What's the difference between Laozi and Tao Te Ching?

Silk edition or bamboo slips are closer to the original meaning of Laozi, and the popular edition has great historical influence. There is a tradition of studying in ancient China. I cann't believe I used the six classics to annotate me The last celebrities who did this were Kang Youwei and Kang Nanhai. Confucius' reform, new learning and apocryphal classics, along the way. In fact, Kang Nanhai didn't mind what Confucius said. The popular version of Laozi is beautiful because of the evolution of the past dynasties. Summarize, take a general look, expand your knowledge, learn some Chinese studies, and also look at the popular version; In order to study the original meaning of Laozi, we need to read silk books or bamboo slips to study the history of thought.

Time Advance: Archaeological findings prove that the silk book Laozi is about 2 170 years ago, about 50 years earlier than the oldest known Tao Te Ching. Archaeology also proves that the copying time of the silk book Laozi is earlier than the burial time, and the copying time is also related to the maternal generation. Comparing the silk book Laozi, we can see that in order to avoid the taboos of the five emperors, the Tao Te Ching changed the word "bang" and "constant" to "constant", "qi" to "open" and "qi" to "open".

It is not an isolated case: Although Laozi, a silk book of A and B, was unearthed at the same time, its font, copying form and copying date are obviously different. Although they are different, their thoughts, contents and themes all belong to a system, which is quite different from Tao Te Ching. At the same time, it is collected in the same book box, at least indicating that it is not in the year of burial.

Self-proof is fundamental: it has been found that due to hundreds of changes in the original book, the Tao Te Ching handed down from generation to generation has caused extremely huge inheritance losses, and its remaining ideological wisdom is also rare in the original book, which not only caused the great scientific achievements of the original book in the natural science field to be completely destroyed, but also completely contradicted the theme in the social science field, such as the original intention of "inaction" ("inaction").

reference data

Zhihu: /question/35955039