What do you think?
Rate this book
SUNY series in Chinese Philosophy and Culture
Two Visions of the Way: A Study of the Wang Pi and the Ho-shang Kung Commentaries on the Lao-Tzu
Book by Chan, Alan Kam-Leung
328 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1991
1 person is currently reading
15 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
November 12, 2021
China has a long tradition of their intellectuals writing commentaries on the classics, and the Tao Te Ching attributed to Lao Tzu has perhaps attracted more such commentaries than any other classic. The commentaries of Wang Pi and Ho-shang Kung are two of the oldest surviving ones, and two of the most influential in Chinese culture. In simplistic terms, Wang Pi is the more philosophical one -- & thus more appealing to Western philosophers -- while the one attributed to Ho-shang Kung is the more religious one, having influenced the development of the Taoist religion.
After recounting what we know of both authors, one historical one legendary, Chan explains the ideas presented in each commentary. How Wang Pi bases his reading of the Tao Te Ching on the notion of wu (or "non-being") and li (or "principle", "pattern"), explicating the ideas Wang Pi found in the work; how the Ho-shang Kung commentary draws on the older Huang-lao philosophical school to present an interpretation based on external contexts, such as the history of the text and how it applies to specific passages. Yet both share an interest in explicating the political meaning of the Tao Te Ching, and how the Sage can best advise the ruler in governing the realm.
In short, this book presents a Chinese reading of this text, a useful corrective for Western readers who often come to the Tao Te Ching from experience with New Age religions or political theories such as Libertarianism or Anarchism.
A last note. I'm puzzled that someone would write "Of course nobody will read this book". If you're not interested in this topic, of course you won't read it. But if you want to get behind modern Western readings of Lao Tzu's famously ambiguous texts, and ponder what he actually intended to tell us, this is a book to read.
After recounting what we know of both authors, one historical one legendary, Chan explains the ideas presented in each commentary. How Wang Pi bases his reading of the Tao Te Ching on the notion of wu (or "non-being") and li (or "principle", "pattern"), explicating the ideas Wang Pi found in the work; how the Ho-shang Kung commentary draws on the older Huang-lao philosophical school to present an interpretation based on external contexts, such as the history of the text and how it applies to specific passages. Yet both share an interest in explicating the political meaning of the Tao Te Ching, and how the Sage can best advise the ruler in governing the realm.
In short, this book presents a Chinese reading of this text, a useful corrective for Western readers who often come to the Tao Te Ching from experience with New Age religions or political theories such as Libertarianism or Anarchism.
A last note. I'm puzzled that someone would write "Of course nobody will read this book". If you're not interested in this topic, of course you won't read it. But if you want to get behind modern Western readings of Lao Tzu's famously ambiguous texts, and ponder what he actually intended to tell us, this is a book to read.
January 1, 2014
Of course nobody will read this book but I'll comment on it anyway.
I thought the author made his case and the book was good. My only issue is simply a pet peeve with the title.
Most everybody aware of the Tao Te Ching understands that the Tao refers to infinite reality and the author(s) constantly tell the reader not to define the character. Yet many great translators still call Tao "the way". To define infinite is a contradiction in terms.
I thought the author made his case and the book was good. My only issue is simply a pet peeve with the title.
Most everybody aware of the Tao Te Ching understands that the Tao refers to infinite reality and the author(s) constantly tell the reader not to define the character. Yet many great translators still call Tao "the way". To define infinite is a contradiction in terms.
April 11, 2019
The only other review of this title on Goodreads begins with the delightful phrase "Of course nobody will read this book."
When I first considered reading this, I took that phrase as a challenge. I wanted to be the person to disprove the review's hypothesis. I can read this book too! And I'm going to love it!
Well there's a reason the first reviewer said that, and it's because this volume is designed for the specialist, not the general reader. I read this because after reading the Lao-Tzu, I heard about the Ho-shang Kung commentary and wanted to learn more. This was the only volume in my university library on the subject. The only problem is that this is most certainly not designed to be the second book someone (me) has ever read on Taoism.
Despite the fact that much of it went over my head, there's so much meat here that I still enjoyed many parts of it. The hermenutical comparisons were less resonant than the reconstruction of the historical environments in which the two commentaries were written, but I still found points of interest in all sections.
The biggest thing, and the reason I was curious to read this is the first place, was learning more about the way in which commentary writers have tried to simplify the unsimplifiable, to tame the obtuseness of cornerstone texts. In that respect, the volume is particularly interested when it compares the two commentaries, highlighting the differences between referential and non-referential interpretation. These were analytical divergences thousands of years ago and they are differences today.
We still try to take the timeless texts and make sense of the nonsensical, the texts for which a single definition is impossible must be defined for us to make sense of our spiritual heritage. So we design flying hermits by the river to educate emperors or we store our utensils without acknowledging what the source texts clearly means by "utensils" and we just try to make it work. I can't say I recommend the book because there are so few people for whom it will be even moderately readable. I struggled to get through it myself. But the author writes in such an inviting and collaborative way that one can feel like they understand more than they do, and that's not the worst thing.
So I must repeat, of course nobody will read this book. It would be emotionally draining and overly time consuming to push yourself through this book. Why would you? But if you do, I'll be interested to hear what you think.
When I first considered reading this, I took that phrase as a challenge. I wanted to be the person to disprove the review's hypothesis. I can read this book too! And I'm going to love it!
Well there's a reason the first reviewer said that, and it's because this volume is designed for the specialist, not the general reader. I read this because after reading the Lao-Tzu, I heard about the Ho-shang Kung commentary and wanted to learn more. This was the only volume in my university library on the subject. The only problem is that this is most certainly not designed to be the second book someone (me) has ever read on Taoism.
Despite the fact that much of it went over my head, there's so much meat here that I still enjoyed many parts of it. The hermenutical comparisons were less resonant than the reconstruction of the historical environments in which the two commentaries were written, but I still found points of interest in all sections.
The biggest thing, and the reason I was curious to read this is the first place, was learning more about the way in which commentary writers have tried to simplify the unsimplifiable, to tame the obtuseness of cornerstone texts. In that respect, the volume is particularly interested when it compares the two commentaries, highlighting the differences between referential and non-referential interpretation. These were analytical divergences thousands of years ago and they are differences today.
We still try to take the timeless texts and make sense of the nonsensical, the texts for which a single definition is impossible must be defined for us to make sense of our spiritual heritage. So we design flying hermits by the river to educate emperors or we store our utensils without acknowledging what the source texts clearly means by "utensils" and we just try to make it work. I can't say I recommend the book because there are so few people for whom it will be even moderately readable. I struggled to get through it myself. But the author writes in such an inviting and collaborative way that one can feel like they understand more than they do, and that's not the worst thing.
So I must repeat, of course nobody will read this book. It would be emotionally draining and overly time consuming to push yourself through this book. Why would you? But if you do, I'll be interested to hear what you think.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews