On the Interpretation of Ziran in the Three Commentaries on Laozi in the Han Dynasty

Abstract

The tradition of Chinese philosophical interpretation contains an inherent tension between “objectively interpreting classics” and “subjectively constructing systems”, with three major Han Dynasty commentaries on the Laozi—Laozi Zhigui, Laozi Daodejing Heshanggong Zhangju, and Laozi Xiang’er Zhu—serving as typical manifestations of this tradition. As a core concept of the Laozi, ziran constitutes a shared entry point for their interpretations. However, due to differences in ideological positions and construction goals, they have formed distinct interpretive approaches. Laozi Zhigui constructs a philosophical system centered on ziran. At the cosmological level, it defines ziran as both the Dao’s inherent nature of being without will or deliberate intervention and the fundamental law governing all things’ self-generation and self-sufficiency, thereby dispelling the Dao’s attribute as a ruling entity. At the practical level, it advocates “the naturalness of xingming”, proposing that rulers should practice wuwei to purify their minds while the people follow their inherent nature to achieve self-harmony, pursuing the social ideal of “returning to primal simplicity”. Its core aim is to criticize the theological teleology prevalent in the mid-to-late Western Han Dynasty and provide an alternative path of rational speculation for the intellectual circle. Laozi Daodejing Heshanggong Zhangju puts forward the idea that “the nature of the Dao is ziran”, emphasizing that ziran is the inherent nature of the Dao rather than the innate state of humans. It rejects the notion of all things generating themselves independently, highlighting the Dao’s supreme status transcending all things and its ruling role over the universe. This interpretation is closely bound to the commentary’s core tenet of “cultivating the Dao for longevity”, arguing that humans can only obtain the Dao’s nourishment by consciously aligning themselves with “the Dao’s nature as ziran” through practice. Thus, ziran becomes an “ought-to-be” state requiring active pursuit, integrating distinct health-preserving practices and preliminary religious overtones. Laozi Xiang’er Zhu undertakes a subversive reconstruction of ziran from a purely religious perspective, reducing it to a synonym for the deified Dao (Supreme Old Lord) and completely eliminating its independent philosophical status and original connotation. Abandoning the traditional understanding that “the nature of the Dao is ziran”, the commentary fully serves the construction of Taoist doctrine, completing the ideological leap from “interpreting the Laozi” to “establishing Taoist theory”. The differentiated interpretations of ziran in these three works not only demonstrate the diverse possibilities of interpreting the Laozi but also clearly reflect the historical trajectory of Han Dynasty thought transitioning from philosophical speculation to religious practice.

1. Introduction

As a core category in the Daoist ideological system, the concept of ziran 自然 traces its textual origin to the Laozi, standing as a highly iconic notion in ancient Chinese philosophy. Since its inception, it has consistently garnered significant attention from Daoist scholars and subsequent researchers. While ziran does not appear with high frequency in the Laozi, it permeates core propositions such as “Dao emulates ziran 道法自然” and “assisting the naturalness of all things without daring to act coercively 輔萬物之自然而不敢為”, laying the spiritual foundation of Daoist thought and becoming an indispensable key topic in the interpretation of the Laozi across dynasties.

The Han Dynasty (206 BCE–220 CE) represents a pivotal period for the interpretation of the Laozi. Three extant and highly representative commentaries—Yan Zun’s Laozi Zhigui 老子指歸 (Essential Meaning of Laozi), Laozi Daodejing Heshanggong Zhangju 老子道德經河上公章句 (Heshanggong’s Sentence-by-Sentence Commentary on Laozi), and Laozi Xiang’er Zhu 老子想爾註 (Xiang’er’s Commentary on Laozi)—all place the concept of ziran at the core of their exegesis. Currently, academic research on the concept of ziran has yielded abundant results, but there is an obvious bias in research focus—it mostly concentrates on sorting out and interpreting the concept of ziran in pre-Qin Daoism, while specialized studies on the Han Dynasty understanding of ziran remain relatively scarce. Even the few existing studies related to the concept of ziran in Han Dynasty primarily focus on texts such as the Wenzi 文子, Huainanzi 淮南子, and Lunheng 论衡.1 Systematic explorations of the ziran concept in the three commentaries on the Laozi are relatively rare both in Chinese and Western academic circles. Specifically, Alan K.L. Chan has analyzed the thoughts on self-cultivation and state governance in the Laozi Zhigui, categorizing them under the scope of “the way of ziran”, but he did not conduct an in-depth analysis of the core connotation, functional role, and theoretical status of ziran in this commentary (Chan 1998, pp. 117–22). Misha Tadd, while offering an incisive interpretation of the ziran concept in the Laozi Daodejing Heshanggong Zhangju (Tadd 2019, pp. 1–20; 2020, pp. 103–28) and laying an important foundation for subsequent research, failed to conduct a horizontal comparison of this concept with that in the Laozi Zhigui and Laozi Xiang’er Zhu, thus failing to reveal the ideological connections and differences among the three.

Based on this, this paper intends to take these three commentaries as the core research objects. Through a comparative analysis of their conceptions of ziran, it aims to sort out the semantic evolution of the ziran concept in Han Dynasty interpretations of the Laozi and reveal the inheritance and innovative dimensions of core pre-Qin Daoist ideas in Han Dynasty Laozi studies. In the author’s opinion, the three works not only inherit the fundamental recognition of ziran from pre-Qin Daoism but also conduct creative reconstruction rooted in the ideological context of the Han Dynasty. They differ significantly not only in defining the core connotation of ziran but also form distinct divergences in constructing the relationship between the “Dao” and ziran: some advocate that both the Dao and all things follow the principles of ziran; others emphasize “Dao’s nature as ziran” while strengthening the Dao’s creative and nurturing functions; still others deconstruct ziran from a religious perspective, diluting its original philosophical essence.

The core argumentative thread of this paper is as follows: Within the tradition of interpreting ziran in Laozi commentaries in the Han dynasty, a clear evolutionary vein runs from Yan Zun and Heshanggong’s commentary to the Xiang’er Zhu—the focus of exegesis gradually shifts from the political dimension of state governance to religious self-cultivation centered on nourishing life and achieving longevity through Dao practice. Specifically, Yan Zun’s Laozi Zhigui centers on Daoist statecraft theory. By means of the concept of ziran, it dispels the Dao’s dominant nature and highlights the autonomy of all things, with its ultimate orientation being the political ideal of returning to human beings’ inherent ziran. The Heshanggong’s commentary integrates two dimensions: state governance and individual cultivation. Taking “Dao’s nature as ziran” as its core proposition, it emphasizes the Dao’s supreme status transcending all things—a interpretive tendency that aligns closely with its core tenet of “cultivating the Dao for longevity”. Since the Dao is the origin of all things, humans can only obtain nourishment and achieve longevity by conforming to “Dao’s nature as ziran”. The Laozi Xiang’er Zhu’s interpretation of ziran is essentially an ideological reconstruction from philosophy to religion: it deifies and personifies the Dao, completely dissolving the independent philosophical connotation of ziran and reducing it to a symbol serving religious doctrines, thereby laying the core theoretical foundation for the construction of the Daoist ideological system. In summary, the differentiated interpretations of ziran in the three major Han Dynasty Laozi commentaries essentially embody the inherent tension between “objectively interpreting the classic” and “subjectively constructing a system”. From the philosophical ziran that integrates ontology and generative theory in the Laozi Zhigui, to the “Dao’s nature as ziran” infused with life-nurturing and longevity-seeking thought in the Laozi Daodejing Heshanggong Zhangju, and finally to the ziran reduced to a religious symbol in the Laozi Xiang’er Zhu, this evolution not only fully demonstrates the pluralistic possibilities of interpreting the Laozi but also clearly delineates the historical trajectory of Han Dynasty thought transitioning from “philosophical speculation” to “religious practice”.

Regarding the basic connotation of ziran, academic circles generally acknowledge its core meaning as “being so of itself” or “being in its inherent state” (D. Zhang 2017, p. 92)—that is, things develop in accordance with their own nature, independent of external coercive forces. When further subdividing its semantic layers, scholars have provided more nuanced explanations. Zheng Kai 鄭開 points out that the connotation of ziran can be disassembled into three dimensions: first, “spontaneous,” emphasizing the non-artificial nature of existence, which stands in sharp contrast to “man-made fabrication”; second, “innate,” referring to the inherent essential determination of things, distinct from external artificial agreements or norms; and third, “natural (as in the natural world),” specifically denoting the physical natural world, forming a relative category with human society (community) (K. Zheng 2003, p. 196). Ye Shuxun 葉樹勛 holds a similar academic view, summarizing the core meanings of ziran into three points: “being so of itself” without external intervention, “acting without intention” without subjective purpose, and “the natural world” as a physical space (Ye 2017, p. 120). Notably, most scholars argue that the semantic dimension of “the natural world” is a derivative meaning that emerged in later periods and had not yet become the core connotation of ziran in the philosophical context from the pre-Qin to the Han Dynasty (Z. Wang 2016, p. 57). Misha Tadd summarizes the translations of ziran in 67 translations in 26 languages; summarized in English in order of their first appearance, the most important and widely shared types include (1) Being, self-existing; (2) itself; (3) its own nature, what it is in itself, self-so; (4) from itself, spontaneous; (5) natural, naturalness; and (6) Nature (Tadd 2022, p. 2). This indicates that there are significant differences in academic circles regarding the connotation of ziran.

From the author’s perspective, ziran is composed of two characters: zi 自 (self/itself) and ran 然 (being so). The original meaning of ziran refers to “being so of oneself”: zi emphasizes “self” while ran emphasizes that the action or state in question originates from and is completed by the self, rather than being caused by external forces. For instance, Chapter 17 of the Laozi states, “The hundred clans all say, ‘I am ziran’” (Lou 1980, p. 41)—meaning the common people all claim that their lives are as they are of themselves, not interfered with by external forces. ziran can also denote actions that are “so of themselves” rather than deliberate or intentional. As the Zhuangzi puts it, “As for water surging forth, it acts without effort, and its ability is ziran” (G. Chen 2009, p. 557)—implying that the surging of water is not intentional but inherent to its nature. Here, wuwei 無為 (non-deliberate action) and ziran are synonymous, emphasizing that such actions or states arise not from deliberation but from aimlessness and lack of intention. Therefore, the core semantics of ziran in the context of ancient Chinese philosophy can be condensed into two layers: first, “innate and natural,” emphasizing that the existence and development of things originate from and are completed by themselves, rather than being caused by external forces; second, “aimless and unintentional,” emphasizing that actions are not deliberate or intentional. These two basic meanings are interrelated and complementary, collectively forming the semantic basis and interpretive framework for analyzing the concept of ziran in the three Han Dynasty commentaries on the Laozi in this paper.

2. Ziran in Laozi Zhigui

Scholars in the Ming (1368–1644) and Qing (1644–1912) dynasties suspected that Yan Zun’s 嚴遵 Laozi Zhigui was an apocryphal work (Ji 2000, pp. 3739–40). Since the modern era, scholars such as Meng Wentong 蒙文通, Zheng Liangshu 鄭良樹, Wang Liqi 王利器, Wang Deyou 王德有, and Li Xueqin 李學勤 have all made vigorous efforts to argue for its authenticity (Meng 2001, pp. 124–27; L. Zheng 1982, pp. 243–72; L. Wang 1997, pp. 265–90; D. Wang 2004, pp. 2–5; Li 2009, pp. 208–16). Alan K.L. Chan argues that “the Zhigui may indeed have anticipated later interpretations; but there is little reason to conclude that the text was a later forgery” (Chan 1998, pp. 116–17). With the successive emergence of the Laozi from the Mawangdui Silk Manuscripts and the Peking University Han Bamboo Slips, this issue can be clarified more easily. Ding Sixin 丁四新 points out that the silk manuscript version of Laozi contains certain passages exclusive to Yan Zun’s version. Additionally, the chapter division of two sections in the Laozi from the Peking University Han Bamboo Slips differs from that of the received versions (the He Shanggong version and the Wang Bi version) but aligns with Yan Zun’s version. This further confirms that Yan Zun’s version is indeed an ancient text from the Western Han Dynasty (Ding 2014, p. 112). From these perspectives, the Laozi text on which Laozi Zhigui was based is indeed a version handed down from the Western Han Dynasty, and Laozi Zhigui itself is not a spurious work. Although Laozi Zhigui was not a strict commentary on the Laozi, its arguments are grounded in the Laozi. In a broad sense, Laozi Zhigui can also be regarded as Yan Zun’s commentary on the Laozi. In this sense, Laozi Zhigui is the earliest surviving commentary on the Laozi in the Han Dynasty.

Ziran stands as one of the core concepts in Yan Zun’s thought. Gu Shenzi 谷神子, a scholar of the Tang Dynasty who wrote annotations for Laozi Zhigui, noted, “The reason why Zhigui repeatedly directs its focus to ziran is to clarify that the essence of the supreme Dao stands serene and independent, existing since time immemorial. It enables all things to be what they are, yet nothing can enable it to be what it is—hence it is called ziran” (Fan 2013, p. 78). Alan K.L. Chan also noted, “the concept of ziran occupies a pivotal position in Yan Zun’s commentary. Practically on every page interprets the meaning of the Laozi through the lens of ziran is used to bring out the meaning of Laozi” (Chan 1998, p. 118). From these remarks, the significant status of the ziran concept in the Laozi Zhigui is evident.

The first connotation of ziran is existing without external coercion, which is also commonly seen in Laozi Zhigui. For instance:

“A ruler embodying ‘supreme virtue’ (shangde 上德) exists in alignment with the Dao; his spirit merges with the order of transformation, and his virtue moves in the profound realm of the mysterious. The whole world honors him as king, yet none can see or hear his actions. When his virtue extends to all things, all call it ziran”.

(D. Wang 2004, p. 6)

This passage implies that the ruler of supreme virtue lives in accordance with the Dao. Though the world reveres him as king, no one witnesses or perceives his deliberate efforts. When his virtue nourishes all things, it is regarded as spontaneous—never imposed by external forces.

Yan Zun further elaborates:

“A mother loves her child, and a child loves its mother; men and women care for each other, and all beings respect their rulers. Nest-born creatures peck [for food] as soon as they hatch; placental-born creatures nurse [from their mothers] after birth. Birds scatter when alarmed, and beasts gather when frightened. Creatures of yin 陰 affinity take refuge in caves, whereas those of yang 陽 affinity build nests in trees. Fire rises upward when ignited; water flows downward when set in motion. All things thrive in green vitality—growing in spring, flourishing in summer, ripening in autumn, and maturing in winter—ultimately returning to the earth. None of these results from political decrees or moral indoctrination; all things are simply ziran”.

(D. Wang 2004, p. 75)

All these phenomena, Yan Zun argues, are not caused by external edicts or teachings but occur spontaneously in the nature of things. He also explores the root cause of this spontaneity:

“When Dao 道 and De 德 act without deliberate effort (wuwei 無為), the divine brilliance (shenming 神明) naturally emerges; when the divine brilliance acts without deliberate effort, the Great Harmony (taihe 太和) arises on its own; when the Great Harmony acts without deliberate effort, all things regulate themselves”.

(D. Wang 2004, p. 75)

“The origin of heaven and earth, and the basis of all creatures, lies in the Dao as their source, De as their beginning, the divine brilliance as their ancestor, and the Great Harmony as their forebear”.

(D. Wang 2004, p. 75)

Dao, De, the divine brilliance, and the Great Harmony—all described as the “origin of heaven and earth” and “basis of all creatures”—operate through non-deliberate action (wuwei 無為). Thus, all things “arise on their own” and “regulate themselves”—both phrases fall within the scope of ziran. In this sense, ziran primarily applies to all things in the world.

Ziran also carries the meaning of “acting without conscious intention”. Yan Zun states

“If the Dao abandons ziran and embraces cunning knowledge (zhiqiao 知巧), then the mind cannot sustain itself… If heaven and earth abandon ziran and embrace cunning knowledge, then they cannot sustain their own existence… That which is void, non-acting, without knowledge, and without desire—this is the essence of Dao and De, and the transformation of heaven and earth”.

(D. Wang 2004, p. 75)

Here, ziran is explicitly contrasted with “cunning knowledge”, clearly referring to the absence of conscious intent. The essence of Dao and De, as well as the transformative power of heaven and earth, is characterized by emptiness (xuwu 虛無), non-deliberate action, ignorance of calculated purpose (wuzhi 無知), and freedom from desire. In this sense, ziran is synonymous with non-deliberate action, and its reference is primarily limited to Dao and De.

Ziran occupies a pivotal position in Yan Zun’s philosophy, which identifies ziran as the inherent nature of the Dao. He writes

“The Dao is lofty and the De is vast, too profound to be described in words. No creature can augment them, no rank can honor them. It acts for all things without deliberate effort and does not treat things as tools for its own ends. It is not compelled by anything, yet its nature is always ziran”.

(D. Wang 2004, p. 132)

The inherent nature of the Dao is ziran—that is, it acts without will or purpose. But what exactly is the Dao? Yan Zun explains

“Therefore, that which has neither non-existence (wu 無) nor a beginning, which cannot be said to exist; that which has no form or sound, which cannot be seen or heard; that which endows non-existence and bestows existence (you 有), which cannot be discussed in words; that which is the non-existence beyond all non-existence, the beginning prior to all beginnings; the origin of all things and the foundation of all lives—this ineffable thing that cannot be named is called the Dao”.

(D. Wang 2004, pp. 48–49)

The Dao is the source of all things and the foundation of life and destiny, yet it cannot be named or defined. Nevertheless, Yan Zun emphasizes

“Dao and De do not generate all things; all things generate themselves”.

(D. Wang 2004, p. 250)

Though Dao and De are identified as the source and overarching basis of all things, they do not actively generate things—all things come into being spontaneously. This endows the Dao with an ontological significance. Hence, Yan Zun argues

“What the Dao gives rise to, and what heaven fosters, begins from non-beginning (bushi 不始), is generated from non-generation (busheng 不生), persists through non-persistence (bucun 不存), and perishes through non-perishing (buwang 不亡). All these are the manifestations of ziran and the constant laws of transformation”.

(D. Wang 2004, p. 146)

In other words, the origin, generation, persistence, and perishing of all things emerge from “non-beginning”, “non-generation”, “non-persistence”, and “non-perishing”. The Dao’s role in these processes is precisely to embody “non-beginning”, “non-generation”, etc.—which means “the Dao is not an entity that rules over them; they generate, persist, and perish on their own” (Jin 2006, pp. 353–54). Here, the Dao does not function in the sense of a generative theory with regard to all entities; instead, it serves as an ontological principle—the fundamental substratum for the existence of all things. As the ontological basis of all things, the Dao is inherently ziran; therefore, all things come into being and reach completion on their own. In other words, the Dao’s ziran (its lack of consciousness and purpose) gives rise to the ziran of all things (their spontaneous, unforced existence), for the Dao is the ultimate foundation and ontological underpinning of all entities.

Yet scholars have pointed out, “Zhigui has not broken free from the framework of generative theory…. When it comes to the concept of ziran, it is often put forward from the perspective of generative theory and placed within the chain of generative logic” (Jin 2006, p. 358). Yan Zun stated, “The generation of heaven, humans, and all things proceeds as follows: physical forms are based on qi (vital energy 氣), qi on he (harmony 和), he on shenming (divine intelligence 神明), shenming on the Dao and De, and the Dao and De from ziran. It is through this process that all things sustain their existence” (D. Wang 2004, p. 48). Yan Zun held that the generative process of all things follows the sequence Dao and De→ Shenming (divine Intelligence) → He (harmony) → Qi (vital energy) → Physical Form. In this way, Dao and De becomes the ultimate origin of all things and the Dao and De are grounded in ziran. Chapter 25 of the received version of the Laozi states, “The Dao emulates ziran道法自然” (Lou 1980, p. 65). Yan Zun’s original commentary on this sentence has been lost, but his claim that “the Dao and De are based on ziran” can be regarded as his interpretation of it. This assertion—”the Dao and De are based on ziran”—intends to convey that the inherent nature of the Dao is ziran; it aims to illustrate that the Dao gives birth to all things without intention, not out of subjective deliberation.

Yan Zun elaborated, “As for the Dao as an entity… Its process of transformation occurs within what is unchanging, and its movement takes place within what is immovable. From returning (fan 反) comes renewal (fu 覆); from renewal comes returning. From existence (you 有) comes non-existence (wu 無); from non-existence comes existence. These cycles of returning and renewal depend on one another, yet the Dao always adheres to ziran. By acting through non-deliberate action, all things thrive; by attending to affairs through non-interference (wushi 無事), all things achieve their natural fulfillment. Therefore, non-deliberate action is the essence of the Dao and the origin of heaven and earth” (D. Wang 2004, p. 138). Yan Zun argued that while the Dao’s transformation of all things manifests in various forms—such as the generation of renewal from returning, returning from renewal, non-existence from existence, and existence from non-existence—it always takes ziran as its highest law. The Dao acts upon all things through non-deliberate action and manages them through non-interference; in reality, all things generate and complete themselves independently. This is because both the Dao and all things take ziran as their supreme guiding principle. Yan Zun further stated, “The Dao neither bestows nor gives, yet all things persist; it neither acts nor governs, yet all things exist as they are” (D. Wang 2004, p. 190). In other words, all things do not come into being due to the Dao’s subjective purpose; they are, in fact, self-generated and self-fulfilled. The self-generation and self-fulfillment of all things is a point Yan Zun emphasized particularly—hence, Laozi Zhigui reiterates tirelessly such propositions as “Yin and yang arise on their own, and transformation corrects itself”; “Mountains and rivers arise on their own, and hardness and softness correct themselves”; “Waning and waxing arise on their own, and survival and extinction correct themselves”; “Peace arises on its own, and all things correct themselves” (D. Wang 2004, pp. 27–28). In a sense, this can be said to be the ultimate culmination of Yan Zun’s philosophical thought.

Ontologically, the Dao is the noumenon and fundamental basis of all things. The inherent nature of the Dao is ziran, and all things are also ziran in essence. From a generative perspective, precisely because the Dao’s inherent nature is ziran, the generation of all things does not stem from the Dao’s subjective intention—instead, all things actually emerge and fulfill themselves spontaneously. Whether ontologically or genetically, Yan Zun’s concept of ziran stands as the supreme concept in his philosophical thought. Yan Zun’s concept of ziran emphasizes two core points: first, the Dao’s inherent nature is ziran, so the Dao abides by the principle of ziran. Its nurturing and transformation of all things are characterized by wuwei, free from the interference of subjective consciousness or purpose—thus, the Dao is not an entity that dominates all things. Second, all things also follow the principle of ziran, and they emerge and fulfill themselves spontaneously. In other words, both the Dao and all things are ziran.

Alan K.L. Chan points out that Yan Zun’s interpretive orientation lies in his view that the truth of Laozi is grounded in the perceived structure of the cosmos itself, in ziran or what is “naturally so” (Chan 1998, p. 121). Since cosmologically the Dao and all things take ziran as the supreme principle, governing a state and cultivating one’s person must also follow ziran. Yan Zun writes

“Without calendars, yin 陰 and yang 陽 are in harmony; without official calendars (zhenshuo 正朔), the four seasons follow their order; without laws, the whole world submits; without rewards and punishments, names and realities are aligned. Concealing military force and storing authority ensures victory in all battles; abandoning warfare ensures triumph in all conflicts. Without decrees, the people correct themselves; without cultural institutions, the whole realm understands [righteousness]; without tallies and seals, the world trusts [the ruler]; without measures and standards, all things are balanced… Rely on the Dao and follow heaven, refrain from artificial cunning (zhigu 知故)—this is to enable the people to be ziran”.

(D. Wang 2004, p. 80)

In Yan Zun’s view, governing the state does not require coercive means such as calendars, official decrees, laws, rewards and punishments, military force, decrees, rituals, tallies, or standards. The most important principle of governance is to follow ziran and avoid contrivance—this is emulating the Dao’s inherent ziran (In this context, ziran is equivalent to non-deliberate action). This approach achieves outcomes such as “harmony between yin and yang”, “orderly seasons”, “universal submission”, “alignment of names and realities”, “invincibility in battle”, “self-correction of the people”, “universal understanding”, “worldwide trust”, and “balance of all things”. In short, governing through non-deliberate action allows the people to perfect themselves. This emphasis on governing through ziran aligns with the core thought of Laozi. It can be seen from this that in Yan Zun’s view, wu-wei and ziran have a causal relationship: wu-wei is the antecedent, and ziran is the consequent. In other words, the monarch’s wu-wei is a means, while the people’s ziran is the true goal of governance. Ikeeda Tomohisa pointed out that in the Laozi, there exists a causal relationship between the subject’s wu-wei and the object’s ziran (Ikeeda 2009, pp. 547–52). Yan Zun’s elaboration on the relationship between wu-wei and ziran is an inheritance of Laozi’s thought.

Yan Zun also put forward the proposition of “the naturalness of xingming 性命 (nature and destiny)”, arguing that self-cultivation must also follow ziran. He stated, “A ruler of highest virtue… aligns his xingming with ziran… A ruler of lesser virtue… approximates his xingming to ziran.” (D. Wang 2004, pp. 10–12). Yan Zun used “aligning xingming with ziran” as a standard for rulers. This idea originates in Zhuangzi, where Zhuangzi wrote, “What I call ‘good’ is not what people conventionally mean by benevolence and righteousness; it is simply allowing one’s innate xingming to unfold spontaneously.” (G. Chen 2009, p. 265). Zhuangzi advocated letting xingming to unfold naturally and opposed artificially distorting the authentic feelings of xingming. Yan Zun incorporated Zhuangzi’s thought of “the naturalness of xingming” into his interpretation of the Laozi, arguing that rulers should “align their xingming with ziran” and follow the natural development of human xingming. As he put it,

“Therefore, those who know contentment align themselves with the Dao and identify with De. They reject fame and discard profit and establish their selfhood in ‘no-self’ (wushen 無身). They nurture all things without seeking to sustain themselves and engage with all things without seeking to preserve themselves. Trust and compliance are sufficient to nurture the spirit; the affairs of family are sufficient to sustain a long life. By abiding constantly in ziran, they cannot be destroyed; by dwelling in emptiness, they cannot be harmed; by belittling fame and valuing things lightly, they cannot be defiled; by desiring what others do not desire, they can enjoy eternal glory.”.

(D. Wang 2004, p. 73)

Those who are content with sufficiency follow Dao and De, and since Dao and De are rooted in ziran, only such people can “abide always in ziran” and “dwell in emptiness”, following the authentic feelings of their xingming—thus achieving the goal of self-preservation.

Regarding the relationship between self-cultivation and governing the state, Yan Zun stated, “To govern the world, one must return to oneself… The mind is the master of the body, and the body is the core of the state; the world responds to [the ruler] as if by the naturalness of xingming.” (D. Wang 2004, p. 39). Yan Zun believed that the body is governed by the mind, and the body serves as the core of the state. Therefore, governing the state must first involve governing the mind—one should return to the simplicity of the mind and achieve spiritual tranquility and non-deliberate action.

Yan Zun’s political thought was influenced by Zhuangzi’s political philosophy, emphasizing that both rulers and common people should return to their original simplicity. This is because the xingming of both rulers and common people is inherently natural. Thus, Yan Zun’s ideal of governance was to restore humanity’s inherent natural nature and emphasize the return of the entire society to primal simplicity.

Historical sources corroborate this orientation: the Huayang Guozhi 華陽國志 (Records of the State of Huayang) noted that Yan Zun “was deeply immersed in the Laozi and Zhuangzi…he taught the doctrines of Laozi and Zhuangzi, and composed Laozi Zhigui” (Chang 1984, pp. 701–2); meanwhile, the Book of Han (in the “Biographies of Wang, Gong, the Two Gongs, and Bao”) records that he “composed over 100,000 words based on the teachings of Laozi and Yan Zhou [i.e., Zhuangzi]” (Ban 1962, p. 3507). Although Alan K. L. Chan rightly identifies connections between Yan Zun’s political thought and Huang-Lao Daoism (Chan 1998, pp. 122–27), he underestimates the profound influence of Zhuangzi’s ideas on Yan Zun.

In sum, ziran stands as one of the most crucial concepts in the philosophical system of the Laozi Zhigui. Whether viewed from an ontological or a cosmogonic perspective, ziran occupies the highest logical position: it is both the intrinsic nature of the Dao and the fundamental principle governing all things. Since both the Dao and all things abide by ziran, the Dao is not an entity that dominates all things—instead, all things achieve self-generation and self-fulfillment. Building upon this cosmological understanding, the Laozi Zhigui extends the principle of ziran into the practical domains of governance and self-cultivation, thereby constructing an integrated philosophical framework that seamlessly connects cosmology with ethical-political practice. At its core lies the proposition that “to govern the state, one must first cultivate the self,” and the key to self-cultivation lies in “cultivating the heart-mind”. It is on this foundation that the text introduces the concept of “the naturalness of xingming”: whether the ruler or the common people, every individual’s essential life and innate disposition are originally aligned with ziran, requiring no external imposition or artificial shaping. Consequently, the ultimate aim of governance is not to impose order through coercion, but rather to guide society and individuals back to their original natural state—realizing the ideal of “returning to pristine simplicity”. The ruler should govern the heart-mind through ziran and rule the state through ziran (i.e., wuwei), while the people naturally follow their innate dispositions, achieving self-sufficiency and inner harmony. Thus, the entire society sheds artificial constraints and returns to an authentic, harmonious order. This vision in the Laozi Zhigui bears a profound imprint of Zhuangzi’s thought.

When situated within the historical context of its author Yan Zun—who lived during the mid-to-late Western Han dynasty—its emphasis on ziran reveals deeper motivations. At that time, intellectual life was dominated by Dong Zhongshu’s 董仲舒 Confucian orthodoxy and the pervasive influence of chenwei 讖緯 cosmologies, both of which promoted a teleological theology. The Cambridge History of China accurately summarizes the characteristics of the official ideology during this period: “Tung Chung-shu propounded a system of micro-macrocosmic correspondences that enable the future to be foretold…At that time there was current a large number of works that may be classified as oracular prognostication (ch’an), and apocryphal writings (wei or wefts); these latter consisted of commentaries on the canonical texts themselves (ching or warps). Western sinologists refer to both types of texts as Han apocrypha; their esoteric character is illustrated by the tradition that Tung Chung-shu used to reach hidden behind a curtain. In the ch’an and wei literature Confucius is transfigured as a ‘king without attributes’ (su-wang: a king without the actual insignia of royalty) who did not reign, but who nevertheless had received the Mandate of Heaven (t’ien-ming) to reform the world. Official Han philosophy was restricted to speculation on a relatively low level such as this.” (Twitchett and Loewe 1986, p. 809). In this framework, Tian 天 (heaven) was portrayed as a conscious, volitional supreme being capable of intervening in human affairs, and the doctrine of tian-ren ganying 天人感應 (cosmic resonance between Heaven and humanity) became the central explanatory logic for natural phenomena and sociopolitical order. All existence and change were attributed to Heaven’s deliberate design.

Against this prevailing intellectual current, the Laozi Zhigui deployed ziran as a critical weapon. It repeatedly stressed that both the Dao and all things must follow ziran, resolutely opposing any interpretation of the Dao (or Heaven) as a sovereign entity that dictates the fate of the cosmos. Instead, it championed the idea that all things generate and complete themselves—a stance that amounted to a direct rebuttal of theological teleology. By elevating ziran to the status of the supreme principle, the Laozi Zhigui dismantled the notion of the Dao as a ruling agent and affirmed the autonomy of all beings, thereby fundamentally undermining the theological logic of Dong Zhongshu and the chenwei tradition—that “Heaven (or the Dao) intentionally creates and governs all things.” This is precisely the deeper motivation behind Gu Shenzi’s remark that Yan Zun “Zhigui repeatedly directs its focus to ziran”: by centering ziran as the foundation of cosmic order, Yan Zun sought to challenge the monopoly of theological teleology over intellectual discourse and offer an alternative philosophical path—one rooted in reflective, non-theistic reasoning—for the intellectual landscape of mid-to-late Western Han China.

3. Ziran in Laozi Daodejing Heshanggong Zhangju

After Yan Zun’s Laozi Zhigui, another pivotal commentary on Laozi emerged in the Han Dynasty: Laozi Daodejing Heshanggong Zhangju. Regarding the dating of Laozi Daodejing Heshanggong Zhangju, scholars remain divided—both Chinese and international researchers have participated in this debate, with the main proposed dates ranging from the Han dynasty to the Wei-Jin period.2 Overseas, the viewpoint of Rao Zongyi 饒宗頤 has exerted great influence; he argued that Heshanggong Zhangju predates Laozi Xiang’er Zhu (See Rao 1991, pp. 79–83). In China, the viewpoint of Wang Ming 王明 has been quite influential; he held that Heshanggong Zhangju was compiled during the reigns of Emperor Huan and Emperor Ling of the Eastern Han Dynasty, with someone attributing it to Heshanggong when writing the chapter and verse commentary on the Laozi (See M. Wang 1984, p. 297). After synthesizing several viewpoints, Xiong Tieji 熊鐵基 argued that Heshanggong Zhangju could not have been compiled earlier than Yan Zun’s Laozi Zhigui, nor later than the end of the Eastern Han Dynasty, and it had no direct connection with the formation of Taoism (See Xiong 2021, p. 406.). Alan K. L. Chan remarked, “The origin and transmission of the Ho-shang Kung commentary will no doubt continue to attract diverse opinions. Nevertheless, on the whole, I believe that the commentary is best placed in a Later Han context, and more specifically in a Huang-lao setting” (Chan 1991, p. 118.). Misha Tadd further observes, “Regardless of uncertainties about the author or origin of Heshanggong’s commentary, its later history and reception rest on solid evidence.” (Tadd 2020, p. 106).

As many scholars have noted, the earliest extant figure known to have quoted the Laozi Daodejing Heshanggong Zhangju is Xue Zong 薛綜 of the state of Wu during the late Eastern Han-Three Kingdoms period (for example, see Chan 1991, p. 108). In his annotations to Zhang Heng’s 張衡 Dongjing Fu 東京賦 (Rhapsody on the Eastern Capital), Xue Zong explicitly cited the Laozi Daodejing Heshanggong Zhangju, indicating that this text was already widely circulated and influential in the Wu region during the Three Kingdoms era. Moreover, Cao Daoheng 曹道衡—a prominent scholar of the Zhaoming Wenxuan 昭明文選—points out that Zhang Heng’s Rhapsody on the Eastern Capital, composed in the mid–Eastern Han dynasty, appears to have been influenced by the Heshanggong Zhangju. Cao argues that Xue Zong referenced the Heshanggong Zhangju in his annotations precisely because he believed Zhang Heng might have had access to it (Cao 2004, p. 5). This indicates that the Laozi Daodejing Heshanggong Zhangju was already in circulation by at least the Eastern Han period. Considering that Ban Gu’s Yiwenzhi 藝文志 (Treatise on Literature) in the Book of Han, compiled during the early Eastern Han, does not list this text, the author considers the view that the Laozi Daodejing Heshanggong Zhangju was composed in the mid-to-late Eastern Han dynasty to be relatively credible.

Though the Laozi Heshanggong Zhangju does not elaborate on ziran as frequently as the Laozi Zhigui, ziran remains one of its core concepts. Consistent with the Laozi Zhigui, the Laozi Heshanggong Zhangju also defines ziran as the essential attribute of the Dao; the difference lies in that it neither emphasizes the self-generation and self-completion of all things nor opposes the Laozi Zhigui’s proposition of “xingming ziran” (the natural spontaneity of nature and destiny). Its core purpose is to highlight the Dao’s supremacy and its dominion over humans through the trait of ziran.

In Laozi Daodejing Heshanggong Zhangju, ziran primarily denotes “freedom from external force”. Examples include

“Refrain from contending for fame and merit and return to ziran”.

(K. Wang 1993, p. 10)

“Heaven and earth exert their transformative power not through benevolence or grace, but by adhering to ziran”.

(K. Wang 1993, p. 18)

“Emulate heaven and earth and abide by ziran”.

(K. Wang 1993, p. 18)

“Follow and conform to ziran”.

(K. Wang 1993, p. 147)

All these passages advocate yielding to or returning to the inherent state of things—free from external interference.

Admittedly, ziran in this commentary also carries the connotation of “absence of conscious intention”. For instance, “Ordinary people learn cunning and deception, while sages learn ziran” (K. Wang 1993, p. 250). Here, ziran is explicitly contrasted with “cunning and deception”, clearly referring to actions without conscious intent or subjective calculation. However, in Laozi Daodejing Heshanggong Zhangju, the meaning of ziran as “freedom from external force” dominates, while its use to denote “absence of conscious intention” is relatively rare.

Laozi Daodejing Heshanggong Zhangju inherits Laozi’s core view that “the Dao is the origin of all things,” which it elaborates on in multiple passages: “All things depend on the Dao to come into being” (K. Wang 1993, p. 136), “All things rely on the Dao for their generation and formation” (K. Wang 1993, p. 155), and “Heaven, earth, the divine, and all creatures—whether they fly or crawl—are all born from the Dao” (K. Wang 1993, p. 162). It further identifies the Dao with “primordial qi” (yuanqi 元氣) in Laozi Daodejing Heshanggong Zhangju, explaining, “Primordial qi generates all things yet does not possess them” (K. Wang 1993, p. 7). Beyond generating all things, the Dao also sustains and nurtures them: “The Dao does not merely generate all things; it further nourishes, matures, and fosters them, preserving their life and destiny in wholeness” (K. Wang 1993, p. 197). This applies to humans as well: “The Dao generously bestows vital essence (jingqi 精氣) upon humans and helps them fulfill their potential” (K. Wang 1993, p. 165). It is evident, therefore, that the generation, growth, and maturation of all things are inseparable from the Dao’s functioning, and the commentary’s discourse on the Dao is primarily grounded in the dimension of cosmogony.

The commentary further argues that although all things originate from the Dao, the Dao does not directly dominate them. It states, “The Dao (unified with the One) does not command all things, yet they naturally respond to it like shadows to forms and echoes to sounds” (K. Wang 1993, p. 196). Here, the “One” refers to “Virtue (De)”, as the commentary clarifies: “Virtue is the One” (K. Wang 1993, p. 196). This signifies that the Dao and De do not directly interfere with the operation of all things; instead, all things spontaneously conform to them, just as shadows follow their forms and echoes answer to sounds.

Thus, the commentary emphasizes that the Dao’s influence on all things is by no means the direct control exercised by a ruler: “All things return to the Dao to receive qi; the Dao does not prohibit or restrain like a human sovereign” (K. Wang 1993, p. 137), and “Primal qi generates all things yet does not possess them; what the Dao accomplishes, it does not expect repayment for” (K. Wang 1993, p. 7).

Notably, unlike the Laozi Zhigui, which uses this idea to negate the Dao’s dominion and highlight the autonomy of all things, the Dao in the Laozi Daodejing Heshanggong Zhangju always occupies a supreme position and governs all things—even though it never issues direct commands. Misha Tadd’s assertion hits the mark: “Dao and the myriad things relate to each other like form and shadow or sound and echo; yet, Heshanggong seeks to emphasize how Dao obliquely and subtly directs the myriad things. Even without brute force or the power of word and command, Dao profoundly impacts everything. Such is the power of its primary quality of ziran. While Dao never barks orders, its status vis-à-vis all manifest things remains clear. For just as definite logical priority exists between a sound and the echo it produces, this represents a hierarchical relationship, a relationship of authority and subtle domination.” (Tadd 2020, p. 109).

The root of this relationship lies in the inherent nature of the Dao. Like Laozi Zhigui, Laozi Daodejing Heshanggong Zhangju identifies ziran as the Dao’s essential attribute. In chapter 25 of the received Laozi, it is written that “Humans emulate the earth; the earth emulates heaven; heaven emulates the Dao; the Dao emulates ziran 人法地, 地法天, 天法道, 道法自然” (Lou 1980, p. 65). Laozi Daodejing Heshanggong Zhangju annotates this passage as follows:

On “heaven emulates the Dao”: “The Dao is tranquil and silent, moving vital essence in concealment; all things form and perfect themselves” (K. Wang 1993, p. 103).

On “the Dao emulates ziran”: “The nature of the Dao is ziran; it has no higher entity to emulate” (K. Wang 1993, p. 103).

The first annotation explains that the Dao’s tranquility and non-deliberate action allow all things to “form and perfect themselves”; the second directly defines ziran as the Dao’s intrinsic nature, asserting that the Dao has no external model to follow. As scholars have noted, “The first annotation holds that the Dao’s tranquility and emptiness enable ‘all things to perfect themselves’; the second annotation, in explaining ‘the Dao emulates ziran’, equates ‘all things perfecting themselves’ with the ‘Dao’s nature’ and ‘ziran’—or rather, embeds ‘all things perfecting themselves’ within ‘the Dao’s nature is ziran” (J. Liu 2017, p. 82). Misha Tadd also pointed out, “the ziran Dao is identified with transcendence and independence, in contrast to the state of all that relies on and is influenced by what is beyond itself.” (Tadd 2020, p. 108). “Daoxing ziran 道性自然 (the nature of the Dao is ziran)” stands as the core proposition of Laozi Daodejing Heshanggong Zhangju. It clearly identifies ziran as the essential characteristic of the Dao, which is why the text directly states, “The Dao refers to the Dao of ziran” (K. Wang 1993, p. 186).

All things originate and develop from the Dao, and since the Dao’s nature is ziran, their origin and development follow the Dao’s law of ziran. The Dao’s ziran thus leads to “all things perfecting themselves”. At first glance, this seems similar to Yan Zun’s view of ziran, but critical differences exist: Yan Zun’s ziran encompasses both ontological and generative dimensions; The concept of ziran in Laozi Daodejing Heshanggong Zhangju is discussed solely from a generative perspective. While Laozi Daodejing Heshanggong Zhangju acknowledges that the Dao does not directly dominate all things and that “all things perfect themselves”, it insists that the generation and nurturing of all things depend entirely on the Dao. “All things perfect themselves” is merely a consequence of “the Dao’s nature being ziran”—the Dao remains the ultimate source and foundation of all things. Notably, Laozi Daodejing Heshanggong Zhangju never claims that “all things generate themselves”; instead, it emphasizes the Dao’s role, framing “all things perfecting themselves” as subordinate to “the Dao’s nature being ziran”.

In Yan Zun’s thought, whether from an ontological or generative perspective, ziran stands as the supreme principle—a fundamental law that both the Dao and all things must abide by. The Dao does not dominate all things; instead, all things achieve self-generation and self-fulfillment. In contrast, Laozi Daodejing Heshanggong Zhangju centers on the Dao’s role: “all things perfect themselves” is derivative of “the Dao’s nature being ziran”, and the idea of “all things generating themselves” is entirely absent.

“The nature of the Dao is ziran” serves as the fundamental starting point of Laozi Daodejing Heshanggong Zhangju, and both governing the state and cultivating the self are required to adhere to this principle. Since the proposition emphasizes the Dao’s role, the zhangju stresses that governance and self-cultivation must be based on the Dao:

“Governing the state with the Dao brings prosperity to the nation and abundance to the people; cultivating the self with the Dao extends one’s lifespan, with no end in sight”.

(K. Wang 1993, p. 139)

Only by aligning governance and self-cultivation with the Dao can a nation thrive, its people prosper, and an individual attain longevity. And because the Dao’s nature is ziran, both endeavors must follow the law of ziran.

In annotating “governing a large state is like cooking a small fish” (zhi daguo ruo peng xiaoxian 治大國若烹小鮮) in chapter 60 of Laozi (Lou 1980, p. 157), it explains

“When cooking a small fish, you do not remove its intestines or scales and dare not stir it excessively—for fear of mashing it. If governance is overly cumbersome, the people below will fall into chaos; if self-cultivation is overly cumbersome, one’s vital essence (jingqi 精氣) will disperse”.

(K. Wang 1993, p. 235)

Both governing the state and cultivating the self require simplicity and avoidance of overcomplication—complying with the demand of “the Dao’s nature being ziran”. For state governance, it often uses “non-deliberate action” to embody ziran:

“When the ruler practices non-deliberate action, the people have no troubles; every household is sufficient, and all things transform and perfect themselves”.

(K. Wang 1993, p. 235)

“If lords and kings can uphold the Dao and practice non-deliberate action, all things will naturally submit and align with De”.

(K. Wang 1993, p. 131)

Governing the state in accordance with the Dao manifests as non-deliberate action, leading to outcomes such as

“Cultivating the Dao in the state brings trust between the ruler and ministers, the spontaneous emergence of benevolence and righteousness, the natural rise of rituals and music, and fair and impartial governance… When a ruler cultivates the Dao in the world, transformation occurs without words, order is achieved without teaching, and the people below respond to the ruler as faithfully as a shadow follows a form or an echo follows a sound”.

(K. Wang 1993, p. 208)

Self-cultivation must also emulate “the Dao’s nature being ziran”, which manifests in nurturing vital energy (qi 氣) and preserving the spirit (shen 神). The Laozi Daodejing Heshanggong Zhangju states

“Those who cultivate the self should cherish their vital essence, and refrain from indulgence and recklessness”.

(K. Wang 1993, p. 231)

“The eternal Dao should be followed by nurturing the spirit through non-deliberate action”.

(K. Wang 1993, p. 1)

Humans are formed by receiving the Dao’s vital essence, so cherishing vital energy means aligning self-cultivation with the Dao’s ziran nature. The key to preserving the spirit lies in eliminating emotions and desires and maintaining tranquility and non-deliberate action—only then can one attain longevity (Y. Zhang 1995, p. 29).

In Yan Zun’s Laozi Zhigui, the relationship between the Dao and ziran is clearly elaborated: the Dao is by no means a force that actively interferes with the operation of all things. Its core trait lies in taking ziran as the fundamental principle, merely providing a basic foundation for the existence of heaven, earth, and all creatures. The generation and evolution of all things require no impetus from external forces; instead, they follow their inherent ziran nature and independently complete the entire process from gestation to growth. This is precisely the core connotation of its key proposition “the naturalness of xingming”. In contrast, the interpretation of this set of concepts in the Laozi Daodejing Heshanggong Zhangju presents a distinct divergence. It holds that the existence of all things relies on the Dao as the fundamental support, and ziran is not an inherent nature of all things but an exclusive core attribute of the Dao. Based on this, Heshanggong explicitly rejects the proposition of “the naturalness of xingming” in Laozi Zhigui and instead emphasizes the Dao’s supreme status transcending all things and its core role as the ruler of all.

This interpretive tendency is deeply aligned with its core tenet of “cultivating the Dao for longevity”: since the Dao is the ultimate basis governing all things, humans, if they can align themselves with the trait of “daoxing ziran” (the Dao’s nature is ziran) through cultivation, will be able to obtain the nourishment of the Dao and ultimately achieve the goal of longevity. Misha Tadd points out, “For Heshanggong, we should model the transcendent ziran of Dao, but this is something that we must strive for. It is not our ‘natural’ state from birth. The truly ziran state for humans, to repurpose the language of philosophy, does not signify the authentic state of what ‘is,’ but represents an authoritative state of what ‘ought’ to be.” (Tadd 2020, p. 112). Through the proposition of “daoxing ziran”, the Laozi Heshanggong Zhangju highlights the Dao’s supreme status transcending all things, which is vastly different from the political ideal of the Laozi Zhigui that takes returning to humans’ natural nature as its ultimate goal.

4. Ziran in Laozi Xiang’er Zhu

The Laozi Xiang’er Zhu is a core Taoist scripture of immense significance in the history of Taoism. It circulated widely following the rise of early and middle-period Taoism and served as a fundamental classic that Celestial Masters Dao believers were obligated to study and transmit, only to be lost around the Yuan Dynasty (K. Wang 2004, p. 170). Since the 20th century, fortunately, fragmentary Taoist text of this work has been unearthed from the Dunhuang Library Cave, allowing this long-lost scripture to see the light of day once again.

The discovery of the Dunhuang fragment of the Laozi Xiang’er Zhu quickly sparked an upsurge of research among Chinese and Japanese academic circles. Among relevant studies, Rao Zongyi 饒宗頤 took the lead in systematically collating the fragment and compiling Laozi Xiang’er Zhu Jiao Zheng 老子想爾註校證, with his viewpoint being the most representative. He proposed that the Laozi Xiang’er Zhu was either dictated by Zhang Ling 張陵 and organized by Zhang Lu 張魯, or composed by Zhang Lu under Zhang Ling’s name, serving as a unique core doctrinal text of Celestial Masters Dao (Rao 1991, p. 4). This insight has been endorsed by most scholars in the academic community, including the Japanese scholar Ōfuchi Ninji. Stephen R. Bokenkamp also commented, “Given the scarcity of records about the Xiang’er Zhu in later texts and the lack of detailed historical materials on the early history of Celestial Masters Dao, it will likely remain impossible to definitively prove that Zhang Lu was the author of the text. Nevertheless, the evidence provided by Rao Zongyi and Ōfuchi Ninji lends credence to the earliest references to the commentary, which credit Zhang Lu with authorship. Lacking compelling evidence to the contrary, there is no reason to discount the witness of the early sources they have gathered.” (Bokenkamp 1997, p. 59).

The author also concurs with Rao Zongyi’s perspective, holding that the Laozi Xiang’er Zhu is a landmark classic of Celestial Masters Dao from the late Eastern Han Dynasty, bearing an inseparable connection with Zhang Ling and Zhang Lu. As a religious text, the Laozi Xiang’er Zhu features a distinctive interpretation of the Laozi. Although the term ziran appears repeatedly therein, its connotation differs significantly from the philosophical interpretations presented in the Laozi Zhigui and the Laozi Daodejing Heshanggong Zhangju.

In Laozi Xiang’er Zhu, ziran solely denotes “freedom from external force” and lacks the connotation of “absence of conscious intention”. For example,

“Just as a thief, harboring evil, dares not face a government official, the vital essence [of mediocre people] naturally (ziran) fails to connect with Heaven”.

(Z. Liu 2012, p. 72)

Using the analogy of a thief too afraid of officials to show themselves, this passage explains that the vital essence of unenlightened people cannot naturally align with Heaven—without external coercion, this is simply how things are.

Laozi Xiang’er Zhu also combines ziran with “such is the case” (ruci 如此), as seen in

“When people act without fearing the Dao’s precepts (daojie 道誡) and deviate from the Dao’s will, the Dao abandons them—naturally such is the case (ziran ruci 自然如此)”.

(Z. Liu 2012, p. 127)

The phrase “naturally such is the case” (ziran ruci 自然如此) clearly confirms that ziran here refers to “being as it is of itself”, free from external interference.

Notably, ziran in the sense of “absence of conscious intention” is entirely absent from Laozi Xiang’er Zhu. As discussed earlier, ziran (in the sense of “without conscious intent”) is often synonymous with non-deliberate action (wuwei 無為) in other commentaries. However, “non-deliberate action” in Laozi Xiang’er Zhu does not mean “absence of conscious intention”; instead, it refers to “refraining from evil deeds”. When annotating the Laozi verse “understanding all and penetrating all, yet practicing non-deliberate action” (mingbai sida er wuwei 明白四達而無為), it states

“A superior scholar (shangshi 上士) has an enlightened mind and knows many things. He recognizes evil and abandons it, understands good and practices it, and dares not commit evil deeds”.

(Z. Liu 2012, p. 85)

In interpreting another verse, “The Dao always practices non-deliberate action, yet there is nothing it does not accomplish” (dao chang wuwei er wubu wei 道常無為而無不為), it explains

“The nature of the Dao is to refrain from evil; thus, it is divine and can accomplish all things. Those who follow the Dao should emulate this”.

(Z. Liu 2012, p. 159)

Here, Laozi Xiang’er Zhu redefines “non-deliberate action” as “daring not to commit evil” or “refraining from evil”, and “there is nothing it does not accomplish” (wubu wei 無不為) as “accomplishing all things”—specifically, performing numerous good deeds. This “non-deliberate action” carries a strong religious tone of exhorting virtue, representing a conscious and purposeful act. In some cases, Laozi Xiang’er Zhu even directly modifies Laozi verses that convey the original meaning of “non-deliberate action”. For instance, Chapter 3 of the received Laozi reads, “Always keep the people without knowledge and without desire, so that the wise dare not act; practice non-deliberate action, and there is nothing ungoverned 常使民無知無欲, 使夫智者不敢為也, 為無為, 則無不治” (Lou 1980, p. 8). In Laozi Xiang’er Zhu, this is altered to “Always keep the people without knowledge and without desire, so that the wise dare not fail to act; then there is nothing ungoverned” (Z. Liu 2012, pp. 67–68). Here, Laozi Xiang’er Zhu changes “dare not act” (bugan wei 不敢為) in the original text to “dare not fail to act” (bugan buwei 不敢不為) and completely omits the phrase “practice non-deliberate action” (wei wuwei 為無為), directly dissolving the original meaning of “non-deliberate action” in Laozi. It is therefore understandable why Laozi Xiang’er Zhu emphasizes neither “absence of conscious intention” nor “absence of purpose”—instead highlighting conscious, purposeful religious acts of virtue—and why ziran in this text lacks the connotation of “without conscious intent”.

In Laozi, chapter 25 states, “Humans emulate the earth; the earth emulates heaven; heaven emulates the Dao; the Dao emulates ziran” (Lou 1980, p. 65). Laozi Xiang’er Zhu annotates this passage as follows:

“Ziran, in essence, is identical to the Dao. When people emulate nature, they are, in fact, emulating the Dao. Given the vastness of heaven and earth—even they can only endure by following the Dao—how can humans, who are so insignificant, dare not revere and uphold the Dao?”.

(Z. Liu 2012, p. 131)

The commentary argues that ziran is identical to the Dao (merely a different designation), and “emulating ziran” is essentially “emulating the Dao”. Rao Zongyi 饒宗頤 noted, “Chapter 103 of the Scripture of Great Peace (Taiping Jing 太平經), which bears the title ‘The Precepts for the Dao’s Completion’ (Dao Bicheng Jie 道畢成誡), reads: ‘The law of ziran is connected with the Dao; adherence to it yields good fortune, while violation leads to calamity’. It further elaborates, ‘The inherent nature of heaven and earth values ziran above all; everything follows its own ordained course, not daring to oppose it.’ (This view also appears in Section Geng 庚, Jingchao [Scripture Extracts 經鈔].) Here, ziran means ‘following one’s course and not opposing Heaven’. The connection between ziran and the Dao can be cross-referenced with the Xiang’er Zhu” (Rao 1991, p. 63). While Rao Zongyi suggests that ziran here means “following one’s course and not opposing Heaven”, this interpretation is inaccurate. According to Laozi Xiang’er Zhu, even heaven and earth must emulate the Dao to generate things; thus, ziran in this context should mean “not opposing the Dao”. Unlike Laozi Zhigui and Laozi Daodejing Heshanggong Zhangju, Laozi Xiang’er Zhu no longer emphasizes that “the nature of the Dao is ziran”. Instead, it highlights the supremacy of the Dao, with ziran reduced to a mere synonym for the Dao. The core message is that all things in heaven and earth must reverence and not violate the Dao. This supreme Dao is further referred to as “the One” (yi一) in Laozi Xiang’er Zhu:

“The One is the Dao… When the One disperses, it takes form as qi; when it converges, it takes form as Supreme Lord Lao (taishang laojun 太上老君), who always resides in Kunlun昆侖. Sometimes it is called ‘emptiness’, sometimes ‘ziran’, sometimes ‘nameless’—but all refer to the same entity. Now, we proclaim the Dao’s precepts: teaching people to uphold the precepts and not violate them is equivalent to upholding the One; failing to follow the precepts is equivalent to losing the One” (Z. Liu 2012, p. 83). Laozi Xiang’er Zhu asserts that the Dao has multiple names—“emptiness”, “ziran”, “nameless”—but its essence is the One. Through the statement that “the One disperses as qi and converges as Supreme Lord Lao”, Laozi Xiang’er Zhu transforms the philosophical concept of “the One” into the anthropomorphic deity “Supreme Lord Lao”. This anthropomorphic Dao must not be violated, and this requirement is concretely manifested in adhering to the “Dao’s precepts”. Laozi Xiang’er Zhu explains

“The Dao is supreme, subtle, and hidden, with no form or appearance. One can only follow its precepts; one cannot perceive or understand it directly”.

(Z. Liu 2012, p. 94)

The Dao is supreme yet subtle and hidden; thus, humans can only comply with its precepts rather than comprehend it through reason. As scholars have observed, “The Dao’s precepts… are the concrete form of the Dao’s religious transformation… The Xiang’er Zhu bases itself on the Dao as a theological ontology, using the Dao to explain Daoist doctrines and teachings… It emphasizes that all precepts are determined by the Dao, not by human will” (Liang 1999, pp. 53–54).

The Dao’s precepts are the concrete manifestation of the Dao’s religious transformation. Since these precepts are determined by the Dao, they are also ziran. Hence, Laozi Xiang’er Zhu states

“When people act in accordance with the Dao, the benevolent Dao will respond with gratitude—this is called ziran”.

(Z. Liu 2012, p. 126)

“When people act without fearing the Dao’s precepts and deviate from the Dao’s will, the Dao abandons them—naturally (ziran) such is the case”.

(Z. Liu 2012, p. 127)

For humans, acting in line with the Dao means fearing and obeying the Dao’s precepts—and this is precisely what ziran denotes. It is clear, then, that Laozi Xiang’er Zhu interprets ziran as the Dao, further deifies the Dao, and emphasizes the Dao’s supreme and inviolable status.

Compared with the Laozi Zhigui and the Laozi Daodejing Heshanggong Zhangju, the Xiang’er Zhu places far greater emphasis on the supreme, transcendent status of the Dao: it explicitly deifies the Dao as Lord Lao and demands universal submission to it. As Stephen R. Bokenkamp observes, “The Celestial Masters instructed all of the faithful by means of the Laozi. This is because, as the Xiang’er commentary explains, each person must be in complete accord with the Dao in order for society, and indeed the cosmos, to function perfectly.” (Bokenkamp 1997, p. 39). Consequently, the Xiang’er Commentary no longer highlights the Dao’s intrinsic ziran; instead, it attenuates the original philosophical depth of ziran and reconfigures it into a personalized, practical embodiment—the “Dao’s Precepts”.

At its core, the Xiang’er Commentary’s interpretation of ziran and the Dao constitutes a profound intellectual shift—from philosophy to religion. It strips ziran of its original dimension of philosophical reflection, reducing it to a mere synonym for the Dao as a religious absolute. The Dao, which in the Laozi functions as the impersonal, generative source of all things, is here transformed into a personal, volitional deity—Lord Lao—who issues authoritative moral commandments. Ultimately, through the pivotal concept of the Dao’s Precepts, the commentary tightly integrates ziran, the Dao, and religious practice—such as observing precepts, revering the Dao, performing good deeds, and avoiding evil—thereby constructing a comprehensive doctrinal system designed to advance the teachings of Celestial Masters Daoism. This interpretive framework not only fundamentally departs from the original philosophical meaning of “the Dao follows ziran” in the Laozi, but also stands in stark contrast to the philosophical hermeneutics of both the Laozi Zhigui and the Laozi Daodejing Heshanggong Zhangju. It marks a decisive turning point in the history of Chinese thought: the transition of Laozi exegesis from a philosophical discourse into a vehicle for religious doctrine, laying the essential theoretical foundation for the systematic development of Daoist theology.

5. Concluding Remarks

Liu Xiaogan 劉笑敢 pointed out, “Since the typical form of China’s philosophical interpretation tradition involves constructing a philosophical system through the interpretation of classics, this approach inevitably contains an inherent contradiction and tension between ‘objectively’ interpreting the ‘original meaning’ of the classics and establishing the interpreter’s own philosophical system” (X. Liu 2009, p. 52). This contradiction, as he describes it, refers to “one process, two orientations”—that is, in the process of interpretation, there exist both an objectivist orientation (facing the text and history) and a subjectivist orientation (facing the present and reality) (X. Liu 2009, p. 227). In other words, during interpretation, the interpreter must, on the one hand, strive to stay true to the text and, on the other hand, seek to transcend the text—constructing their own ideological system through the interpretation of classics. These three core commentaries on the Laozi from the Han Dynasty—Laozi Zhigui, Laozi Heshanggong Zhangju, and Laozi Xiang’er Zhu—are obviously paradigmatic examples of constructing ideological systems through the interpretation of classics and naturally cannot avoid this inherent tension.

As a pioneering core concept first appearing in the Laozi, ziran serves as an indispensable ideological cornerstone for all interpretations of the text—this is the fundamental reason why the three major commentaries all elaborate on it. Thomas Michael once offered an insightful view on the interpretation of the Laozi: “There is just one ‘original text’ of the Daodejing, the source text that stands behind all of these multiple editions. Different communities, for example hermits or politicians, altered it according to their own interpretive tastes, as if that source text equally but murkily contained the religious, the political, and the philosophical that each interpretive community emphasized differently.” (Tomas 2022, p. 5). This assertion provides an ideal theoretical reference for the divergent interpretations of ziran in the three commentaries: while all three share the ideological foundation of the Laozi’s source text, their commitment to constructing distinct ideological systems leads to striking differences in their emphasis on ziran, as well as in their interpretive orientations and definitions of its connotation.

The Laozi Zhigui takes ziran as its ideological core, constructing a philosophical system that integrates cosmology with theories of state governance and self-cultivation. At the cosmological level, ziran is both the inherent nature of the Dao—determining the Dao’s traits of being without will or deliberate intervention—and the ultimate law governing all things’ self-generation and self-fulfillment, completely dispelling the Dao’s attribute as a ruling entity. At the practical level, this idea extends into the path of “governing the state must first cultivate oneself; cultivating oneself must first refine one’s mind”, with the core concept of “the naturalness of xingming”. It advocates that rulers should practice wuwei to purify their minds and that the people should follow their inherent nature to achieve self-harmony, pursuing the social ideal of “returning to one’s original simplicity”. Its ideological essence is deeply rooted in Zhuangzi’s thought. The underlying motivation for this proposition lies in its critique of the theological teleology dominated by Dong Zhongshu’s Confucianism and Chenwei studies in the mid-to-late Western Han Dynasty. By reconstructing the cosmic order around ziran, it provided an alternative path for the intellectual circle to return to rational speculation.

Laozi Daodejing Heshanggong Zhangju reverses the attribution of ziran: it primarily emphasizes that ziran is the inherent nature of the Dao, not an innate authentic state of humans. Thus, it negates the proposition of “the naturalness of xingming” and rejects the idea of all things’ self-generation, instead highlighting the Dao’s supreme status transcending all things and its ruling role governing the universe. This interpretive tendency is no coincidence but closely bound to its core tenet of cultivating the Dao for longevity: only by aligning oneself with “the Dao’s nature as ziran” through conscious practice can humans obtain the Dao’s nourishment and achieve longevity. Here, ziran is no longer an innate state of authenticity but an “ought-to-be” state requiring active pursuit, with distinct health-preserving practices and preliminary religious overtones integrated into its thought.

Unlike the previous two commentaries, the Laozi Xiang’er Zhu accomplishes a subversive reconstruction of ziran from a purely religious perspective. It no longer regards ziran as an independent philosophical concept but merely as one of the Dao’s synonyms, completely eliminating its core status and original connotation. Furthermore, it abandons the traditional understanding that “the Dao’s nature is ziran”, instead deifying the Dao into an anthropomorphic supreme being (the Supreme Old Lord), reducing ziran to an embodiment of the Dao’s will. This interpretation fully serves the construction of Taoist doctrine: by dispelling the philosophical connotation of ziran and deifying the Dao’s authority, it transforms the Laozi from a philosophical text into the ideological foundation of Taoism, ultimately completing the ideological leap from “interpreting the Laozi” to “establishing Taoist theory”.

The differentiated interpretations of ziran in the three major Han Dynasty commentaries on the Laozi essentially reflect the inherent tension between “objectively interpreting the classic” and “subjectively constructing a system”: all three take ziran as an entry point to respond to the original text of the Laozi, but due to fundamental differences in their ideological positions (opposing theological teleology, emphasizing cultivation for longevity, and establishing Daoist doctrine), they endow ziran with distinctly different connotations and positions. From the philosophical ziran that integrates ontology and generative theory in the Laozi Zhigui, to the “Dao’s nature as ziran” that merges health-preserving thinking in the Heshanggong Commentary, and finally to the ziran reduced to a religious symbol in the Laozi Xiang’er Zhu, these interpretations not only demonstrate the diverse possibilities of interpreting the Laozi, but also clearly reflect the historical trajectory of Han Dynasty thought transitioning from philosophical speculation to religious practice.