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

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please refer to the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comments 1

 

 However, when dealing with these three texts, the author does not sufficiently address the philological challenges. Both H_e_s_h_a_n_g_g_o_n_g_ _Z_h_a_n_g_j_u_ _and L_a_o_z_i_ _X_i_a_n_g_’e_r_ _Z_h_u_ _contain layers of thought that reflect later developments, making it difficult to regard them as purely Han-dynasty works. The paper proceeds without adequately engaging with or convincing the reader about the reservations that philologists have long expressed concerning this issue.

Response 1：

In my revised manuscript, I have addressed the philological controversies surrounding these three texts, significantly expanding the discussion with additional content.

 

Comments 2：

 

 In this schema, ziran becomes the ultimate origin of all things, so that even Dao and De depend upon ziran. Interpreting 因於 _(“to be grounded in / to be based on”) as “derived from” may be an over-interpretation

 

Response 2：

I have taken your suggestions into account and revised the article accordingly.

 

 

Comments 3：

 

 The main argument of the paper is that, as illustrated by distinctive annotations in L_a_o_z_i_ _X_i_a_n_g_’e_r_ _Z_h_u_, Daoist philosophy was transformed into a system of religious norms. Yet it is already well known that the X_i_a_n_g_’e_r_ _Z_h_u_ _served as a canonical scripture of the Celestial Masters tradition. Framing this transformation simply as a movement “from philosophy to religion” relies on a rather modern and conventional dichotomy—Daojia (philosophy) versus Daojiao (religion)—without critical reflection. As such, the study falls short of the desired level of scholarly rigor and originality.

 

Response 3：

I've made the revisions. Thank you!

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors This manuscript exhibits significant shortcomings that require substantial revision, as detailed below: 1. The introduction points out that its discussion of the Three Commentaries on Laozi in the Han Dynasty merely presents various definitions of "ziran" (naturalness) proposed by previous scholars, failing to demonstrate any novelty. Instead, it should: (1) identify gaps or limitations in prior research on "ziran" within these three commentaries; or (2) explain how the Three Commentaries supplement the academic understanding of "ziran" from a broader perspective. Such an analysis, however, necessitates a comprehensive review of a wide range of literature in the field. 2. The main body is largely dedicated to enumerating and summarizing definitions of "ziran" in the Three Commentaries, supplemented by interpretations from contemporary scholars—with a noticeable absence of the author’s own critical engagement. While the conclusion presents insightful arguments (e.g., the historical, cultural, and religious factors shaping divergent interpretations of "ziran"), these elements are barely addressed or developed in the main text. 3. As a manuscript intended for publication in an international journal, the exclusive reliance on Chinese-language sources is clearly insufficient. A large body of research on Daoism, and specifically on the concept of "ziran," exists in both Japanese and English. Such non-Chinese literature must be integrated into both the literature review (to contextualize the study within global scholarship) and the main argumentation (to strengthen the manuscript’s academic rigor and international relevance).

Author Response

1. The introduction points out that its discussion of the Three Commentaries on Laozi in the Han Dynasty merely presents various definitions of "ziran" (naturalness) proposed by previous scholars, failing to demonstrate any novelty. Instead, it should: (1) identify gaps or limitations in prior research on "ziran" within these three commentaries; or (2) explain how the Three Commentariessupplement the academic understanding of "ziran" from a broader perspective. Such an analysis, however, necessitates a comprehensive review of a wide range of literature in the field.
2. The main body is largely dedicated to enumerating and summarizing definitions of "ziran" in the Three Commentaries, supplemented by interpretations from contemporary scholars—with a noticeable absence of the author’s own critical engagement. While the conclusion presents insightful arguments (e.g., the historical, cultural, and religious factors shaping divergent interpretations of "ziran"), these elements are barely addressed or developed in the main text.

 

Response ：

Thanks for pointing this out！

To clarify my own arguments and reduce excessive citation of others’ views, I have strengthened the articulation of my positions—particularly in the abstract, introduction, and conclusion—by explicitly stating my core claims. Moreover, in the sections discussing Laozi Zhigui (Essential Meaning of the Laozi), Laozi Heshanggong Zhangju (Heshanggong’s Sentence-by-Sentence Commentary on the Laozi), and Laozi Xiang’er Zhu (Xiang’er’s Commentary on the Laozi), I have added more conclusive analyses to clarify my perspectives on the ideological characteristics of "ziran" in these three works.

 

3. As a manuscript intended for publication in an international journal, the exclusive reliance on Chinese-language sources is clearly insufficient. A large body of research on Daoism, and specifically on the concept of "ziran," exists in both Japanese and English. Such non-Chinese literature must be integrated into both the literature review (to contextualize the study within global scholarship) and the main argumentation (to strengthen the manuscript’s academic rigor and international relevance).

 

Response 3：

Regarding the integration of Western scholarship, the revised manuscript now incorporates research by scholars such as Stephen R. Bokenkamp, Misha Tadd, Alan K. L. Chan, Twitchett Denis, Michael Loewe, Thomas Michael, and Ikeeda Tomohisa.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper examines the connotations of the term ziran in three Han Dynasty commentaries on the Laozi. Overall, it is well-organized, with a clear and constructive argument. The argumentation is cogent and meticulous, focusing on the term's occurrences and elucidating its meanings alongside the distinct interpretive preferences of the three commentaries. This methodical approach is both safe and productive.

Although the paper is well-written and nearly publishable, I recommend several refinements to enhance its rigor and impact.

A primary limitation is the paper's relatively narrow and general purpose. As stated in lines 41–44, the aim is to “conduct a comparative analysis of the interpretations of ziran in these three Han Dynasty commentaries, so as to highlight the evolution of the concept of ziran in the study of Laozi during the Han Dynasty.” While feasible, this objective leaves room for broader exploration. Having analysed the three Han commentaries, the author could synthesise them as a cohesive textual layer of the Han period and compare this with subsequent commentators, such as Wang Bi, Cheng Xuanying, Fan Yingyuan, and Zhao Ji. Such an extension would illuminate the trajectory of Laozi interpretation across Chinese intellectual history, demonstrating how later scholars inherited and advanced Han principles. Alternative approaches to widening the scope are also viable.

A second issue involves tautological descriptions that should be excised. In lines 45–55, the paper reviews Zheng Kai's and Ye Shuxun's interpretations of ziran. It then reiterates in lines 55–58: “In other words, the concept of ziran in ancient Chinese philosophy primarily carries two core meanings: first, ‘without external force’, and second, ‘without conscious intention’. These two fundamental meanings of ziran form the semantic basis for our analysis of the ziran concept in the Han Dynasty commentaries on Laozi.” This approach risks in tautology. As the three commentaries are the earliest extant on the Laozi, separating them from later scholarship is impractical. Relying on Zheng and Ye as foundational risks shifting the focus to a test of the two’s ideas rather than an original examination of the three Han works.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Regarding language, the paper meets publication standards overall but exhibits occasional redundancy. For example, the sentence in lines 24–25—“...each of the three major commentaries on the Laozi in the Han Dynasty has a distinct ‘subjective orientation geared toward the present and reality’”—is wordy and can be streamlined to: “...each of the three commentaries exhibits a distinct ‘subjective orientation geared toward the present and reality.’” The author should proofread carefully to eliminate such issues.

Author Response

1. A primary limitation is the paper's relatively narrow and general purpose. As stated in lines 41–44, the aim is to “conduct a comparative analysis of the interpretations of ziran in these three Han Dynasty commentaries, so as to highlight the evolution of the concept of ziran in the study of Laozi during the Han Dynasty.” While feasible, this objective leaves room for broader exploration. Having analysed the three Han commentaries, the author could synthesise them as a cohesive textual layer of the Han period and compare this with subsequent commentators, such as Wang Bi, Cheng Xuanying, Fan Yingyuan, and Zhao Ji. Such an extension would illuminate the trajectory of Laozi interpretation across Chinese intellectual history, demonstrating how later scholars inherited and advanced Han principles. Alternative approaches to widening the scope are also viable.

 

Response 1：

Thanks for pointing this out！

I have decided to reserve this for future studies due to constraints on time and manuscript length, as it exceeds the scope of a single article

 

2、A second issue involves tautological descriptions that should be excised. In lines 45–55, the paper reviews Zheng Kai's and Ye Shuxun's interpretations of ziran. It then reiterates in lines 55–58: “In other words, the concept of ziran in ancient Chinese philosophy primarily carries two core meanings: first, ‘without external force’, and second, ‘without conscious intention’. These two fundamental meanings of ziran form the semantic basis for our analysis of the ziran concept in the Han Dynasty commentaries on Laozi.” This approach risks in tautology. As the three commentaries are the earliest extant on the Laozi, separating them from later scholarship is impractical. Relying on Zheng and Ye as foundational risks shifting the focus to a test of the two’s ideas rather than an original examination of the three Han works.

 

Response 2

Thanks very much for pointing this out! concerning overreliance on the research of Zheng Kai and Ye Shuxun, I have supplemented my own arguments in the revised version. Incidentally, Zheng Kai and Ye Shuxun’s understanding of "ziran" is currently a widely accepted view in Chinese academic circles; similar perspectives are also held by scholars such as Wang Zhongjiang, Cao Feng, and Luo Anxian, who only devoted limited space to this topic in their works. Since this is not a core focus of my paper, I have maintained basic alignment with their views while emphasizing my own analysis.

 

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article presents a thoughtful analysis of ziran across three Han Dynasty commentaries but requires substantial revisions .
Issue 1: Citation Format. The manuscript fails to follow the journal’s required citation format (Surname year, p.). Citations must be systematically corrected throughout—currently, they appear inconsistently formatted and lack page specificity. The bibliography requires careful verification for accuracy and completeness in accordance with journal standards.
Issue 2: Unclear Research Contribution. The article reads primarily as a descriptive comparison of three commentaries on ziran without clearly articulating the broader scholarly contribution. The abstract and introduction must be substantially revised to explicitly state: (1) the overarching research question; (2) the specific contribution beyond textual comparison; and (3) implications for understanding Daoist interpretation history. Consider emphasizing how divergent interpretations of ziran reflect broader intellectual shifts or hermeneutical methods.
Issue 3: Insufficient Non-Chinese Scholarship. The bibliography significantly underrepresents important Western scholarship on Daoist commentary and interpretation. Essential works are absent from citations, notably contributions by Alan Kam-leung Chan, Stephen Bokenkamp, Michael Thomas, Allen Singleton, and Misha Tadd and many others. These scholars have produced critical analyses of Han Dynasty Daoism and commentary traditions. Integrating such scholarship would strengthen comparative analysis and contextualize findings within international academic discourse.

Author Response

Issue 1: Citation Format. The manuscript fails to follow the journal’s required citation format (Surname year, p.). Citations must be systematically corrected throughout—currently, they appear inconsistently formatted and lack page specificity. The bibliography requires careful verification for accuracy and completeness in accordance with journal standards.

 

Response 1

Thanks very much for pointing this out!

I have thoroughly revised the references in the manuscript to meet standards.. Once again, I would like to thank this reviewer for their highly targeted suggestions.

Issue 2: Unclear Research Contribution. The article reads primarily as a descriptive comparison of three commentaries on ziran without clearly articulating the broader scholarly contribution. The abstract and introduction must be substantially revised to explicitly state: (1) the overarching research question; (2) the specific contribution beyond textual comparison; and (3) implications for understanding Daoist interpretation history. Consider emphasizing how divergent interpretations of ziran reflect broader intellectual shifts or hermeneutical methods.

 

Response 2:

I have completely rewritten the abstract, introduction, and conclusion, incorporating your suggestions. Thank you again for your valuable feedback!

Issue 3: Insufficient Non-Chinese Scholarship. The bibliography significantly underrepresents important Western scholarship on Daoist commentary and interpretation. Essential works are absent from citations, notably contributions by Alan Kam-leung Chan, Stephen Bokenkamp, Michael Thomas, Allen Singleton, and Misha Tadd and many others. These scholars have produced critical analyses of Han Dynasty Daoism and commentary traditions. Integrating such scholarship would strengthen comparative analysis and contextualize findings within international academic discourse.

Response 3:

Thanks very much for your suggestion and this is very helpful to me！The revised manuscript now incorporates research by scholars such as Stephen R. Bokenkamp, Misha Tadd, Alan K. L. Chan, Twitchett Denis, Michael Loewe, Thomas Michael, and Ikeeda Tomohisa. I have incorporated nearly all the Western scholars’ research recommended by the reviewer

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a sufficient revision. Thank the author(s) for their diligent efforts.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I accept the revisions of the paper