The Lost Orthodoxy: Yan Zun’s Interpretation of the Laozi and the Pre-Qin to Han Daoist Tradition

Abstract

Prior to the Tang Dynasty, interpretations of the Laozi fell into two traditions: the Pre-Qin and Han tradition, represented by Yan Zun, and the Wei–Jin tradition, represented by Wang Bi. The commentaries on the Laozi in circulation today are influenced by metaphysics in emphasizing “non-being” (wu) as the substance of the Dao (dao). Yan Zun’s Laozi zhigui 老子指歸 (lit. “Purport of the Laozi”) is the oldest extant commentary. In his thought, Yan carries on the legacies of the Laozi and the Zhuangzi and serves as a precursor to later religious Daoism. Yan Zun established a triadic framework—comprising the Dao, Vacuity, and Spontaneity—that shaped Han and Tang Daoism. This reading inherits the Pre-Qin Daoist principle that takes Vacuity as its ontological root and yielding softness as its operative function, laying the theoretical foundation for religious Daoist thought in the Jin and Tang dynasties. Yan Zun’s interpretations of the Laozi frequently surprise modern scholars, yet his views align closely with the contents of the Mawangdui Laozi silk manuscripts (c. 168 BCE) and Peking University Western Han bamboo-slip Laozi (c. 150 BCE), which demonstrates his distinctive scholarly contribution and contemporary relevance.

1. Introduction

Han Dynasty 漢 (207 BC–220 AD) commentaries on the classics have been recognized as the foundation of China’s mainstream intellectual tradition. Yet exegeses of the Laozi 老子 (also known as the Daodejing 道德經, lit. “the Classic of the Dao and De”) from this period have not received the attention they deserve. Few scholars have recognized that Yan Zun 嚴遵 (fl. c. 50–20 BCE, courtesy name Junping 君平) developed the earliest systematic philosophy of the Laozi. He did so by drawing on the Zhuangzi 莊子 and the Classic of Changes 易經 (Yijing). Yan Zun originally presented this interpretation in a work titled the “Laozi Chapter and Verse Commentary” 老子章句 (Laozi Zhangju). Later generations, however, divided his work into the Laozi zhigui 老子指歸 and Laozi zhu 老子注 (lit. “Annotations to the Laozi,” Fan 2013, pp. 19–27).1 The Dejing 德經 (lit. “Classic of De,” i.e., chapters 38–81 of the received Laozi) sections of the Laozi zhigui and Laozi zhu have been preserved intact, and we have been able to collate fragments of the Daojing 道經 (lit. “Classic of the Dao, i.e., chapters 1–37 of the received Laozi) sections of each into a partial reconstruction.2 From the Han to the Tang, Yan Zun’s commentaries on the Laozi commanded more attention than any other scholar’s. In the Eastern Han 東漢 (25–220 AD), Mou Rong 牟融 (d. 79) quoted from the Laozi zhigui and introduced the cited content as “Laozi said” (Laozi yue 老子曰).3 At the end of the Han, Pei Hui 裴徽 (d. 237?) juxtaposed Yan Zun with the Buddha in discussions of the Classic of Changes, the Laozi, and the Zhuangzi. In the Three Kingdoms period 三國 (220–280), scholars in Shu 蜀 (i.e., Yan Zun’s birthplace, modern Sichuan) considered the Laozi zhigui to be as authoritative as Confucius’ Spring and Autumn Annals. Yan Zun’s works were widely cited in pre-Tang literature. They also profoundly influenced the formation of religious Daoism and the development of Daoist metaphysics. Jin and Tang religious Daoists believed there are only three classics that Laozi (lit. “the Old Master”) truly imparted to his disciple Yin Xi 尹喜: the Classic of the Dao and De, the Classic of Western Ascension 西昇經 (Xishengjing), and the Classic of Marvelous Truth 妙真經 (Miaozhenjing), the last of which was actually adapted and developed based on the Laozi zhigui (Fan 2014, pp. 32–37). It can thus be said that Yan Zun carried on the legacies of the Laozi and the Zhuangzi and served as a precursor for later Jin and Tang Daoist thinkers like Cheng Xuanying 成玄英 (fl. 631–655). He is an indispensable figure in the history of Laozi scholarship.

However, due to issues with preservation and transmission after the Song and Yuan dynasties, scholars from the late Ming to the early twentieth century generally regarded this work as a forgery. It was only with the recent discovery of Western Han bamboo and silk manuscripts that Chinese academia has come to recognize the significance of the Laozi zhigui. As Alan K. L. Chan observes, despite the fractured transmission of the text, “there is strong circumstantial evidence that the [Laozi] Zhigui issued from the Han dynasty” (Chan 1998, pp. 112, 115). Chan’s analysis of the textual history demonstrates that the work was widely cited from the third and fourth centuries CE, and that “quotations from the work found in a number of Laozi commentaries beginning from the tenth century agree with the present [Laozi] Zhigui” (Chan 1998, p. 111).

Over the past three decades, both Chinese and Western scholars have begun to pay more attention to Yan Zun’s philosophical thought. As Thomas Michael notes, “despite the deep influence of his Laozi zhigui, its fractured transmission has led to modern neglect… This neglect, compounded by the Laozi zhigui’s fractured nature, has led to its philosophy being largely dismissed” (Michael 2025, p. 1). While Chinese scholars have started to amend this neglect, still they primarily examine the Laozi zhigui for its influence on Wang Bi 王弼 (226–249) and other Laozi exegetes of the Xuanxue 玄學 (lit. “Obscure Learning”) movement. This study aims to restore Yan Zun to his rightful place in the history of Daoist thought by demonstrating that his interpretation represents a distinctive tradition—one that predates Xuanxue and differs fundamentally from the interpretations that later became dominant.

2. The Pre-Qin and Han Tradition of “The Dao Resides in Yin”

The Laozi manuscripts on bamboo and silk unearthed in recent years diverge in numerous ways from the commentaries on the Laozi by Heshang Gong and Wang Bi, yet Yan Zun’s interpretation of the Laozi shares many similarities and correspondences with these bamboo and silk versions. Such similarities in textual form reflect the close connection between the two in their intellectual origins.

The Mawangdui Laozi silk manuscripts (c. 168 BCE) and Peking University Western Han bamboo-slip Laozi (c. 150 BCE) treat the Dejing as the “Upper Classic” and the Daojing as the “Lower Classic”. In contrast, post-Han transmitted editions of the Laozi all place the Daojing above the Dejing—only Yan Zun’s Laozi aligns with the bamboo and silk manuscripts in this regard. Contemporary scholars have put forward numerous hypothetical explanations for why the Daojing is placed in the lower position in the Western Han manuscripts, yet these explanations “provide no corresponding evidence and are mere conjecture” (Ding 2015, p. 60). In fact, Yan Zun already pointed out in Junping’s Explanation of the Items of the Two Classics 君平說二經目, which prefaces the Laozi zhigui, that the Daojing is placed in the lower position to correspond with Earth and yin, while the Dejing is placed in the upper position to correspond with Heaven and yang. These pairings align with the Laozi’s emphasis on residing below, acting humbly, and maintaining the feminine. Water, which is an approximation of the Dao, also “dwells in good places” 居善地, and possesses the characteristics of “belonging to yin” and “being adept at descending” (see Laozi 8, 66, and 78). Not only the Laozi but also the Guiguzi 鬼谷子, the Guanzi 管子, the Han Feizi 韓非子, the Zhuangzi, and other philosophers from before the Qin 秦 (221–214 BC) like Fan Li 范蠡 (536–448 BC) all revere yin. For example, the Guiguzi states that “the Dao of the sage is yin, while the Dao of the fool is yang” 聖人之道陰愚人之道陽. Yan Zun associated the Dao with yin, the below, and Earth because he believed that the Dao of the ruler is yin, and the Dao of the ministers is yang. Only when the ruler does not define his preferences can his ministers and people act freely and achieve self-actualization.

In receiving the Zhuangzi’s influence, Yan Zun states explicitly that “While laws emerge from ministers, it falls to the ruler to uphold them” 法出於臣秉之在君. Ministers belong to yang; they create and initiate the legal order. The ruler belongs to yin; he upholds and follows that order. For this reason, Yan Zun says

The ruler is yin and his ministers are yang;

The ruler is still and his ministers move;

The ruler is round and his ministers are square;

The ruler follows and his ministers take the lead;

The ruler is silent and his ministers speak.

主陰臣陽，主靜臣動，主圓臣方，主因臣唱，主默臣言.

Yan Zun extends the concept of yin and yang to the realm of governance with this unique formulation, which links yin to the sovereign and yang to ministers—a perspective that sharply diverges from the core positions of both Confucianism and Legalism (F. Li 2025, pp. 3–4). In contrast to this pre-Qin norm, Confucian classics such as the Xunzi’s 荀子 essay “On Correctness” 正論 and the Comprehensive Discussions in the White Tiger Hall 白虎通義 (Baihu Tongyi) elevate the ruler’s dominance in the legal order, thus esteeming him as “residing above,” “residing in yang,” and fit for the “virtue of fire.” But after the Eastern Han, Daoist thought evidently received this Confucian influence and shifted to “revering yang” and “residing in yang.” For instance, the “Laozi Inscription” 老子銘 (Laoziming) and Biographies of Immortals 列仙傳 (Liexianzhuan) fabricate for Laozi the courtesy name Boyang 伯陽 (lit. “Eldest Yang”, where “Bo” marks seniority in the traditional birth order system, and “Yang” refers to the cosmic yang principle of yin-yang thought), and a fragment of the lost preface to the Heshang Gong commentary claims that Laozi “resided in the womb for eighty-one years”, presumably because it’s the number of the Supreme Yang. This reverence for the number 81, which represents the ultimate yang, led to the division of the Laozi into 81 chapters after the Eastern Han (Ding 2019, pp. 108–18). The order of the Daojing and Dejing shows that Yan Zun’s interpretation aligns with the early tradition: “The Dao resides in yin.” Later perspectives, by contrast, were influenced by the Confucian classics’ emphasis on yang. This association of the Dao with yin, the below, and Earth finds its roots in the Laozi’s own use of the “Mother” (母 mu) as a metaphor for the Dao. While Thomas Michael observes that many later commentators (such as Wang Bi and Heshang Gong) minimize this gendered, organic imagery in favor of abstract metaphysical concepts (Michael 2025, p. 4), Yan Zun notably preserves this connection between yin and the maternal. This aligns him more closely with the pre-Qin Daoist tradition and reinforces the distinctive Han-era hermeneutic that “the Dao resides in yin.”

3. Mysterious Vacuity: The Pre-Qin and Han–Tang Tradition of the Dao Having Vacuity as Its Substance

The distinction between vacuity (xu 虛) and nothing (wu 無) is Yan Zun’s unique contribution to Daoist metaphysics. The conventional view of Daoist metaphysics, by contrast, follows He Yan 何晏 (c. 190–249 AD) and Wang Bi. On their innovative reading of the Laozi, nothing (wu) takes priority as the root of the Dao. Thomas Michael has recently argued that this Xuanxue line of interpretation constitutes 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’” (Michael 2025, p. 2). Scholars have often retroactively imposed this Xuanxue interpretation onto early philosophical Daoism. Yet this reading represents a fundamental misreading of the Laozi—one that Yan Zun’s “onto-cosmology” resolves through his rigorous distinction between xu (vacuity, as ontological non-being) and wu (nothingness, as a principle of generative cosmology) (Michael 2025, p. 1).

Yan Zun developed this metaphysical distinction from an early Daoist precedent: the valorization of vacuity (xu). Several philosophical Daoist works claim that vacuity (xu) is the root of the Dao. These include the “Honing Intention” 刻意 (Keyi) chapter of the Zhuangzi, the first “Art of the Mind” 心術 (Xinshu) chapter of the Guanzi, the “Explaining the Laozi” 解老 (Jielao) chapter of the Han Feizi 韓非子, and Sima Tan’s 司馬談 (c. 165–110 BC) “Discussion of the Essential Points of the Six Schools” 論六家要旨 (Lun liujia yaozhi). Yan Zun likewise claims in his Laozi zhigui that “Vacuity-nothingness (xu wu) is the body of the Dao and De” 虚無者，道德之身 (Fan 2020, p. 188). After Yan Zun, Yang Xiong’s 楊雄 (53 BC–18 AD) Classic of Supreme Mystery 太玄經 (Taixuan jing), Zhang Heng’s 張衡 (78–139) “Numinous Regulations” 靈憲 (Lingxian), the Classic of Supreme Peace 太平經(Taipingjing), the Classic of Western Ascension, the Classic of the Insuperable Old Lord Opening the Heavens 太上老君開天經 (Taishang Laojun kaitian jing) and other such works all posit that the universe was created from vacuity (xu) or that the Dao takes vacuity as its root.

The Laozi claims in its second chapter that “being (you) and non-being (wu) generate each other” 有無相生, from which it follows that non-being (wu) cannot be the substance of the Dao. Although the Chinese terms for “vacuity-nothingness” (xu wu) and “nothingness” (wu) differ by only one character, they are entirely different. Zhang Heng’s “Numinous Regulations” points out that the world at its earliest stage of existence was “unable to be represented, for within there was only vacuity (xu), and beyond there was nothing (wu) at all” 不可為象，厥中惟虛，厥外惟無. Nothing (wu), “a faint sound” 希聲 or something “invisible” 無形 are the outward forms of the Dao.

Yan Zun also calls the outward form and behavior of the Dao “Supreme Harmony” 太和 (Taihe), “Drained Harmony” 沖和 (Chonghe) or “Mystery” 玄 (Xuan), which aligns with the key term of later generations of religious Daoism: “chaotic, primordial qi” 混沌元氣 (hundun yuanqi). It is deemed “nothing” (wu) due to its formlessness and non-action, and termed “negativity” (fan) due to its function” as a negative feedback regulator of the myriad things. Like positivity and negativity, something (you) and nothing (wu) exist only in dualistic relativity. In relation to the myriad things, Supreme Harmony can be regarded as nothing, but in relation to the divinities of the Dao and De, it is the beginning of being (you) and matter. Yan Zun believes that Supreme Harmony lies between something (you) and nothing (wu), while harmonious qi lies between Heaven and Earth, or between yin and yang. This dualistic “in between” originates from the Zhuangzi’s “Mountains and Trees” 山木 (Shanmu) chapter, in which Zhuangzi states that he would “position himself between being useful and being useless. Between usefulness and uselessness, it seems like it but is not, and thus one cannot avoid troubles” 周將處乎材與不材之間。材與不材之間，似之而非也，故未免乎累. Supreme Harmony is just like the state of “being between the useful and the useless”: it seems to be the Dao, yet it is not the Dao itself.

Yan Zun’s concept of Supreme Harmony thus occupies a pivotal position in his cosmology. As Zhibin Chen has recently argued, Yan Zun “transcends the relatively abstract generative narratives of pre-Qin Daoism by creatively substantializing ‘harmony’ into ‘supreme harmony’, positioning it as a pivotal stage in… [his] cosmogonic schema… [which] endows ‘harmony’ with a definitive ontological status” (Z. Chen 2026, p. 1).

A major divergence between Yan Zun’s Laozi zhigui and the prevailing commentaries on the Laozi lies in this: numerous passages in the Laozi that later exegetes take to describe the Dao are interpreted by Yan Zun as depictions of Supreme Harmony. For instance, consider an extract of Laozi 14.

If you look at it but don’t see it, its name is “subtle.”

If you listen to it but don’t hear it, its name is “slight.”

If you grasp for it but don’t get it, its name is “dispersed.”

These three cannot be called to account

Thus, they muddle into one.

視之不見名曰夷。聽之不聞名曰希。摶之不得名曰微。此三者不可致詰故混而為一.

The Dao cannot be conveyed in words or defined. Thus, the topic of this passage must be a representation of the Dao—not the Dao itself. Yan Zun thus explains the Dao’s “image” (xiang 象), “shape” (zhuang 狀), “motion” (dong 動), and “use” (yong 用) by reference to Supreme Harmony (taihe 太和) and Drained Harmony (chonghe 沖和). For instance, he takes “the image of no-thing, the shape of no-shape” 無物之象，無狀之狀 (Laozi 14) to refer to the Dao’s image and shape; “use the Dao when it’s drained” 道沖而用之 (Laozi 4) to refer to its use; and “the Dao’s motion is inversion, and weakness is its use” 反者，道之動。弱者，道之用 (Laozi 40) to refer to its motion and use). The Huainanzi 淮南子 (compiled 139 BC) also says, “If it’s formless when you look at it and soundless when you listen to it, call it ‘dark and dim.’ What’s dark and dim is used to illustrate the Dao, but it’s not the Dao” 視之無形，聽之無聲，謂之幽冥。幽冥者，所以喻道，而非道也, on which Gao You 高誘 (168–212 AD) comments, “It seems like the Dao but isn’t the Dao” 似道而非道也.

The “Way’s Responses” 道應 (Daoying) chapter of the Huainanzi and Sima Xiangru’s 司馬相如 (179–117 BC) “Rhapsody on the Great Man” 大人賦 (Daren Fu) describe the path to immortality. It starts at the “North Sea,” the “Obscure (xuan) Gate,” or “Supreme Yin.” It then reaches the place “with neither Earth below nor Heaven above” 下無地而上無天. Ultimately, it arrives at “vacuity”. The Obscure Gate, Supreme Yin, and North Sea are intimately connected with Supreme Harmony. Thus, the path to immortality—beginning with the mysterious and ending with vacuity—serves as an explanation of the famous image from the opening of the received Laozi: “Obscure (xuan) and yet more obscure, the gate of multitudinous wonders” 玄之又玄之，眾妙之門. To enter the “Obscure Gate” is to negate the tangible world, and to enter the place “with neither Earth below nor Heaven above” and “vacuity” is to negate, in turn, the “Obscure Gate.” Yan Zun’s explanation of the Dao as a “nothing (wu) which has no (wu) lack of (wu) nothing (wu)” 無無無之無 corresponds to precisely to what the Laozi means by “Obscure and yet more obscure.” For Yan Zun, “Mystery (xuan)” is tantamount to nothing (wu), but this does not mean non-being. His terms “obscure” and “nothing” refer to the “negation” of extant objects and experiences. Yan Zun believes that through the unending negation of extant experiences and objects, one can gradually realize the Dao.

Thus, the key terms of Yan Zun’s cosmology and ontology are “Mystery (xuan)” and “vacuity (xu).” Cheng Xuanying, looking back at the revered masters of the Twofold Mystery School 重玄學 (Chongxuanxue) tradition, notes that Yan Zun’s Laozi zhigui takes “obscure vacuity (xuan xu玄虛)” as its core. Han–Jin (c. 200 BC–300 AD) figures such as Pei Hui, Zhong Changtong 仲长统 (180–220), and Ge Hong 葛洪 (283–343) characterize the Daoist thought of the Laozi and Zhuangzi as “obscure vacuity (xuan xu玄虛). As mentioned above, Pei Hui compared Yan Zun with the Buddha, and Cheng Xuanying regarded Yan Zun as the first thinker of his Twofold Mystery School tradition. This could be because Yan Zun’s interpretation of the substance of Dao as “vacuity (xu wu)” and “neither something (you) nor nothing (wu)” aligns to some extent with the Emptiness School 空宗 (Kongzong) of Mahayana 大乘 (Dasheng) Buddhism (i.e., the Three Treatise 三論 [Sanlun] or Madhyamaka school), which rose to popularity in China between the Han and the Tang and laid the foundation for Twofold Mystery School. Fan Wang 范望 (309–373) of the Jin interprets “vacuity (xu)” as “emptiness (kong)”, whereas the Heshang Gong commentary states that “the Dao is emptiness (kong)” 道者，空也. The Tang Dynasty’s Gu Shenzi understood Yan Zun’s claim that the Dao “neither has (you) nor lacks (wu)” 不無不有 as the claim that “the Dao isn’t something (you) and isn’t nothing (wu)” 道既非有，亦非無, in agreement with Kumārajīva 鳩摩羅什 (344–413) and Emperor Wu of Liang 梁武帝 (Liang Wudi, 464–549) who interpret the Dao as “neither something (you) nor nothing (wu)” 非有非無. Religious Daoist doctrine of the Six Dynasties, Sui, and Tang periods, especially that of the Twofold Mystery School tradition, often follow interpretations first established in Yan Zun’s Laozi zhigui. Through all these traces of influence, we may see Yan Zun as a bridge from the Han to the Tang in the tradition of religious Daoism.

4. Spirit and Life: Pre-Qin and Han Daoist Understanding of Energy

In Yan Zun’s reading of Laozi 42, “the Two” are “divinities” 神明 (shenming). This follows from the verse: “The Dao gives life to the One, the One to the Two, the Two to the Three, and the Three to the Myriad Things” 道生一，一生二，二生三，三生万物.—the “two” are “divinities” 神明 (shenming). The idea that divinities were produced by “the One” (i.e., “De” 德) may have been a common idea at the time, as it is also mentioned in the Xunzi, Zhuangzi, and Huainanzi. The term divinities (shenming) is shortened to spirits (shen 神), which corresponds to the Laozi’s claim that “the spirit obtains the one to become numinous” 神得一以靈. Spirits often appear as light, as the force of transformation, and as the source of wisdom. The physical bodies of the myriad things rely on divinities for their formation. The presence of divinities is essential to sustaining life. Once one’s spirits disperse, one’s body will decay and one’s life will end. When humans possess divinities, they have consciousness; when they lose divinities, they descend into stupidity and death. Yan Zun’s talk of spirits (shen) and divinities (shenming) refers not to gods in the modern sense but to the ancients’ conception of energy. Divinities are also called “essence” (jing 精), and Yan Zun used the claim that one’s “divinities are ample” 神明多 to explain Laozi 55’s phrase “the utmost essence” 精之至.

Wang Shumin has observed that in the Zhuangzi, spirit (shen) sometimes has the same meaning as “life” 生 (sheng, S. Wang 2007, p. 229). Following the Zhuangzi’s lead, Yan Zun also uses the concept of spirit to interpret life in the Laozi. For instance, consider Laozi 50. To explain the passage’s opening line of “emerging from life, entering death” 出生入死, Yan Zun claims that “The divinities of the Dao and De… He who obtains them will survive. He who loses them will perish” 道德神明…得之者存，失之者亡. Prevailing interpretations take Laozi 50’s second line to mean “three-tenths of the chance for longevity” 生之徒十有三. Yan Zun, however, understands it as “thirteen companions of life”: “vacuity (xu), nothing (wu), clarity, stillness, subtlety, scarcity, gentleness, weakness, humility, reduction, timing, harmony, and frugality” 虛、無、清、靜、微、寡、柔、弱、卑、損、時、和、嗇. This interpretation coheres with the claim from Laozi 76 that “the gentle and weak are the companions of life” 柔、弱者，生之徒. In Yan Zun’s view, the Laozi’s concept of “managing life” 攝生 (she sheng), tantamount to “nurturing life” 養生 (yangsheng), is about accumulating and preserving one’s divinities. Hence, to explain Laozi 50’s mention of “those who excel managing life” 善攝生者, Yan Zun claims “they rear divinities” 畜神明也.

In Yan Zun’s cosmology, vacuity produced being (you, i.e., Supreme Harmony, chaotic, primordial qi) or things during the earliest period of the cosmos’ formation because of change, of which divinities were the driving force. The idea that divinities originate from the Dao and De (i.e., vacuity) coheres with his interpretation of the Laozi’s line that “the spirit obtains the one to become numinous” 神得一以靈. In his theory of nurturing life, Yan Zun follows the Zhuangzi in holding that one’s vitality is maintained by one’s divinities, which originate in the Dao and De, Emptiness, and Spontaneity and are not able to be acquired through techniques like controlled breathing. Yan Zun claims that divinities can also generate the gentle, soft qi of Supreme Harmony. Infants’ “bones are weak and [their] muscles are soft” 骨弱筋柔 precisely because their “divinities are ample” 神明多—or, in Laozi 55’s phrasing, because they possess the “utmost essence” 精之至.

Yan Zun uses the concept of divinities to interpret physical phenomena such as change and movement, as well as mental phenomena such as thinking and intelligence. This not only enriches Daoist cosmology, but also on the basis of inheriting and extending the core tenets of Pre-Qin Daoism, lays the theoretical foundation for longevity cultivation techniques including Guarding the One (shouyi 守一), Preserving the Spirit (cunshen 存神), and Inner Visualization (cunsi 存思). Yan Zun’s approach to self-cultivation is fundamentally distinct from the prevalent incipient religious Daoist cultivation practices of his era. As Alan K. L. Chan observes, Yan Zun’s Laozi zhigui, “like the Zhuangzi… criticizes the kind of self-cultivation based on deliberate ‘effort’ (youwei 有為), which includes breathing exercises, dietary practices, physical calisthenics modelled on animal movements and other techniques” (Chan 1998, p. 117). The Laozi zhigui puts forward the notions of “stabilizing one’s qi to preserve the divinities (jing qi yi cun shen ming 靜氣以存神明, “intentional abiding 意存, and “preserving the spirit (cun shen 存神)”, which refer to casting aside utilitarian motives and preserving the divinities through the cultivation of a vacuous heart-mind (xinxing 心性). After Yan Zun, the Taiping jing (Classic of Supreme Peace) from the late Eastern Han Dynasty further proposed the ideas of “stilling the body and preserving the spirit” 静身存神 and “when one abides in Guarding the One for an extended time, light will spontaneously arise within” 守一复久，自生光明. These concepts foreshadow the spirit-preservation and inner visualization methods prevalent in Daoism during the Six Dynasties, Sui, and Tang periods.

5. The Triad of Spontaneity, Vacuity, and Dao-De

When faced with Laozi 51’s assertion that “The Dao gives birth to it” 道生之, Yan Zun explains that “it [sc. the Dao] endows things with a nature” 稟物性也, whereas the Heshang Gong commentary claims that “the myriad things receive qi from the Dao” 萬物從道受氣. These distinct interpretations reflect distinct ideologies.

With its hierarchical gradations of clarity, the concept of qi 氣 involved in the Heshang Gong interpretation implies that human class differences are innate and predestined. In emphasizing the spontaneity (zi ran 自然) of the social order, such an explanation is tantamount to the syncretic Confucian doctrine of the Wei, Jin, and Northern and Southern Dynasties (220–589 AD) that “the teaching of names [sc. social roles] just is spontaneity (ziran)” 名教即自然, i.e., that the one is the cause of the other (C. Li 2017, pp. 61–79). Yan Zun, by contrast, holds that human nature varies in attributes but not in hierarchical worth. In his exegesis of Laozi 3, “By not exalting the worthy, he keeps the people from contention” (不尚賢使民不爭), he argues that when rulers forcibly rank human nature into a hierarchy, they foster competition and hypocrisy among the populace. He applies this same hermeneutic to the opening line of Laozi 51, discussed above.

The Dao generates them,

De nurtures them,

Things form them,

Circumstances complete them

道生之，德畜之，物形之，勢成之.

Yan Zun explains that the Dao “endows things with [their] nature” 稟物性 and De “bestows upon things [their] fate” 授物命. The idea is that the nature given by the Dao differentiates the myriad things into categories, whereupon the self-identity of each manifests as its specific form. De then puts fate into place and makes the myriad things achieve themselves within their fate. In Yan Zun’s view, the forms and achievements of the myriad things are the results of their self-generation and self-transformation, in which the Dao merely guides them. Indeed, the Dao (dao 道) is so named because of the “guiding” (dao 導) role that any “way” must play. The Dao uses the natures of the myriad things to guide their self-generation, in De of which it is called by Yan Zun “ungenerated generation” 不生之生. With his notions of “ungenerated generation” and “doing without doing” 無為之為, Yan Zun reconciles the philosophical Daoist divergence between the claims that the myriad things self-generate and that the Dao generates the myriad things. This reconciliation also influenced later Daoist thinkers such as Zhang Guo 張果 (?–733). In his essay “On the Substance of the Dao” 道體論 (Daoti lun), Zhang argued that the myriad things’ “natures arise from the Dao, while De brings all things to their ultimate completion” 性起於道……德者遂成物终.

“Nature” (xing 性) is intimately related to “spontaneity” (ziran 自然). Yan Zun believes that the myriad things first have a nature, then spontaneously generate into things. Extending this analogy, there was first the nature of the Dao, and then there was the Dao. The Zhuangzi states that “The ancients who clarified the Great Way first clarified Heaven”—which for the Zhuangzi is spontaneity (ziran)—“and the Dao and De came after it” 古之明大道者，先明天，而道德次之.4 Likewise, Yan Zun believes that “Divinities derive from the Dao and De, and the Dao and De derive from spontaneity” 神明因於道德，道德因於自然. Spontaneity (ziran) is the nature (xing) of the Dao.

“Spontaneity” in the Zhuangzi has two layers of meaning. First, it refers to a spontaneous state in which the myriad things operate free from external interference and self-actualize in accordance with their respective natures. We may call this “objective” or “external spontaneity.” Second, it also refers to a kind of intrinsic state or realm of “no-mind” (wuxin 無心) in which one has no purpose or determinate goal. We may call this “subjective” or “internal spontaneity.” In the Laozi zhigui, Yan Zun integrates these two facets of the Zhuangzi’s view of spontaneity. Eliminating the boundary between subjective and objective, Yan Zun proposes that these two kinds of spontaneity are interdependent “evidences of spontaneity” 自然之驗—that is, the spontaneous self-achievement of the myriad things (their objective or external spontaneity) is proof of their non-purposiveness (their subjective or internal spontaneity), and vice versa.

Yan Zun thus constructs a triadic framework in which the Dao takes vacuity (xu) as its substance and spontaneity (ziran) as its nature (xing). The significance of subjective or internal spontaneity lies in enabling humans to connect with the substance of the Dao, since it is itself empty, ethereal, formless, and imageless. In so doing, Yan Zun observes that one’s nature may be changed. If a person attains a state of no-mind and non-action (wuwei), she can break through the limitations of her attributes and become a sage. The resulting triad of the Dao and De, Vacuity, and Spontaneity also influences later works of religious Daoism. For instance, the Wei–Jin Daoist Classic of Western Ascension claims “The Old Lord [sc. Laozi] says, ‘Nothingness generates spontaneity, and spontaneity generates the Dao” 老君曰：虛無生自然，自然生道, and the Heshang Gong commentary says “The Dao is emptiness… the Dao’s nature is spontaneity” 道虚空也… 道性自然. Extending this thought, Du Guangting 杜光庭 (850–933) claims that

The Great Way has vacuity as its substance, spontaneity as its nature, and the Dao as its wondrous function. To speak of them as dispersed, this very one becomes three. To speak of them as united, the three muddle into one.

大道以虚無為體，自然為性，道為妙用。散而言之，即一為三。合而言之，混三為一.

Spontaneity (ziran) also holds an important place in Yan Zun’s political philosophy. For example, Yan Zun uses “spontaneity” to explain the idea from Laozi 65 of “stultifying the folk” 愚民 (Fan 2013, p. 156). Yan argues that “stultifying the folk” does not mean making people stupid. Rather, it means that “the myriad people shouldn’t be aware of the ruler’s work” 萬⺠不識主之所務 (Fan 2013, p. 157). This explains Laozi’s claim that “the ancients who excelled at acting on the Dao did so not by enlightening their people but by stultifying them” 古之善為道者，非以明民，將以愚之.

Make the people unable to know [sc. the ruler’s circumstances]5

Return them to spontaneity…

When the myriad things flourish in tandem,

Each will know his place.

When name and reality arise together,

Each will know his match.

使民不得知道，歸之自然也…萬物並興，各知其所。名實俱起，各知其當.

6. Non-Action

Spontaneity (ziran 自然) and non-action (wuwei 無為) are mutually determining. Just as Yan Zun’s notion of spontaneity has two distinct layers of meaning, so too does the notion of non-action. One layer is the non-action of a still mind, which is induced by spontaneity without thinking or acting. This is “the mind of the Dao and De and the thought of Heaven and Earth” 道德之心而天地之意也. Non-action of a still mind corresponds to the vacuity (xu) of the Dao’s substance and the spontaneity (ziran) of its nature (xing). It is the state of being without any determinate goals or aspirations. In this layer of meaning, “action” (wèi 為) takes the meaning of “purpose” (Qiu 2019, pp. 1–95). The other layer of meaning is the non-action of activity, which arises by responding to the nature of the myriad things. This is “the movement of the Dao and De and the transformation of Heaven and Earth” 道德之動而天地之化也. Non-action of activity corresponds to the actions and appearances of the Dao, such as Supreme Harmony and Drained Harmony, whence it is gentle, subtle, and formless. As Zhibin Chen argues, in Yan Zun’s system, “the ruler should ‘embody the Dao and tread upon harmony’. This approach establishes a governance of non-action that aligns with the ‘utmost softness’ of supreme harmony” (Z. Chen 2026, p. 1). In this layer of meaning, “action” (wéi 為) takes the meaning of “conduct.”

Yan Zun’s non-action makes purposelessness into one’s inner temperament and Supreme Harmony or Drained Harmony into one’s appearance and action. In this interpretation, Yan Zun manifestly disagrees with the “valuing nothing” (guiwu 貴無) school of Daoism, best represented by Wang Bi. Their standard interpretation of, e.g., the claim from Laozi 39 that “[the sage] doesn’t wish to be glimmering as jade or clunky as stone” 不欲琭琭如玉，落落如石, is that one should “be unwilling to be as resplendent as jade and prefer to be as solid as a hunk of stone” 不愿像玉的华丽，宁可如石块般的坚实 (G. Chen 2009, pp. 215–16). In contrast, Yan Zun believes

Therefore, the sage makes it by inverting.

He keeps it by blending.

In as brief a moment as a turn of his head,

He adapts to things and transforms.

He isn’t stone; he isn’t jade,

He’s always somewhere in between.

是以聖人為之以反，守之以和，與時俯仰，因物變化。不為石，不為玉，常在玉石之間.

As Li Fufu observes, this line encapsulates Yan Zun’s creative application of the Zhuangzian concept of zhijian (intermediacy) to his Laozi exegesis. For Yan Zun, the sage’s state of “being between jade and stone” is not unprincipled compromise, but a balanced stance rooted in the One (yi) and the Dao, transcending conventional binary judgments of preciousness and baseness (F. Li 2025, p. 6).

For another example, consider the claim from Laozi 45 that “Since agitation conquers cold and stillness conquers heat, clarity and stillness are correct for all under heaven” 躁勝寒，靜勝熱，清靜以為天下正. To explain this claim, Wang Bi’s “valuing nothing” line of interpretation argues that since stillness opposes agitation, the Laozi seeks to “remove ‘agitation’ from ‘clarity and stillness’” 将「躁」排除在「清静」之外 (Peng and Wu 2011, p. 496). In contrast, Yan Zun argues that “clarity and stillness” is the spontaneous state of mind in which one abandons cleverness and interference and hence can adapt to whatever agitations arise in the world. He writes

A sage gets rid of knowledge and deliberation.

He empties his mind and concentrates his qi.

With clarity and stillness, he adapts and responds.

He conforms to the mind of Heaven and obeys the intentions of Earth

去知去慮，虛心專氣，清靜因應，則天之心，順地之意.

This interpretation coheres with Yan Zun’s other views on stillness: “forced silence generates misfortune and forced stillness generates disaster” 强默生咎强静生患 and “not making stillness but letting stillness generate itself” 不為静而静自生.

For yet another example, consider the famous claim from Laozi 60 that “Governing a large state is like cooking a small fish” 治大國者若烹小鮮. Wang Bi interprets the phrase “cooking a small fish” as stillness (jing 靜), or the opposite of agitation (zao 躁). In contrast, Yan Zun believes that “cooking a small fish” represents not a rejection of activity but rather “motion as delicate as gossamer” 動綿綿. The idea is that the massive scale of a “large state” 大國 will amplify the consequences of the ruler’s policies, whether such consequences are intended or not. Within this highly sensitive system, Yan Zun argues that a ruler must adopt the most subtle and gentle measures to achieve his intended effect.

Thus, in case after case, Yan Zun makes better sense of the Laozi text about non-action than Wang Bi. The fundamental flaw in Wang Bi’s approach stems from a chief tenet of his position: the reification of nothing (wu) as the substance of the Dao. In light of this view, Wang Bi interprets non-action (wuwei) as a kind of passivity without action and, accordingly, advocates for formlessness as opposed to form, stillness as opposed to motion, and having no business as opposed to keeping correct. Wang Bi’s radical advocacy of stillness and his doctrine of guiwu 貴無 (valuing nothing) leads him to dismiss coercive measures such as punishment (xing 刑), military force (yong bing 用兵), and killing (sha 殺) as fundamentally incompatible with the Dao. In direct contrast, Yan Zun adopts a far more pragmatic stance. Rather than excluding penal sanctions from his political philosophy, he integrates them into the dynamic equilibrium of his core concept of “doing without doing” (wuwei zhi wei 無為之為). As Li Fufu observes, Yan Zun “skillfully integrates the cosmological concepts of punishment and virtue (xingde 刑德), thereby enriching the interpretive framework of Laozi’s political thought” (F. Li 2025, p. 9). Consequently, Yan maintains that it is “entirely justifiable and legitimate for a sovereign to utilize the instruments of giving life and imposing death as means of state governance,” provided that such power emulates the “complete impartiality and selflessness” of heaven and earth (F. Li 2025, pp. 9, 11). This acceptance of coercive statecraft, grounded in the cosmological balance articulated in Yan’s maxim that “punishment and virtue are opposite, and harmony resides in their center” 刑德相反，和在中央, stands in sharp contrast to Wang Bi’s wholesale negation of overt intervention in favor of pure, unchanging stillness. Consequently, his understanding of non-action is divorced from reality and contradicts the actual circumstances of the myriad things’ existence, whereas the Laozi appreciates the activity inherent in existence. The Dao and sages are supposed to have conduct (xing 行), motion (dong 動), action (wei 為), and pressure (zhen 鎮), and these activities cannot be performed if one always keeps still. The Zhuangzi also uses water as a metaphor for the Dao, writing that “it’s the nature of water to be clear when unmixed and level when nothing moves it, but when it’s closed off by dense growth and doesn’t flow, in that case it can’t be clear” 水之性，莫雜則清，莫動則平，鬱閉而不流，亦不能清. In contrast, Yan Zun’s understanding of non-action takes vacuous spontaneity (i.e., purposelessness) as its basis, and its actions “roam on the border of something and nothing and dwell in between life and death” 游於无有之際，處於死生之間. This aligns with Sima Tan’s definition of the “Daoists” 道家 (Daojia) in his “Discussion of the Essential Points of the Six Schools”:

Sages do not decay

The changes of the moment, these they keep.

Vacuity is the constant of the Dao.

Adapting is the mainstay of a lord.

聖人不朽，時變是守。虛者，道之常也；因者，君之綱也。

Building on the foundation of the Zhuangzi, Yan Zun uses his internal and external understandings of non-action to incorporate non-action into the eternal transformations of the Great Way and thereby achieve unity between motion and stillness, freedom and order, chaos and regularity.

7. Yan Zun’s Interpretation of the Laozi and the Early Laozi Text

As we have seen, there are manifest disagreements about key concepts of the Laozi between the Pre-Qin and Han Lao–Zhuang Daoist tradition represented by Yan Zun and the Wei–Jin Xuanxue tradition exemplified by Wang Bi. But the disagreement runs even deeper. The theoretical divergence of these two traditions is compounded by fundamental disagreements about the Laozi text. In this section, I will show how Yan Zun’s interpretation of the Laozi can open a window onto the earliest stages of the text and its thought.

Consider the last line of Laozi 41: “The Dao is so hidden (yin) it has no name” 道隱無名. The conventional reading of this line is that the Dao cannot be named because it is ineffable or imperceptible. Although this reading offers a straightforward explanation of the sense in which the Dao is supposed to be hidden (yin), it nevertheless creates a discontinuity with the concrete examples of the preceding lines from Laozi 41: “Great squares have no corners. Great instruments strive for completion. Great tones are faintly heard. Great images have no form” 大方無隅, 大器晚成, 大音希聲, 大象無形. Yan Zun’s reading, by contrast, avoids this discontinuity. He argues that the final line of Laozi 41 means: “The Dao so flourishing it has no title, and De is so abundant it has no epithet” 道盛無號，德豐無謚. While this reading would be a poor explanation of the received Laozi’s claim that the Dao is hidden (yin 隱), it aligns perfectly with the text preserved in the Peking University Western Han bamboo-slip Laozi: “The Dao is so opulent (yin 殷) it has no name” 道殷無名 (Peking University Excavated Texts Research Institute 2012, p. 175). The pronunciations of the words “hidden” 隱 and “opulent” 殷 were as similar in the Han (ʔənʔ and ʔən) as they are today (yīn and yǐn).6 Yan Zun was interpreting an earlier, more coherent version of the Laozi—one that predates the version conventionalized by the Wei–Jin Xuanxue movement.

There are many such examples. For instance, consider the opening line of Laozi 75: “When men are hungry, it’s because of the excess of superiors’ eating and taxing” 人之飢也上食稅之多. Since the Wei–Jin period, this has been understood as the claim that folk fall into hunger and cold because rulers demand too much in taxes. Such an interpretation colors the Laozi a Confucian classic that calls for benevolent government. In contrast, Yan Zun explains that people sink into hunger and destitution precisely because of their insatiable indulgence in lavish food and extravagant excess: to satisfy these cravings, they transgress their natural bounds and seize far more than their fair share of resources, thus incurring hardship and hunger. This reading is rooted in his statement in the Laozi zhigui: “此人之所以棄損形骸、飢寒困窮者，以其……嗜欲不厭，食窮五味，衣重文綵，麗靡奢淫，不知畏天，功勞德厚，不剋其分，衣食之費，倍取兼人也。是以身獲其患，事及子孫”. This understanding of Laozi 75 aligns with the Mawangdui version of the text (Qiu 1980, p. 9) and coheres more closely with the chapter’s conclusion that “Not taking the pursuit of longevity as one’s goal is worthier than prizing one’s life” 無以生為，是賢於貴生.

By emphasizing the early textual and exegetical history of the Laozi, we can break through intellectual stereotypes and unearth new philosophical possibilities for modern scholars. For example, take Laozi 80’s discussion of “a small state with few people” 小國寡民. Since the Tang and Song dynasties, scholars have generally interpreted this “small state with few people” as the Laozi’s utopia, a primitive era to which Laozi himself, perhaps discontent with the influence of technology, had hoped to return (Feng 1964, p. 282). Wang Bi, for instance, believes that whether one has a “small state with few people” or “the state is large and the people are many” 國大民眾, in either case the Laozi advocates that the ideal state will realize a primitive, desireless form of society. However, in Yan Zun’s Laozi zhigui, the passage’s starting point of “a small state with few people” serves merely as a hypothetical premise, and perhaps even an unfavorable one. A comparison with the Laozi zhigui’s discussion of “governing large states” 治大國 from Laozi 60 shows how the Laozi tailors its governance recommendations to fit the state’s size.

By comparing large states to “rivers, seas, rhinoceros, and elephants” 江海犀象, Yan Zun claims that large states contain so much energy that minuscule disruptions can trigger chain reactions. Since a large state is thus akin to a complex adaptive system, a ruler must pay close attention to the system’s sensitivity to govern it well. To avoid the pitfall of “producing great harms when wishing to eliminate small worries” 欲除小患而生大賊也, a sage must “handle the faint and subtle [details]” 柄纖微 of his state as though he were “channeling small streams” 通小水. He must uphold a mode of governance rooted in attunement to the inherent spontaneity (ziran) of all distinct things, rendered with the utmost meticulousness and gentle softness, manifesting a state that is “as present as absent, as right as wrong” 若亡若存，若非若是. If he becomes “yielding softness and plain simplicity, abiding in Non-action” 柔弱簡易，無為而處, he can accommodate the social heterogeneity of a large state.

But small states face a fundamentally different set of challenges. Scarcity of resources, unfavorable geographic positioning, exactions from neighboring states, and a subordinate standing in the interstate system all combine to leave officials and common people unable to live in stability and security. Yan Zun believes that these concerns animate Laozi 80’s opening command: “in a small state with few folk, make the people have tens and hundreds tools but not use them” 小國寡民，使人有什伯之器，而不用. The idea is that if a sage is to govern such a state successfully, he must make his state resourceful but employ its resources with restraint. As Yan Zun explains,

When a sage governs a small state, he turns disaster into good fortune and adapts peril into peace. He’s rich with boats and carriages and full of armor and weapons. His tools and implements are advantageous and beneficial, and he has a surplus of clothing and food. His oxen and horses thrive and teem. His livestock and stores [sc. of grain] are filled and brimming. With ten- or a hundred-times that of neighboring states, he secures the people’s minds. He’s capable, yet he doesn’t act. He knows, yet he’s unaroused…

是以聖人之治小國也，轉禍爲福，因危爲寧。富以舟輿，實以甲兵，器械便利，衣食有餘，牛馬蕃息，畜積充滿，什伯鄰國，以固民心。能而不爲，知而不作…

Yan Zun holds that a small state must possess well-crafted tools and implements, boats and carriages, and sufficient armor and weaponry before it can maintain a simple and pristine social order. For the sage to govern a small state effectively, he must adopt proactive and purposeful governance measures: these include severing the root of land annexation by powerful elites 并兼之原絕, setting a personal example by renouncing extravagant and licentious indulgences 絕身滅色，身爲之式, and clarifying laws and statutes to stabilize social customs and conduct 法明俗定. In his view, the governance of a small state must follow a two-stage progression: first, a transition from “wu (nothingness, here referring to material destitution)” to “you (being, here referring to material abundance and national strength)”, and then a return from wealth and power to a state of simple, pristine social harmony.

8. Conclusions: Returning to Tradition

As the culmination of the Pre-Qin and Han Daoist tradition, Yan Zun‘s interpretation of the Laozi displays insights that are deeper, more complex, and richer in practical significance than those of figures like Wang Bi. Recent Western scholarship has increasingly recognized this long-neglected legacy. Thomas Michael, for example, frames Yan Zun as “the architect of a pivotal, synthetic path in Daoist philosophy” (Michael 2025, p. 1492), while complementary studies by Hyunjung Oh and Zhibin Chen have further clarified the unique characteristics of Yan Zun’s worldview (Oh 2026, pp. 8–16; Z. Chen 2026, pp. 3–8). Against this growing scholarly recognition of Yan Zun’s legacy, this paper makes a core intervention: it demonstrates that the metaphysical reading of the Laozi popularized by Wei-Jin Xuanxue was not the original, orthodox interpretation of the text. Through systematic analysis of the Laozi zhigui, we show that Yan Zun’s exegesis is not only the oldest complete surviving commentary on the Laozi, but also aligns far more coherently with the Pre-Qin and Han Daoist tradition, as corroborated by both received canonical texts like the Zhuangzi and recently excavated bamboo and silk manuscripts of the Laozi. The inherited reading of the Laozi is indelibly shaped by the Confucian inflections of Wei-Jin Xuanxue; only by returning to Yan Zun’s rigorous, contextually rooted interpretations in the Laozi zhigui can we recover the lost orthodoxy of early Daoist thought.