entities” describes the functional roles within an eternal dance of presence and absence, a dance in which the sage learns to participate freely by embodying the principle of return.

3. Heshang Gong’s Reading of Chapter 42: The Staged Cosmogony of Generative Nothingness

Standing in stark contrast to Laozi’s immanent phenomenology, Heshang Gong’s commentary systematically reframes the Daodejing through the lens of Huang-Lao thought. This line of Dao is characterized by a cohesive triad of focuses: a cosmogony that unfolds from a metaphysically prior Constant Dao (常道 changdao); a technique of spirit cultivation (坐忘 zuowang) that enables the ruler to immediately apprehend this Dao and its world-organizing principles, including “law” (法 fa), “pattern” (理 li), and “measure” (度 du); and a political vision that identifies the ruler with yin, thereby inverting the Confucian yang-centric model to practically implement these cosmic principles in governance. As an Eastern Han text, Heshang Gong’s commentary represents the mature culmination of this Huang-Lao synthesis, building upon its pinnacle of political success under Han Emperors Wen and Jing (180–141 BCE) and its philosophical zenith in the encyclopedic Huainanzi.

This Huang-Lao framework, emerging from Yangsheng roots in the mid-Warring States period, rests on two important philosophical transformations. As evidenced by excavated manuscripts like the Hengxian 恒先 and Huangdi sijing 黄帝四經, Huang-Lao thinkers first transformed Laozi’s dynamic, temporalizing Dao (恒道 hengdao) into an eternal, substantive Constant Dao (常道 changdao). Second, they dismantled the constant co-presence of wu and you, instituting a clear cosmological priority of wu (as formlessness) over you (as form). This had monumental consequences: the Dao was now established as a metaphysical entity prior to and above the world, intimately associated with, if not also often equated with, a generative nothingness.9 This laid the groundwork for the staged, cosmogonic interpretation that defines Heshang Gong’s reading of Chapter 42.

This systematic re-reading is nowhere more apparent than in Heshang Gong’s handling of the “Four Greats” (四大 si da) in Chapter 25. The Guodian Laozi presents a sequence firmly grounded within the cosmos: it is a horizontal relationship of co-present sacredness, situating the Dao alongside Heaven and Earth within the same immanent field.

Heaven engreats.

Earth engreats.

The Dao engreats.

The King also engreats.

天大, 地大, 道大, 王亦大

Huang-Lao’s editorial intervention, however, is philosophically seismic. By re-ordering the lines, it allows Heshang Gong to construct a vertical, hierarchical metaphysics of derived descent:

The Dao is Great.

Heaven is Great.

Earth is Great.

The King is also Great.

道大, 天大, 地大, 王亦大

Instead of a mere list, this is a cosmological argument positing the Dao as the metaphysically prior source, the “Great” from which the greatness of Heaven and Earth is derived, and with this, the shift from a phenomenology of co-presence to a cosmology of ontological priority is complete. The grammatical understanding of “Great” (大 da) shifts accordingly: from a gerundive, role-functional sense of “to en-great [the myriad entities]” within the world, to a substantive description of the Dao’s own nature as an all-encompassing entity. As Heshang Gong himself comments, “That the Dao is great means that it envelops Heaven and Earth and there is nothing that it does not enclose” (道大者, 包羅天地, 無所不容也 dao da zhe bao luo tian di wu suo bu rong ye). The gulf between the two sequences marks the definitive shift from an immanent phenomenology to a typological metaphysics.

This same transformative impulse is evident in Heshang Gong’s handling of the relationship between wu and you. As established, Yangsheng phenomenology insists on their constant co-presence, exemplified by Chapter 2’s “Somethingness and nothingness exist together” and by its version of Chapter 40’s declaration that “the entities of the world arise from somethingness and from nothingness” (天下之物生於有生於亡 tianxia zhi wu sheng yu you sheng yu wu). This double origin presents a non-hierarchical emergence from both principles simultaneously. Heshang Gong’s Huang-Lao version, however, contains a definitive variant. His Chapter 40 reads: “The myriad entities of the world are generated from somethingness, and somethingness is generated from nothingness” (天下萬物生於有, 有生於無 tianxia zhi wu sheng yu you, you sheng yu wu).

This single alteration—changing “and from nothingness” (生於亡 sheng yu wu) to “somethingness is generated from nothingness” (有生於無 you sheng yu wu)—institutes a strict, unidirectional cosmogonic sequence. Nothingness (wu) is no longer a co-present aspect of the world but is now established as the metaphysically prior generative source of somethingness (you), seamlessly aligning it with the Constant Dao itself. With this philosophical groundwork laid—the Dao elevated, the Four Greats reordered, and wu granted cosmological priority—Heshang Gong’s distinctive “staged” interpretation of Chapter 42’s numerical sequence comes into full view. His commentary begins by firmly anchoring the passage in a cosmogonic context:

The Way generated One.

Commentary: What the Dao generated was One.

道使所生者一也

The environment is fundamentally cosmogonic: the substantive Constant Dao exists eternally in the field of nothingness. A key similarity with the Yangsheng reading is that the Dao is still seen as replete with the latent “stuff of life” described in Chapter 21 (“images… substances… vitalities”); however, a critical difference immediately emerges. Where Laozi envisions this through the analogy of a gestating mother, Heshang Gong pointedly avoids this organic imagery. For him, the Constant Dao is a neuter, genderless metaphysical entity. This is precisely why the translation of sheng as “to generate” is more appropriate here than “to give birth to.” The process, no longer organic and immanent, has become mechanistic and hierarchical.

The commentary continues, systematically assigning concrete, substantive referents to each number in the sequence:

One generated Two.

Commentary: One generated yin and yang.

一生陰與陽也

Two generated Three.

Commentary: Yin and yang generated the clear, the turbid, and the harmonious—three types of qi. They divided into Heaven, Earth, and Humanity.

陰陽生和, 清, 濁三氣, 分為天地人也

Three generated the myriad entities.

Commentary: Heaven, Earth, and Humanity together generated the myriad entities. Heaven distributes, Earth transforms, and Humanity raises and nourishes them.

天地人共生萬物也, 天施地化, 人長養之也

Here, the numerical sequence is decoded into a precise cosmogonic narrative. One is original qi (元气 yuanqi), the undifferentiated stuff of life contained within the Constant Dao. Two is the distillation of this qi into the primordial forces of light yang qi and heavy yin qi. Three encompasses all three qi together: the clear yang qi that ascends to form Heaven, the turbid yin qi that descends to form Earth, and the original, harmonious qi that, in its balanced and unmixed state, formed Humanity.

The inclusion of Humanity as a co-equal cosmogonic participant with Heaven and Earth may seem counterintuitive, as humans are ostensibly part of the myriad entities. However, this move pointedly reveals Heshang Gong’s Huang-Lao agenda. He requires a third, distinct member to complete the triad of Three, and he uses this cosmological necessity to establish a privileged, foundational role for humanity—and particularly the ruler—within the very structure of the universe. As previously established in his reordering of Chapter 25, the King is the fourth ‘Great,’ whose exalted status is woven into the fabric of creation itself. Once the myriad entities come into existence, it becomes the special responsibility of Humanity, embodying the harmonious qi of the Dao, to “raise and nourish them” (長養之 chang yang zhi). This transforms humanity from a passive creation into an active steward and completes the transition from a generative cosmogony to a political cosmology, where the sage-ruler’s task is to align the human realm with the celestial and terrestrial patterns.

In Heshang Gong’s schema, the emergence of Heaven and Earth marks the great cosmogonic divide. The timeless, formless realm of the Constant Dao and its qi (constituting wu) give way to the temporal, spatial realm of forms (constituting you). The myriad entities are thus temporary configurations of the three qi—yin, yang, and harmonious qi—but they can only manifest within the formed matrices of Heaven and Earth. The staged process from the Dao to Three establishes the cosmogonic framework as well as the latent potential of the qi; the generative work of Heaven and Earth constitutes the dynamic process of manifestation and the empirical actualization of the myriad entities.

Heshang Gong explicitly maps this cosmogonic divide onto the concepts of wu and you. He identifies the Dao and its formless qi with wu, and the formed, positioned Heaven and Earth with you. This allows him to provide a concrete interpretation of the classic line from his version of Chapter 40, “somethingness is generated from nothingness,” read as “form is generated from formlessness.” His commentary states: “Heaven and Earth… are all generated from the Dao. The Dao is formless and thus it indicates that they are generated from wu.” Conversely, on the line “the myriad entities are generated from you,” he comments: “The myriad entities are all generated from Heaven and Earth, and since Heaven and Earth have form and position, this means that they are generated from you.” With this, the metaphysical hierarchy is fully implemented and logically tight: the formless Dao (wu) generates Heaven and Earth (the primary you), which in turn generate the myriad entities (the secondary you).

Heshang Gong further cements this exalted status of Heaven and Earth in his commentary on Chapter 1. On the line “The Nameless is the beginning of Heaven and Earth” (無名天地之始 wuming tian di zhi shi), he writes:

The Nameless refers to the Dao. Because the Dao is formless, it is therefore unnamable. The Beginning of Heaven and Earth is the Dao, the root. It emits qi from its empty voidness that Heaven and Earth will distribute and transform, which is the root Beginning of Heaven and Earth.

Here, the “Nameless” (無名 wuming) is unequivocally identified with the formless Dao (wu), which acts as the root (本 ben) emitting the qi that forms Heaven and Earth. Conversely, on the line “The Named is the mother of the myriad entities” (有名萬物之母 you ming wawu zhi mu), he states:

The Named (有名 youming) refers to Heaven and Earth. Because Heaven and Earth possess form and position, they thus possess yin and yang and pliancy and hardness, therefore they are the Named. The mother of the myriad entities means that Heaven and Earth store qi that generates the myriad entities and raises them and brings them to maturity like a mother nourishing her children.

This represents a fundamental reconfiguration of Laozi’s imagery. For him, the Mother was the Dao itself. Heshang Gong systematically transfers this generative, nurturing function to the formed cosmos—Heaven and Earth—thereby solidifying their role as the proximate, active generators of the world. Central to this process is the specific mechanism that he introduces: Heaven “distributes” (施 shi or 布 bu) its stored yang qi, while Earth “transforms” (化 hua) its stored yin qi. This is the operational core of his political cosmology, a mechanism he explicitly applies in his commentaries on Chapters 5, 21, 25, and especially 42.

Heshang Gong’s vision of this generative process is brought to its most striking and tangible conclusion in his commentary on the cryptic lines of Chapter 6: “The Spirit of the Valley never dies. This is called the Mystery and the Female” (谷神不死, 是謂玄牝 gu shen bu si shi wei xuan pin). He explicates this not as an abstract principle, but as the very mechanism of life, mapping the cosmic functions of Heaven and Earth directly onto human physiology:

This means that deathlessness belongs to the Mystery and the Female. The Mystery is Heaven and in humans it is the nose. The Female is Earth and in humans it is the mouth. Heaven nourishes people with the five qi, which enter through the nose and are stored in the heart… Their ghostly aspect is called the hun-soul… it connects with Heaven. Earth nourishes people with the five flavors, which enter through the mouth and are stored in the stomach… Their ghostly aspect is called the po-soul… it connects with the Earth.

In this passage, the abstract cosmogonic principles are mapped onto embodied functions. Heaven’s “distribution” (shi) of yang qi is the act of breathing through the nose; Earth’s “transformation” (hua) of yin qi is the ingestion of nourishment through the mouth. The human body is not just seen as a product of the cosmos, but a microcosm replicating its generative structure, sustained by the same continuous influx from “the Mystery and the Female” (玄牝 xuan pin).

Heshang Gong’s reading of Chapter 42 executes a systematic transformation of the Daodejing. Where Laozi’s Yangsheng Daoism presented a diffusive, non-linear phenomenology ceaselessly turning back on itself, Heshang Gong’s Huang-Lao commentary constructs a unidirectional, staged cosmogony. This sequence originates from the metaphysically prior Constant Dao and progresses through discrete, substantive stages: from the undifferentiated One (original qi), to the distilled Two (yin and yang), to the tripartite Three (the qi that form Heaven, Earth, and Humanity), culminating in the generated empirical world. This has transformed the sequence from a description of the world’s immanent rhythm to a definitive history of its hierarchical origin. By meticulously reconfiguring key terms—elevating the Dao, instituting the priority of wu, and transferring generative power to Heaven and Earth—Heshang Gong forges a political cosmology where the sage-ruler’s task is to align or coordinate with this cosmic architecture in governance. It is precisely this robust but rigid typological metaphysics that the next line of Dao, Xuanxue, will seek to dismantle and radicalize, pushing the concept of wu from a generative nothingness to an ontological non-being.

4. Wang Bi’s Reading of Chapter 42: The Logical Ontology of Non-Being

Although Huang-Lao thought had been banished from the court with the reign of Emperor Wu in the mid-Western Han, it remained the face of Daoism throughout the Eastern Han; however, the collapse of the dynasty shattered not only an empire but the cosmological confidence that underpinned Huang-Lao thought. In the ensuing intellectual ferment of the Wei-Jin period, the disillusioned elite turned inward, away from statecraft and toward the mysteries of the self and subjectivity.10 From this atmosphere emerged Xuanxue, a new line of Dao characterized by its preference for abstract metaphysical speculation, often expressed through “pure conversation” (清谈 qingtan). It was in this context that Wang Bi composed his commentary on the Daodejing, initiating a philosophical revolution by transforming its core concepts. While Xuanxue retained an interest in classic Daoist notions like wuwei, ziran, and the Constant Dao, its most seminal innovation was the radical re-interpretation of wu—no longer the fecund, generative nothingness of Huang-Lao, but a stark, ontological non-being.

Heshang Gong’s Huang-Lao metaphysics constructed a cosmogony of substance, but Wang Bi’s Xuanxue proposed an ontology of logic. For Huang-Lao thinkers, wu (nothingness) was a formless, pregnant void that preceded and generated the you (somethingness) of the world. Wang Bi severed this generative link. In his system, wu is not a prior cosmological state but the absolute ontological ground of existence: non-being itself, from which you (being) logically and perpetually emerges. This shift from a temporal and substantive priority to a logical and foundational priority marks the essence of his radical metaphysics. While Yan Zun had pioneered elements of this understanding, it was Wang Bi who wove it into the coherent and rigorously systematic philosophy that would define Xuanxue and dominate the reception of the Daodejing for centuries to come.

Wang Bi’s radical metaphysics is matched by his distinctive hermeneutic. Next to the expansiveness of Heshang Gong’s commentary that fills the Daodejing with detailed cosmogonic principles and physiological correlations, Wang Bi’s approach is one of rigorous economy. He pares away the substantive layers—the qi, the staged generations, the cosmic coordination—to expose what he sees as the text’s underlying logical skeleton. His commentary on Chapter 42 is famously sparse, reflecting his belief that the core of the Dao is grasped not through the accumulation of correspondences but through a sudden, intuitive leap into its axiomatic structure. He presents the text almost nakedly, trusting the logic of the sequence itself to point toward the ultimate principle of non-being.

Wang Bi’s commentary on the opening of Chapter 42 is terse to the point of being cryptic, yet it contains the entire architecture of his ontological system:

The Dao produces One.

One produces Two.

Two produces Three.

Three produces the myriad entities.

Commentary: The myriad entities and their myriad forms return to One. On what basis is One brought about? It is through non-being. Since it is through non-being that there is One, One can be called non-being. But since it is already called “One,” how can it be without a word for it? And since there is both the word [“One”] and the entity One, how can they not be Two? Given One and Two, Three is then produced. From non-being to being, the numbers come to an end. Going beyond this, there is nothing more that flows from the Dao.

萬物萬形，其歸一也。何由致一？由於無也。由無乃一，一可謂無。已謂之一，豈得無言乎。有言有一，非二如何。有一有二，遂生乎三。從無之有，數盡乎斯。過此以往，非道之流。

Wang Bi’s commentary reveals a process not of a sequentially staged cosmogonic generation but of an ontological necessity unfolding through the medium of language and logic. The sequence “from non-being to being” (從無之有 cong wu shi you) is not temporal but conceptual. The Dao as ultimate non-being necessitates a first self-determination, which is One. Yet, the moment we conceive of or name this One, a duality is produced: the concept itself (“One”) and its referent (the entity One). This is Two. The coexistence of this pair—the named and its name—immediately and logically gives rise to the relationship between them, the whole comprising the three parts: the concept, the referent, and their unifying context. Conjoined with a hefty “Voila!” and there is Three or, as he writes in the last section of his commentary to this chapter: “Although it is called One, it turns into Three” (既謂之一, 猶乃至三).

The entire empirical realm of the myriad entities is the manifestation of this primordial logical structure of being, which itself is grounded in non-being. This process describes the necessary conditions for existence, not a history of the world’s emergence.

A central feature of Wang Bi’s ontological sequence is its radical lack of substance. It describes not the emanation of qi but the logical structures from which being itself appears, entirely without recourse to the empirical world. This stands in stark contrast to Heshang Gong’s cosmogonic sequence, which progresses along a unidirectional temporal line through distinct, self-contained stages—One as original qi, Two as yin and yang, Three as clear, turbid, and harmonious qi—each stage replete with substantive content eventuating in the generation of the world. Wang Bi’s logical structure from Dao to Three, on the other hand, represents a non-material, non-linear but still unidirectional process that is at play at every moment. It is telling that his entire commentary mentions yang only once and never yin, and where Heshang Gong’s commentary mentions qi more than fifty times, Wang Bi mentions it only four times, and never in relation to the “stuff” of the world.

A visual representation can help clarify the logical relationships Wang Bi has in mind:

• Dao as non-being: ◯

The undifferentiated, ineffable source; pure non-being.

• One as non-being’s self-determination: ⦵

The first logical distinction; non-being positing itself as a unified principle.

• Two as the name and the named: ⦵ plus the word “一” yi (“One”).
• Three as the relational whole comprising the triadic structure of the One, the word “One,” and the relationship between them: the complete set of terms and relations produced by the act of naming and distinguishing.
• The realm of being and the myriad entities and the myriad forms unfold from this wholeness.

This schema illustrates that for Wang Bi, the “production” (生 sheng) in Chapter 42 is a logical, not a cosmological, act. The numbers articulate the fundamental architecture of manifestation itself, a process completed once the triad is formed. As he states, once the numbers from One to Three are produced, the logical work of the Dao is complete: “From non-being to being, the numbers come to an end. Going beyond this, there is nothing more that flows from the Dao” (數盡乎斯. 過此以往, 非道之流 shu jin hu si, guo ci yi wang, fei dao zhi liu).

This logical procession establishes Wang Bi’s deliberate departure from Huang-Lao cosmogony. A potential objection might be that if wu is the ground of you, this is itself a form of “generation.” The distinction, however, is fundamental. For Heshang Gong and Yan Zun, sheng describes a temporal and substantive process—the Dao, as a generative nothingness, precedes and brings forth the somethingness of the world in a cascading sequence of qi. For Wang Bi, however, sheng denotes a logical and perpetual relationship of dependence. Non-being does not temporally precede being; it is its ontological precondition. There is no “before” or “after,” only a timeless, foundational relationship where being is perpetually grounded in non-being. Wang Bi thus severs the generative link not by denying a connection, but by transforming it from a cosmogonic event into an ontological principle.

In Wang Bi’s ontology, this logical procession establishes a radical break between non-being, on the one hand, and being and the myriad entities, on the other. This firm demarcation is the cornerstone of his radical metaphysics. He is not questioning the cosmogonic or physical origins of the myriad entities, but the logical structures by which being is produced from non-being. His method is to cordon off the realm of non-being from the realm of beings, positing being itself as the mediating step that crosses from the realm of logic into the world of manifestation.

The great question of Western metaphysics—how can non-being produce being?—finds a unique answer here. However, the more pertinent question for Wang Bi’s system is not how non-being produces being, but how being subsequently produces beings. This is where the concept of One becomes paramount. As he elucidates in his commentary on Chapter 39, “One is the beginning of numbers and the ultimate of entities. Each of the entities attains One for completion” (一, 數之始而物之極也. 物皆各得此一以成 yi shu zhi shi er wu zhi ji ye, wu jie ge de ci y- yi cheng). Once the ontological distinction is established through the numbers, the world functions by virtue of this One—the principle of unity and coherence that all entities must “attain” (得 de) in order to exist. In this sense, non-being (the Dao) is the “root” (本 ben) of being, but this must be understood in a strictly ontological sense: as he writes in Chapter 40, “All of the entities of the world take being as their life but being takes non-being as its root” (天下之物皆以有為生, 有之所始, 以無為本 tianxia zhe wu jie yi you wei sheng, you zhi suo shi yi wei ben).

Wang Bi’s sparse commentary is thus not an absence of interpretation but the manifestation of his core hermeneutic principle: to point toward the Dao, one must systematically negate all substantive, positive attributes. His entire exegetical project can be understood as a hermeneutic of negation. Where Heshang Gong’s commentary adds layers of cosmogonic detail—original qi, yin and yang, Heaven, Earth, and Humanity—Wang Bi’s commentary strips them away. He pares down the text to its logical bones because he believes that any positive description of the Dao risks reifying it into just another entity (you), thereby obscuring its true nature as non-being (wu). His refusal to define the numbers with substances like qi is therefore a deliberate philosophical act. It is through this negation of the empirical and the substantive that his commentary performs the ontological function that it describes: clearing the conceptual space for non-being to be apprehended not as a generative void, but as the absolute ground of all logic and existence. This makes his commentary a mirror of his metaphysics—both are radically non-substantive, concerned solely with the foundational relationships that make manifestation possible.

Wang Bi’s Xuanxue interpretation of Chapter 42 executes a decisive break from the cosmogonic traditions that preceded him. Through a hermeneutic of negation, he transforms the sequence from a narrative of cosmic generation into a revelation of ontological structure. The verb sheng is recast as logical “production”; the numbers One, Two, and Three are desubstantiated into a sequence of conceptual differentiation; and the Huang-Lao priority of wu is radicalized into an ontological chasm between non-being and being. In doing so, Wang Bi offers not only a new reading of the Daodejing, but a fundamental reorientation to the project of Daoist metaphysics from inquiring into the world’s origin to interrogating the logical preconditions of its existence.

5. Yan Zun’s Reading of Chapter 42: The Onto-Cosmological Synthesis

Yan Zun’s interpretation of Daodejing 42 represents a pivotal synthesis in the history of Daoist thought, forging what can be termed an “onto-cosmology” that would later be dissected and radicalized by his successors. Writing before both Heshang Gong and Wang Bi, Yan Zun’s commentary stands as a sophisticated hybrid. It operates within a Huang-Lao framework of a generative, qi-based cosmogony, while simultaneously developing a radical metaphysics of non-being that prefigured and deeply influenced the Xuanxue of Wang Bi.11 The primary challenge to reading Yan Zun lies in disentangling his innovative yet nuanced use of core terms, particularly his deliberate distinction between xu 虚 (emptiness) and wu 無 (nothingness). He employs “emptiness” to articulate a proto-Xuanxue metaphysics of non-being, which Wang Bi would later adopt and refine, and “nothingness” to describe the fecund, generative void within his substance cosmology, which aligns with Heshang Gong’s broader Huang-Lao line of Dao. It is through this careful terminological scaffolding that Yan Zun constructs his unique system, where the Dao is both the ontologically separate ground of being and the cosmologically active source of the world.

Like the later interpreters who would follow him, Yan Zun maintains a metaphysical break in the generative sequence of Chapter 42. The Dao, One, Two, and Three belong to the formless realm (wu), while the myriad entities belong to the realm of form (you). However, Yan Zun pushes the formless realm to a metaphysical extreme, characterizing it as radically self-enclosed and ontologically separate. Yet, the processes of this realm not only generate the myriad entities but also continue to govern them. This is the sophisticated core of Yan Zun’s onto-cosmology: he integrates a radical metaphysics of an ontologically transcendent Dao with a typological metaphysics of a cosmologically immanent and generative Dao. It is this synthesis achieved by Yan Zun that created the philosophical tension which Wang Bi would later seek to resolve by abandoning the cosmological side of the equation altogether in favor of a purely ontological system.12

Because the nature of Yan Zun’s commentary is holistic and cannot be adequately analyzed in isolated fragments, as well as its scarcity in modern Western scholarship, the following analysis requires a complete translation of his commentary on the opening passages of Chapter 42. This translation will structure the subsequent exegesis, which can be broken down into its component parts: the Dao in three subsections A, B, and C, followed by One, Two, and Three, mirroring the sequence set forth in Chapter 42. The commentary begins with the base text:

The Dao generates One.

One generates Two.

Two generates Three.

Three generates the myriad entities.

The myriad entities are upheld by yin and embrace yang, and empty qi is taken as harmonious.

道生一，一生二，二生三，三生萬物。萬物負陰而抱陽，沖氣以為和。

5.1. Dao A: The Formulations of Emptiness and Nothingness

Yan Zun begins with an expansive description of the Dao, immediately establishing his signature terminology:

The emptiness of emptiness begins and guides, endows and provides. The self-so-ness of nothingness is self-so, but the self-so cannot generate self-so-ness. Emptiness molds and smelts, changes and transforms. That which begins production produces, but what is produced cannot produce. There is the nothingness of nothingness, but Spirit-Illumination cannot alter (it). That which generates existence exists, but what exists cannot generate existence. Nothingness is fine and delicate, subtle and mysterious. That which initiates completion completes, but what is completed cannot complete.

有虛之虛者開導稟受，無然然者而然不能然也；有虛者陶冶變化，始生生者而不能生也；有無之無者而神明不能改，造存存者而存不能存也；有無者纖微玄妙，動成成者而成不能成也。

Yan Zun’s first move is to draw a stark distinction between “emptiness” (xu) and “nothingness” (wu). He designates the Dao with the most absolute terms: “the emptiness of emptiness” (虛之虛 xu zhi xu) and “the nothingness of the nothingness of the nothingness of nothingness” (無無無之無 wu wu wu zhi wu).13 To provide initial context, he will soon designate One as simply “emptiness” (xu) and “the nothingness of the nothingness of nothingness” (無無之無 wu wu zhi wu), establishing a hierarchical calibration of these concepts.

Yan Zun’s distinction between “emptiness” and “nothingness” supplies the basis on which his philosophy is characterized as an “onto-cosmology.” Du Bau-reui clarifies this:

When it comes to the characteristics of the substance of the Dao, they are often explored in conjunction with cosmological thinking. This is because the Dao, as the overarching principle of the entire realm of existence, is simultaneously the primordial source of existence in cosmological terms. Therefore, when discussing the existential attributes of the concept of the Dao, the inquiry often navigates between two dimensions: one as a purely rational form [i.e., “ontology”] and the other as an existentially grounded primordial source [i.e., “cosmology”]. (Du 2002, pp. 909–10)14

As such, when examining it as a purely rational, ontological form, the focus is on the abstract characteristics of the substance of the Dao. Conversely, when investigating it as the primordial source of cosmological existence, the emphasis shifts to its concrete existential attributes.

But what is the difference? In Yan Zun’s system, the Dao as “the emptiness of emptiness” (xu zhi xu) is equivalent to absolute non-being, the ontological condition of pure negation prior to time, space, and existence itself. When he refers to One as “emptiness” (xu), it signifies a lesser degree of this same non-being.15 The ontological import of this is clarified later in Dao C, where he states that “fullness is produced from emptiness” (實生於虛 shi sheng yu xu). This use of xu is a significant departure from Heshang Gong and Wang Bi. For them, xu typically describes an attribute of existing things (e.g., an empty mind, the hub of a wheel, or even words or phrases that are devoid of meaning). Yan Zun, however, posits xu as a fundamental ontological condition preceding fullness (實 shi). Heshang Gong and Wang Bi do not employ “emptiness” with this ontological meaning, but for different reasons: Heshang Gong had little interest in such ontology, and Wang Bi favored the term wu over xu for non-being, seeking stricter terminological uniformity.

By contrast, Yan Zun’s use of wu (nothingness) primarily connotes the primal, fecund potentiality within his substance cosmology. He deliberately keeps this sense of wu separate from the logical ontology announced by his use of xu (emptiness). This dual usage is borne out structurally: “emptiness” appears in two forms, xu zhi xu to characterize the Dao and xu to characterize One, anchoring his radical metaphysics. At the same time, “nothingness” appears in four different forms: wu wu wu zhi wu corresponding to Dao, wu wu zhi wu corresponding to One, wu zhi wu corresponding to Two, and wu corresponding to Three, all of which describe the staged, cosmogonic processes of generating forms from formlessness, and since each downward stage embodies a correspondingly lesser degree of nothingness, there is one less “wu” by which it is identified.

This foundational hierarchy is rigid, since the formless sources possess absolute autonomy and generative authority over the formed. This principle is repeatedly asserted in passages like, “That which begins generation generates, but what is generated cannot generate” (始生生者而不能生也 shi sheng sheng zhe er bu neng sheng ye). This establishes a top-down, irreversible chain of causation that is central to his onto-cosmological system.16

5.2. Dao B: The Onto-Cosmological Map

Yan Zun begins this section by resuming his discourse on ontological emptiness and cosmological nothingness, now mapping them directly onto the generative sequence:

Therefore, the emptiness of emptiness generates emptiness, the nothingness of nothingness generates nothingness, and nothingness generates that which has form. Therefore, all that which has form belong to entities and species. Entities have their ancestor, and species have their progenitors. Heaven and Earth are the greatest of entities, and Humanity is the next. As for the generation of Heaven and Humanity: their forms arise from qi, qi arises from Harmony, Harmony arises from Spirit-Illumination, Spirit-Illumination arises from Dao-De [the unified principle of Dao and One], Dao-De arises from the Self-so, and the myriad entities exist. Therefore, what makes Heaven to be Heaven is not Heaven, and what makes Humanity to be Humanity is not Humanity.

故，虛之虛者生虛者，無之無者生無者，無者生有形者。故諸有形之徒皆屬於物類。物有所宗，類有所祖。天地，物之大者，人次之矣。夫天人之生也，形因於氣，氣因於和，和因於神明，神明因於道德，道德因於自然：萬物以存。故使天為天者非天也，使人為人者非人也。

This passage is the genealogical key to Yan Zun’s onto-cosmology, and there is a method to use his of metaphors of human lineage that underscores his onto-cosmology.17 In plain language, his statement that “the emptiness of emptiness produces emptiness” is his ontological formulation for “the Dao produces One.” Both the Dao and One partake of emptiness (non-being), but despite being referred to later in the commentary, this discussion essentially concludes here, while the remainder shifts to a near exclusive focus on “nothingness,” marking the full transition from ontology to cosmology.

Yan Zun then lays out the entire generative process in two directions. First, he moves forward from the Dao to the world in presenting a truncated form of the complete process, which in its entirety is: the Dao (the nothingness of the nothingness of the nothingness of nothingness) generates One (the nothingness of the nothingness of nothingness), which generates Two (the nothingness of nothingness), which generates Three (nothingness), culminating in “that which has form” (有形者 you xing zhe), referring to the myriad entities. This catapults the reader directly from the ultimate principle to the empirical world, emphasizing the Dao as the sole, ultimate “progenitor” (祖 zu), with the One, Two, and Three as “ancestors” (宗 zong).

Second, he presents the process in reverse form of the sequence from Chapter 42, tracing the lineage of the world back to its source. This creates a powerful onto-cosmological chain:

Myriad Entities ← qi ← Harmony (Three) ← Spirit-Illumination (Two) ← Dao-De (Dao & One) ← Self-so (ziran)

This schema accomplishes several things. It systematically subordinates each stage to the one before it, reinforcing the hierarchical principle that “what is generated cannot generate.”18 By naming the stages—Dao-De, Spirit-Illumination, Harmony—he assigns them functional, agential roles within the cosmology. Most importantly, it crystallizes the core argument of his synthesis: the empirical world (Heaven and Humanity) is utterly dependent on a continuous influx from a formless source that is both its ontological ground (Dao-De arising from the Self-so) and its direct cosmological cause (the chain of qi, Harmony, and Spirit-Illumination).19

5.3. Dao C: Affirming the Primacy of Non-Being

The final Dao section returns to a discussion of the cosmic Dao, invoking a (now-lost) passage from the Zhuangzi to anchor its claims:

How can this be explained? Zhuangzi said: “As for the human shape, from what is it obtained? As for intelligence and understanding, and for stimulus and response, from what are they acquired? As for changes and transformations and ends and beginnings, what causes them?” From this point of view, somethingness is generated from nothingness, and fullness is generated from emptiness. This is also clear. Therefore, the nothingness of nothingness is without beginning, and it cannot have substantial existence. It is shapeless and soundless, and it cannot be seen or heard. It endows nothingness and provides somethingness. It is not possible to describe the Dao. The nothingness of the nothingness of the nothingness of nothingness, the beginning that has not yet begun to begin: this is the origin of the myriad entities and the source of their nature and constitution. That which is devoid of what can be named is called the Dao.

何以明之？莊子曰：夫人形（腐）〔臠〕，何所取之？聰明感應，何所得之？變化終始，熟者為之？由此觀之，有生於無，實生於虛，亦以明矣。是故，無無無始，不可存在，無形無聲，不可視聽，稟無授有，不可言道，無無無之無，始末始之始，萬物所由，性命所以，無有所名者謂之道。

Dao C serves as a powerful recapitulation. It reiterates the foundational priorities: “somethingness is generated from nothingness, and fullness is generated from emptiness.” The description of the Dao as “shapeless, soundless, invisible, and inaudible” strongly echoes the Daodejing, but Yan Zun reframes it within his own complex formulation as “the nothingness of the nothingness of the nothingness of nothingness” and “the beginning that has not yet begun to begin” (始末始之始 shi wei shi zhi shi).

More than rhetorical flourish, this is a philosophical insistence on the Dao’s absolute transcendence and ontological priority. By pushing the concept of origin to this logical extreme—a beginning before beginning—Yan Zun solidifies the Dao’s status as the unconditioned ground of all conditioned existence. Yet, in a final move that characterizes his onto-cosmology, he immediately reaffirms that this ineffable, transcendent principle is nevertheless “the origin of the myriad entities and the source of their nature and constitution.” The Dao is both the ultimate No-thing and the ultimate source of everything.

5.4. One: The Pivot Between Nothingness and Non-Being

This section of the commentary is devoted to explicating One, and it begins with a final, definitive nod to the radical metaphysics that underpins the entire sequence:

The Dao is the emptiness of emptiness; thus, it can generate One.

道虛之虛，故能生一。

With this simple statement, Yan Zun provides the ontological justification for the entire cosmogony. Only because the Dao is absolute non-being as “the emptiness of emptiness” can it perform the foundational act of producing One as “emptiness,” standing as the lesser degree of non-being that serves as the bridge to the forthcoming world of substance.

The commentary then immediately resumes its typological, cosmogonic description, painting a portrait of One as a dynamic, pre-formative plenum:

There is a thing primally chaotic, its residing appears in the vague and the diffuse. It is light but does not disperse, and when it moves, it cannot stop. It is yang without external surface and yin without internal lining. It is without above or below, and it is without left or right. It penetrates and reaches into the boundless, which is the principle and order of the Dao. Although its bosom encompasses hollow emptiness, it yet envelops that which has not yet come to exist. It is formless and nameless. It is indistinct and hazy, boundless and vast, turbid and murky, primal and tumultuous; dark and obscure, it cannot be inspected. It disperses in sound and color, and there is nothing to compare with it. Pointed at, there is no referent; reached for, there is nothing there. It is grand and abundant without limit, and it cannot be measured. Like a deep lake it is a great harmony, without end and without beginning. It is the hut of the myriad entities, and the initial point of the supreme beginning, so it is called One.

有物混沌，恍惚居起。輕兒不發，重而不止，陽而無表，陰而無裏。既無上下，又無左右，通達無境，為道綱紀。懷壤空虛，包裏未有，無形無名，芒芒澒澒，混混沌沌，冥冥不可稽之，亡於聲色，莫之與比。指之無嚮，搏之無有，浩洋無窮，不可論諭。潢然大同，無終無始，萬物之廬，為太初首者，故謂之一。

Slightly modifying the language of Chapter 25, which describes the Dao as “a thing completed in chaos” (有物混成 you wu hun cheng), Yan Zun writes that One “is a thing that is primally chaotic” (有物混沌 you wu hun dun). This is a significant shift. By applying this descriptor to One rather than the Dao itself, Yan Zun effectively makes One the primary subject of cosmogonic action. As a “thing” (物 wu), it nevertheless does not “disperse” (不發 bu fei), and the momentum of its movements impels it “without stopping” (不止 bu zhi), where it “penetrates and reaches into the boundless” (通達無境 tong da wu jing). It is replete with potential, containing all the ingredients of existence, including yang that is “without external surface” (無表) and yin that is “without internal lining (無裏), but in an undifferentiated state where they have not yet been opposed or separated.

The primary characteristic of One is that it is a plenum of unmixed potential, “embracing that which has not yet come to exist” (包裏未有 bao li wei you). Yan Zun powerfully captures this with the metaphor of a “hut” (廬 lu)—a simple, foundational dwelling, close to the image of a womb where the “stuff” of all embryos gestates. It is “the initial point of the supreme beginning” (為太初首者 wei da chu shou zhe), marking the substantive instantiation of the generative process.

To fully grasp One’s pivotal role, it is essential to look at Yan Zun’s commentary on Chapter 40 in which the One is not named; it is the by-now familiar line: “The myriad entities of the world are generated from you, and you is generated from wu.” However, Yan Zun integrates the concepts of wu and you with the Dao and its manifestation, which he calls the De 德 (Virtue), another name for One:

One is the child of the Dao… To Spirit (Yan Zun’s alternate cosmological designation for Two) it is nothingness; to the Dao, it is somethingness… As a thing, it is virtual yet actual, nonexistent yet existent… It is the nothingness of the nothingness of nothingness, the beginning of the beginning of the beginning, without inside or outside… It generates [entities] but is not subject to transformation, it transforms [entities] but is not subject to being generation. Though it does not generate, all things come into being from it. Though it does nothing, all things are completed… One is its name; the De is its title; nothingness is its abode; non-action is its work; formlessness is its measure; reversion is its great principle; harmony is its destination; and softness is its function.

一者，道之子… 於神為無，於道為有… 故其為物也，虛而實，無而有… 無無之無，始始之始，無外無內… 銲生而不與之變化，變化而不與之俱生。不生也而物自生，不為也而物自成… 一，其名也；德，其號也；無有，其舍也；無為，其事也；無形，其度也；反，其大數也；和，其歸也；弱，其用也.

This passage is the definitive summary of One’s function. It exists in a liminal state: relative to the Dao it is you (“somethingness”), but relative to the cosmos that follows it is wu (“nothingness”).20 It is the “child” (子 zi) of the Dao that exercises direct, agential power. Like Heshang Gong’s Huang-Lao philosophy, which often identifies the Dao with yin (the source) and One with yang (the active agent), Yan Zun positions One as the primary locus of activity. It “generates but is not subject to transformation” (銲生而不與之變化 han sheng er bu yu zhi bian hua), embodying the hierarchical principle that the generator is ontologically independent of the generated. Through its attributes of non-action, formlessness, and harmony, it orchestrates the coming-into-being of the myriad entities, which “though it does not generate, all things come into being from it” (不生也而物自生 bu sheng ye er wu zi sheng).

Thus, Yan Zun’s One is the point where the Dao’s absolute non-being makes its first determined turn toward manifestation. It is both a cosmological entity, pregnant with the undifferentiated stuff of life, and an ontological principle, retaining the attribute of emptiness and serving as the unchanging ground for all subsequent change.

5.5. Two: Dynamic Duality as Spirit-Illumination

The generation of Two marks the emergence of active, complementary principles of yin and yang from the undifferentiated unity of One. Yan Zun’s commentary on this stage is dedicated to defining this duality, which he alternatively terms Spirit-Illumination (神明 shenming).

One is emptiness, so it can produce Two. The two entities arise together, wonderful-wonderful and subtle-subtle, living-living and existing-existing. Following the changes and transformations of entities, they are slippery and slushy and without form. They live and breathe without declining, one is brilliant and glorious and the other is dark and mysterious. They are without reference and without existence, encompassing Heaven and Earth, and no one fathoms their origin. They cannot be tracked by sound, and they cannot be pursued by form: they are called Spirit-Illumination. When they exist in entities then the entities exist, when they depart from entities then the entities perish. Those whose wisdom and strength cannot be grasped and whose power and virtue cannot be appropriated are called Two.

一以虛，故能生二。二物並與，妙妙纖微，生生存存。因物變化，滑淖無形。生息不衰，光耀玄冥。無嚮無存，包裏天地，莫□其元；不可逐以聲，不可逃以形：謂之神明。存物物存，去物物亡，智力不能接而威德不能運者，謂之二。

Yan Zun establishes that One as “the emptiness of emptiness” (xu zhi xu) produces Two because it is “emptiness” (xu), thereby reaffirming the ontological logic that the generative potential of a stage is rooted in its degree of non-being. The two resulting entities—which he later identifies as the “clear” (清 qing identified with yang) and the “turbid” (濁 zhuo identified with yin)—are characterized by their simultaneous and equal generation. The duplicated language—“wonderful-wonderful and subtle-subtle, living-living and existing-existing” (妙妙纖微，生生存存 miaomiao xianwei, shengsheng cuncun)—emphasizes that they are a co-arising pair, a dynamic duality with neither holding superiority nor priority over the other. This stands in contrast to Laozi, who often implies a preference for yin, and Confucian-aligned thought, which typically prioritizes yang.

While Yan Zun here does not name them directly as yin and yang, his descriptions are unmistakable: one is “brilliant and glorious” (光耀 guangyao), aligning with yang, and the other is “dark and mysterious” (玄冥 xuanming), aligning with yin. Their fundamental nature, however, remains formless: “They cannot be tracked by sound, and they cannot be pursued by form” (不可逐以聲, 不可逃以形 bu ke sui yi sheng, bu ke tao yi xing).

The key to understanding this section is Yan Zun’s alternative cosmological designation for this pair: Spirit-Illumination. This is not merely a poetic label but a functional one. Spirit-Illumination acts as the direct, animating agency behind all existence. This is captured in the pivotal line: “When they exist in entities then the entities exist, when they depart from entities then the entities perish” (存物物存, 去物物亡 cun wu wu cun, qu wu wu wang). This is a more active and direct formulation than Heshang Gong’s. Where Heshang Gong describes yin and yang as types of qi that congeal to form things, Yan Zun’s Spirit-Illumination are the formless shen-like (靈 ling) forces whose presence itself is the condition for an entity’s life and coherence. They are the “wisdom and strength” (智力 zhi li) and “power and virtue” (威德 wei de) that cannot be directly grasped but whose operational effect is undeniable.

Although Yan Zun does not explicitly equate Spirit-Illumination with qi in this passage, their material constitution is implied. He writes that they “live and breathe without declining… they encompass Heaven and Earth” (生息不衰… 包裏天地… (sheng xi bu shuai… bao li tian di), indicating they are the most refined, pervasive, and potent forces within the formless realm. They are the executive power of One (the De), orchestrating the transformation of potential into actuality. Thus, Two in Yan Zun’s system is not just a pair of substances but the primordial, animating intelligence and energy of the cosmos itself, the necessary dynamic interface between the unifying principle of One and the pluralistic generation of Three.

5.6. Three: The Triadic Configuration as Supreme Harmony

The generation of Three represents the final configuration of the formless realm before it gives rise to the world of forms. Yan Zun’s commentary here is dedicated to defining this triadic complex, which he alternatively terms Supreme Harmony (太和 taihe), but which he often abbreviates as simply Harmony.

Two are the nothingness of nothingness, so they can generate Three. These three things are generated together in the vast and the indistinct. Looked for, their forms cannot be seen; listened for, their sounds cannot be heard; reached for, their threads cannot be felt; paying them a visit, their door cannot be [found]. They cannot be estimated or measured, nor can they be surveyed or quantified. Dark and deep, remote and obscure, they are immense and expansive, grand and majestic. One is clear and the other is turbid, and they move together with another which is harmonious. They are the beginning of Heaven and Humanity. They do not yet have form or shape nor borders and boundaries. They are rooted in and bound to One. Those who receive their natural constitution from Spirit are called Three.

二以無之無，故能生三。三物俱生，渾渾茫茫，視之不見其形，聽之不聞其聲，搏之不得其緒，望之不□其門。不可揆度，不可測量，冥冥窅窅，潢洋堂堂。一清一濁，與和俱行，天人所始，未有形朕圻堮，根繫於一，受命於神者，謂之三。

Yan Zun begins by reaffirming the hierarchical generative principle: Two can generate Three because it is “the nothingness of nothingness” (無之無). The result is three formless entities, generated together. While still “without form or shape or borders and boundaries,” they are now distinctly characterized. Yan Zun explicitly identifies them: “One is clear and the other is turbid, and they move together with another which is harmonious” (一清一濁，與和俱行 yi qing yi zhuo yu he ju xing).

With the emergence of Three, Yan Zun explicitly identifies its components: the “clear” (清 qing) is the clarified yang force; the “turbid” (濁 zhuo) is the condensed yin force; and the “harmonious” (和 he) is a third, mediating and unifying qi. This interpretation resolves the hermeneutic ambiguity in the base text’s phrase 沖氣以為和 (chong qi yi wei he). Unlike Wang Bi, who read chong qi as “empty/vacuous qi” that results in harmony, Yan Zun, similar to Heshang Gong, sees “harmonious qi” (和氣 heqi) as a third, co-equal type of formless qi alongside yin and yang. In his commentary to Chapter 42, Yan Zun gives more definition to this where writes that “clear and turbid are separated, their tallness and shortness are revealed, their yin and yang begin to be distinguished, and the harmonious qi flows throughout, their three lights function, and the many species are generated.” (清濁以分，高卑以陳，陰陽始別，和氣流行，三光運，群類生 qing zhuo yi fen, gao bei yi chen, yin yang shi bie, heqi liu xing, san guag hun, qun lei sheng).

Thus, in Yan Zun’s system, Three is not a new substance but the active, triadic configuration of the primordial constituents within the formless realm. It is the final precondition for the manifestation of forms, which is why he identifies it as “the beginning of Heaven and Humanity” (天人所始 tian ren suo shi). Here, “Heaven and Humanity” is a shorthand for the full cosmogonic triad: these constituents are the latent potential that congeals into the structures of Heaven (from the clear yang qi), Earth (from the turbid yin qi), and the vital force of Humanity (from the harmonious qi).

Despite being on the very cusp of generating form, Three remains “rooted in and bound to One” (根繫於一 gen xi yu yi) and operates by “receiving its natural constitution from Spirit” (受命於神 shou ming yu shen), that is, from Spirit-Illumination (Two). This reinforces the unbreakable chain of dependency that runs through Yan Zun’s entire onto-cosmology, in which the generative authority always flows from a prior, more fundamental stage.

By designating Three as Supreme Harmony (太和 taihe), Yan Zun posits a cosmos generated from a state of primordial, dynamic equilibrium. The myriad entities emerge not through opposition, but from the sophisticated and cooperative interplay of a triad of forces—an interplay of Grand Harmony orchestrated by Spirit-Illumination and grounded in the ultimate unity of the Dao and One. In his schema, One is the pivotal hinge, the point where absolute non-being turns toward imminent manifestation. Two as Spirit-Illumination and Three as Supreme Harmony are less substantive stages than the dynamic, animating intelligences that complete the triadic configuration making the world possible. This completes the formless, generative architecture of Yan Zun’s universe, fully setting the stage for the coming-into-being of the myriad entities.

6. Conclusions: The Lost Synthesis of Daoist Thought

This comparative analysis, centered on the enigmatic sequence of Daodejing Chapter 42, has sought to restore Yan Zun to his proper place in the history of Daoist thought. Methodologically, this study affirms the power of a non-judgmental comparative approach that allows different lines of Dao to articulate their own coherent worldviews, showing that their dimensions are not sequential stages of sophisticated refinement but perennial, complementary possibilities. By juxtaposing his commentary with Laozi’s embedded phenomenology of co-presence, Heshang Gong’s staged cosmogony of typological metaphysics, and Wang Bi’s logical ontology of radical metaphysics, Yan Zun’s Laozi zhigui emerges not as a fragmented curiosity but as a foundational, inclusive vision of the Dao. The power of his thought lies in the terminological genius behind his cosmic system, which rests on a deliberate terminological distinction: he assigns wu (nothingness) to a fecund, Huang-Lao substance cosmology akin to Heshang Gong’s, while using xu (emptiness) to carve out the conceptual space for a proto-Xuanxue ontology that prefigures Wang Bi. From this foundation, he constructs a hierarchical yet dynamic onto-cosmology that is both generatively potent and logically rigorous, in which the Dao functions simultaneously as the absolute, ontologically separate ground of non-being and the active, cosmologically generative source of the world.

Read against the sophisticated, specialized systems of his successors, Yan Zun’s work is revealed as the historical bridge it was. In the end, restoring Yan Zun allows not just the recovery of a lost commentator to the Daodejing, but of a lost path in Daoist thought. Situated at a pivotal crossroads, this path challenges the dominant historical narrative by demonstrating that the highest philosophical sophistication may lie not in choosing between cosmology and ontology, but in the complex effort to hold them together in a creative tension between which his successors felt compelled to choose for the clarity of its extremes.

Yan Zun’s Laozi zhigui marks a monumental synthesis whose unified vision of a unique Daoist onto-cosmology is revealed as the fundamental architecture of Chinese metaphysical speculation: a system where the Dao functions simultaneously as the absolute, ontologically separate ground of non-being and the active, cosmologically generative source of the world, reminding us that the ultimate source of reality is both its unfathomable root and its continuous, harmonious wellspring.