|
COMMENT: The historical existance of Lao Tzu in unconfirmed according to the Encyclopedia Britannica. What is your source for the statement that the existence of Lao Tzu is historically confirmed? That the Tao Teh Ching is not the work of one man is generally accepted. |
|
COMMENT: The historical existance of Lao Tzu in unconfirmed according to the Encyclopaedia Britannica. What is your source for the statement that the existence of Lao Tzu is historically confirmed? That the Tao Teh Ching is not the work of one man is generally accepted. |
|
COMMENT: There is no justification for any such categorical statement. (unsure what is meant here - either that diverse authorship is in question, or that Li Erh existed -- AyeSpy) To take but the matter of Ssu-ma Ch'ien, I quote: |
|
COMMENT: There is no justification for any such categorical statement. To take but the matter of Ssu-ma Ch'ien, I quote: |
|
Indeed, the author of the 'Historical Records' himself expresses doubt about the authenticity of the available information. Thus, although you may of course personally hold the opinion that Lao Tzu existed and the Tao Te Ching is the work of one man, it is altogether inappropriate to present these views as accepted fact. |
|
Indeed, the author of the 'Historical Records' himself expresses doubt about the authenticity of the available information. Thus, although you may of course personally hold the opinion that Lao Tzu existed and the Tao Te Ching is the work of one man, it is altogether inappropriate to present these views as accepted fact. |
![[Home]](wikipedia.png)