1. For an excellent and up-to-date account of the textual sources for the Laozi, see Alan Chan, “Laozi,” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2013 edition), ed. Edward N. Zalta, URL = http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2013/entries/Laozi/.

2. Beijing daxue cang xi Han zhushu 北京大學藏西漢竹書, edited by Beijing daxue chutu wenxian yanjiusuo 北京大學出土文獻研究所 (Shanghai: Shanghai guji, 2012), 2.

3. The Guodian texts were published in Guodian Chumu zhujian 郭店楚墓竹簡, edited by Jingmenshi Bowuguan 荊門市博物館 (Beijing: Wenwu, 1998). I follow the reconstruction of the texts in Scott Cook, The Bamboo Texts of Guodian (Ithaca, NY: Cornell East Asian Series, 2012). Throughout this article, excavated bamboo texts are cited by strip number.

4. Ma Chengyuan 馬承源, ed., Shanghai Bowuguan cang zhanguo Chu zhu shu III 上海博物館藏戰國楚竹書（三） (Shanghai: Shanghai guji, 2004).

5. Ma Chengyuan, ed., Shanghai Bowuguan cang zhanguo Chu zhu shu VII 上海博物館藏戰國楚竹書（七） (Shanghai: Shanghai guji, 2008).

6. For a more detailed discussion of this “cosmogonic turn,” see Franklin Perkins, “Metaphysics in Chinese Philosophy,” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2015 edition), ed. Edward N. Zalta, URL = http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2015/entries/chinese-metaphysics/.

7. The Xunzi passage appears in the “Jiebi” 解蔽 chapter (Wang Xianqian 王先謙, Xunzi jijie 荀子集解 [Beijing: Zhonghua, 1988], 398–400). The Wu xing passage is in strips 45–46 of the Guodian version.

8. For a discussion of the significance of this, see Feng, Cao 曹峰, “Shangbo chujian Fanwu liuxing de wenben jiegou yu sixiang tezheng” 上博楚簡《凡物流形》的文本結構與思想特徴, Xuedeng 學燈 10.4 (2010)Google Scholar.

9. The most thorough argument for taking the passages as one coherent text is in Dirk Meyer, Philosophy on Bamboo: Text and the Production of Meaning in Early China (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 209–26. Scott Cook also takes them as one text (The Bamboo Texts of Guodian, Vol. II, 323–54). The most persuasive argument in favor of separating the cosmogony passage from the other fragments is Allan, Sarah, “The Great One, Water, and the Laozi: New Light from Guodian,” T'oung Pao 89.4/5 (2003), 237–85Google Scholar.

10. Gao Ming 高明, Boshu Laozi jiaozhu 帛書老子校註 (Beijing: Zhonghua, 1996).

11. Although the A manuscript of Fanwu liuxing has little damage, it remains extremely difficult to reconstruct. I have raised these difficulties only when relevant to my argument. The reconstruction of the text is an excellent example of the high level of collaborative work in China now, with dozens of scholars contributing insights. Unless otherwise noted, I follow the reconstruction of the text by Shikao, Gu 顧史考 [Scott Cook] in “Shangbo jian Fanwu liuxing chutan” 上博簡 〈凡物流形〉初探, Guoli Taiwan daxue zhexue lunping 國立臺灣大學哲學論評, 38 (2009), 1–32 Google Scholar (cited as Cook A), and, “Shangbo qi Fanwu liuxing xiaban pian shijie” 上博七《凡物流行》下半篇試解, in Chutu wenxian yu chuanshi dianji quanshi 出土文獻與傳世典籍詮釋, edited by Fudan daxue chutu wenxian yu guwenzi yanjiu zhongxin 復旦大學出土文獻與古文字研究中心 (Shanghai: Shanghai guji, 2009), 333–59 (cited as Cook B). Cook includes a thorough discussion of alternate readings and their sources. He draws on the text as reconstructed by Li Rui 李銳 in “Fanwu liuxing shiwen xinbian (gao)” 〈凡物流形〉釋文新編（稿）(Qinghua daxue jianbo yanjiu wangzhan 清華大學簡帛研究網站, December 31, 2008), and “Fanwu liuxing shidu zhaji (zaixu) (chongdingban)” 〈凡物流形〉釋讀札記（再續）（重訂版）(Qinghua daxue jianbo yanjiu wangzhan 清華大學簡帛研究網站, January 3, 2009), and by the Fudan Daxue chutu wenxian yu guwenzi yanjiu zhongxin yanjiusheng dushuhui 復旦大學出土文獻與古文字研究中心研究生讀書會 (“Shangbo (qi) Fanwu liuxing chongbian shiwen” 〈上博（七）·凡物流形〉重編釋文 [Fudan Daxue chutu wenxian yu guwenzi yanjiu zhongxin wangzhan 復旦大學出土文獻與古文字研究中心網站, December 31, 2008]) (referred to as Fudan reading group). All versions are refinements of the text as originally edited by Cao Jinyan 曹錦炎 in Ma, Shanghai Bowuguan cang zhanguo Chu zhu shu VII. I have also used the reconstruction of the text in Cao Feng 曹峰, “Shangbo chujian Fanwu liuxing.” All references to the readings of the above scholars refer to these sources. For an alternate translation of the full text, see Shirley Chan, “Oneness: Reading ‘All Things Are Flowing into Form’ (Fan Wu Liu Xing 凡物流形),” Journal of International Communication of Chinese Culture (forthcoming).

12. Cook (A) argues that the characters zhi he 之和 (the harmony of) should be cut from this line, as they are missing in the B version of the text and violate the rhyme scheme. Nonetheless, they fit the context too well to be simple copying errors and thus seem rather to be a textual variant. I follow the A version as is.

13. Cook (A) suggests that bei 備 (to ready, perfect, or complete) could just as well be read as fu 服 (to enact or comply with).

14. An anonymous reviewer suggests that shu 孰 in these two lines must be read as a distributive, in which case tian and di must be read in the plural. The first line would then be either “of the many heavens, which is the highest,” or, “of all the multitude of things that together are called heaven, which is the highest.” Building on a suggestion from Ivanhoe, Philip J. (“Heaven as a Source of Ethical Warrant,” Dao: A Journal of Comparative Philosophy 6 (2007), 212)Google Scholar, Brook Ziporyn has argued for a conception of heaven as a collective body resembling a jury or committee (Ironies of Oneness and Difference: Coherence in Early Chinese Thought [Albany: SUNY, 2012], 95–96). To fragment heaven by asking about its internal hierarchies would be a very radical move, comparable to claims in Heng xian and Taiyi shengshui that heaven is just vital energy, qi. While that is possible, it is more likely that shu selects from an indefinite group, as it does in the subsequent sentences.

15. The last two questions can be read in a different way. The character taken as shen 神 (god/spirit) is obscured on the bamboo strip. The Fudan reading group takes the character as shen 神 but reads it as dian 電 (lightning). They then read chi 啻 in the next line as ting 霆, which refers to a violent thunderclap. On this reading, which is followed by Cook (A), the lines would be: “Who makes the thunder and lightning? Who makes the violent thunderclap?” That makes the questions redundant, though, as ting is often defined in terms of lei 雷, thunder. Chen Wei 陳偉 argues that shen 神 should be read as is, and chi 啻 should be read as Di 帝 (“Du Fanwu liuxing xiaozha” 讀《凡物流形》小札 [Wuhan jianbo wang 武漢簡帛網, January 2, 2009]). I follow this reading, which is also followed by Cao Feng. There is precedence for reference to a thunder god or spirit (leishen 雷神). For example, the Shanhai jing 山海經 says that the thunder god [leishen] “has the body of a dragon and the head of a man, and it drums its belly” (龍身而人頭，鼓其腹) (Zhang Butian 張步天, Shanhaijing jie 山海經解 [Hong Kong: Tianma tushu, 2004], “Hainei dongjing” 海內東經, 443). The Hanshi Waizhuan 韓詩外傳 also refers to a thunder god (Hanshi Waizhuan 韓詩外傳 [Beijing: Zhonghua, 1980)] 10.7, 342–43).

16. The character taken as yi 一 (one) was originally transcribed as 豸 and read by Cao Jinyan as mao 貌 (Ma, Shanghai Bowuguan cang zhanguo Chu zhu shu VII, 256). Shen Pei 沈培 first argued that the character should be read as yi 一, based both on context and evidence from bronze inscriptions and other bamboo manuscripts (“Lüeshuo Shangbo qi xinjian de ‘yi’ zi” 〈略說《上博（七）》新見的「一」字〉，Fudan jianbo wang 復旦簡帛網, December 31, 2008). That reading has been accepted in all later reconstructions of the text. The Fudan reading group transcribes the original character as , which has also become the consensus view.

17. I have translated these lines literally, but the meaning is difficult to determine. Scott Cook takes both as referring to the ruler: if he has the one, then everyone does; if he lacks the one, then the world lacks it too (Cook [B], 349). Both the cosmogonic passage preceding these lines and the subsequent lines about plants and animals attaining the one to live, though, read more naturally as illustrating the dependence of all things on the one rather than dependence on the ruler. Chan translates the lines as, “Therefore when there is oneness/the one, there is nothing that cannot come to existence under heaven; (if) there is no oneness, there is nothing that can exist under Heaven” (Chan, “Oneness”). Note that the transcription in Cook (B) accidentally omits xia 下 after tian 天 in this first line.

18. Unfortunately, there is wide disagreement on the character for the verb Fanwu liuxing most commonly uses to describe how we should relate to the one, here translated as “grasp.” Cao Jinyan reads it as shi 識 (know or recognize). The Fudan reading group suggests both zhi 執 (grasp) and shou 守 (protect) as possibilities. Cao Feng reads it as zhi; for a detailed argument in favor of zhi, see Yang Zesheng 楊澤生, “Shuo Fanwu liuxing cong ‘shao’ de liangge zi” 說《凡物流形》從“少”的兩個字 (Wuhan jianbo wang 武漢簡帛網, March 7, 2009). He Youzu 何有祖 argues that cha 察 (observe or examine) most closely fits the original graph (“Fanwu liuxing zhaji” 《凡物流形》札記 [Wuhan jianbo wang 武漢簡帛網, January 1, 2009]). Cook (B) says the evidence is inconclusive, but follows He in taking it as cha. While the difference between zhi and shou is rather subtle, cha differs in being more intellectual and in implying more separation from its object. The sense of cha seems less likely in context, and both zhi and shou are used in similar phrases in the Laozi and “Nei ye” (both of which have links to Fanwu liuxing). For these reasons, I follow Cao Feng in reading it as zhi, grasp.

19. On this point, I disagree with Cao Feng, who writes, “This dao, without doubt, is the highest philosophical concept, which can be used to explain what sustains the existence of the myriad things and the primary cause driving their movement, i.e., the prime mover. It is worth noting that Fanwu liuxing prefers to use the ‘one’ to represent ‘dao,’ and in the text there are expressions such as ‘grasping the one,’ ‘attaining the one,’ ‘having the one,’ ‘able to become one,’ and ‘honoring the one.’ The expressions in the Fanwu liuxing in relation to ‘dao’ and ‘one’ are all quite close to those in the Laozi” (“Shangbo chujian Fanwu liuxing”). This is an excellent illustration of the tendency to ignore terminological differences in order to reconcile texts with the Laozi.

20. Chen Guying 陳鼓應, Guanzi sipian quanshi 管子四篇詮釋 (Beijing: Shangwu, 2006), 110. Cao Feng argues that Fanwu liuxing has closer links to the “Nei ye” than to any other text. See “Shangbo chujian Fanwu liuxing,” and “Fanwu liuxing de ‘shaoche’ he ‘shaocheng’—‘xin busheng xin’ zhang shuzheng” 《凡物流形》的“少徹”和“少成”——“心不勝心”章疏證 (Jianbo yanjiu wang 簡帛研究網, January 7, 2009).

21. “One” also appears as a number in chapters 11, 25, and 67.

22. Robert G. Henricks mentions the absence of “the one” as one of the significant differences between the Guodian bamboo strips and the full text of the Laozi (Lao Tzu's Tao Te Ching: A Translation of the Startling New Documents Found at Guodian [New York: Columbia University Press, 2000], 14). If we were to exclude the last fifteen chapters of the Laozi, which seem to have some exceptional status in that all of them are missing in Guodian, the odds would be even worse, as 47 percent of the first sixty-six chapters appear in Guodian. For arguments that the last fifteen chapters should be considered distinct from the rest of the text, see Brooks, E. Bruce, “Probability and the Gwodyen Dau/Dv Jing,” Warring States Papers 1 (2010), 59–61 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Perkins, Franklin, “Divergences within the Lǎozǐ: A Study of Chapters 67–81,” T'oung Pao 100 (2014), 1–33 Google Scholar.

23. Wang Bi reads it in the first way, explaining, “one is what is genuine in human beings” (一，人之真也), linking that to purifying the numinous (qingshen 清神) (Lou Yulie 樓宇烈, Wang Bi ji jiaoshi 王弼集校释 [Beijing: Zhonghua, 1999], 22). Heshanggong reads it in the second way: “the one is what dao first generates, the refined vital energy of the great harmony” (一者，道始所生，太和之精氣) (Wang Ka 王卡, Laozi Daodejing Heshanggong zhangju 老子道德經河上公章句 [Beijing: Zhonghua, 1997], 34). He then connects the one in this passage to the power of attaining the one in chapter 39.

24. Chen Guying 陳鼓應, Guanzi sipian quanshi, 119.

25. Chen Guying 陳鼓應, Huangdi sijing jinzhu jinyi 黃帝四經今注今譯 (Beijing: Shangwu, 2007), 336.

26. For example, Gao Heng says “one” is an alternate name for dao (Gao Heng 高亨, Laozi zhuyi 老子注譯 [Zhengzhou: Henan renmin, 1980], 92), and Chen Guying says one is dao (Chen Guying 陳鼓應, Laozi zhuyi ji pingjia 老子註譯及評價 [Beijing: Zhonghua, 2003], 218). Hans-Georg Moeller writes: “As a numerical symbol, ‘one’ or ‘oneness’ stands for the Dao” (Hans-Georg Moeller, Dao De Jing [Chicago: Open Court, 2007], 94).

27. This chapter is heavily damaged in both Mawangdui manuscripts, so I here use the Beida Laozi (strip 16), which matches what remains of both Mawangdui manuscripts. The Beida Laozi and the Mawangdui A manuscript both use zhong 中, but in each case the editors read zhong as chong 沖, following the Wang Bi text. I read it as is.

28. Liu Xiaogan 劉笑敢 reaches this conclusion in his discussion of chapter 39: “‘One’ in this chapter is so important that it obviously does not correspond to the ‘the one’ in ‘dao generates the one’ in chapter 42. Here, ‘the one’ is in the first position and most fundamental, while ‘the one’ in ‘dao generates the one’ is produced and in the second position. Based on its importance, this ‘one’ obviously corresponds to ‘dao’” (Laozi gujin 老子古今 [Beijing: Zhongguo shehui kexue, 2006], 414). Moss Roberts is one of few translators to keep them distinct. He appeals to chapter 14 (discussed below), saying: “In that stanza, the number one, standing between the Way and the ten thousand things, is a metaphor for the actualization of the Way in all things—a common denominator that undergoes development and completion. […] Laozi's one is always subordinate to the Way” (Moss Roberts, Dao De Jing: The Book of the Way [Berkeley: University of California Press, 2001], 110).

29. For helpful discussions of this line, see Qin Hualin 秦樺林, “Fanwu liuxing di ershiyi jian shijie” 《凡物流形》第二十一簡試解 (Fudan jianbo wang 復旦簡帛網, January 9, 2009), Wang Zhongjiang 王中江, “Fanwu liuxing de yuzhouguan, ziranguan he zhengzhi zhexue—weirao ‘yi’ er zhankai tanjiu bing jian ji xuepai guishu” 《凡物流形》的宇宙觀、自然觀和政治哲學——圍繞“一”而展開的探究並兼及學派歸屬 (Jianbo yanjiu wang 簡帛研究網, October 23, 2009), and Cook (B).

30. Cao Jinyan reads 女 = together as diao 弔. Shen Pei 沈培 has suggested the character should be si 四 (four) rather than nü 女 (“Lüeshuo Shangbo qi xinjian de ‘yi’ zi” 略說《上博（七）》新見的「一」字 [Fudan jianbo wang 復旦簡帛網, December 31, 2008]). While the latter is followed by Li Rui, neither suggestion has received wide support.

31. Qin Hualin, “Fanwu liuxing di ershiyi jian shijie”; Wang Zhongjiang, “Fanwu liuxing de yuzhouguan.” Cook (B) also takes the character as nü 女 but suggests it might be an error for shu 庶, meaning multitudes. While possible, I suspect that the multitude of individual things emerge only with the final stage of the process, through jie 結.

32. The received versions of the text obscure the contrast between beginning (shi 始) and mother (mu 母) by adding a contrast between heaven and earth (tiandi 天地) and the myriad things (wanwu 萬物). The Wang Bi text has: “The nameless is the beginning of heaven and earth; the named is the mother of the myriad things” (無名天地之始，有名萬物之母) (Lou Yulie, Wang Bi ji jiaoshi, 1).

33. The Laozi uses the same strategy with regard to heaven (tian 天), admitting it but making it a product of dao. This happens most clearly in chapter 25, which concludes: “People follow earth, earth follows heaven, heaven follows dao, dao follows what is so of itself” (人法地，地法天，天法道，道法自然). For a discussion of this point, see Perkins, “Divergences within the Lǎozǐ.”

34. Guo Qingfan 郭慶藩, Zhuangzi jishi 莊子集釋 (Beijing: Zhonghua, 1978), 79.

35. Wang Bi uses this same Zhuangzi passage in his explanation of this chapter (Lou Yulie, Wang Bi ji jiaoshi, 117).

36. The apparent disconnection is strong enough that Chen Guying and others have argued that the last half was mistakenly inserted into this chapter, perhaps from chapter 39. See Chen Guying, Laozi jinzhu jinyi 老子今注今譯 (Beijing: Shangwu, 2011), 238.

37. In this line, Gao Ming reads gu 故 as gu 古 and yi 議 as wo 我. I read both as is. Both are discussed in the following paragraph.

38. The last two lines in the Mawangdui B manuscript are entirely lost, aside from three of the final five characters (將以□□父). Where the A manuscript is damaged, I have filled in the characters based on context and the Beida Laozi.

39. Lou Yulie, Wang Bi ji jiaoshi, 118; Wang Ka, Laozi Daodejing Heshanggong zhangju, 169–70.

40. Moeller, Dao De Jing, 101. In order to make sense of the line, Gao Ming reads “thus” (gu 故) as “ancient” (gu 古), so the line would be: “What ancient people taught, I also teach to other people.” While the two characters were frequently interchanged, Mawangdui A, the Beida Laozi, and all versions of the received text have gu 故.

41. Roger T. Ames and David L. Hall follow the Mawangdui text and translate the lines, “Thus, as for what other people are teaching, I will think about what they have to say, and then teach it to others” (Laozi—Making This Life Significant: A Philosophical Translation [New York: Ballantine Books, 2003]). Henricks translates it, “Therefore, what other men teach, [I] will also consider and then teach to others” (Lao Tzu: Te-Tao Ching—A New Translation Based on the Recently Discovered Ma-wang-tui Texts [New York: Ballantine Books, 1992]).

42. In the Zhuangzi passage, Brook Ziporyn translates lun as “discuss,” yi as “express an opinion on,” and bian as “debate” (Zhuangzi: The Essential Writings, with Selections from Traditional Commentaries [Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing, 2009], 16). Victor Mair has them, respectively, as “discuss,” “deliberate over,” and “dispute about” (Victor Mair, Wandering on the Way: Early Taoist Tales and Parable of Chuang Tzu [Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press, 1994], 19).

43. As Gao Ming shows, the received versions of the text vary widely on these lines, suggesting there was a general disagreement on what they really meant. See Gao Ming, Boshu Laozi jiaozhu, 33–34. Even so, this particular change would have happened fairly early, since the Beida Laozi also has wo rather than yi.

44. I follow D. C. Lau in translating the phrase as “preceptor” (Tao Te Ching: Translation of the Ma Wang Tui Manuscripts [New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1994]). Ames and Hall translated it as “precept” (Laozi—Making This Life Significant). Henricks translates it as “the father of my studies” (Lao Tzu: Te-Tao Ching). I am grateful to an anonymous reader for drawing my attention to this point.

45. Gao Ming reads zhi 至 as jie 誡, following a gloss from Heshanggong. I read it as is. Mawangdui A has zhi zhi 致之, which is also in the Beida Laozi (strip 7) and all versions of the received text. Mawangdui B has only one character: 至.

46. It is possible that 毋已 in the Mawangdui manuscripts should be read as 無以. This is how, for example, Robert Henricks translates the line: “If Heaven were not by means of it clear, it would, I'm afraid, shatter” (Lao Tzu: Te-Tao Ching). There is no justification for that reading, though, aside from it being found in received text. The Beida Laozi also uses 毋已 (strips 7–8), and although the transmitted Heshanggong text has 無以, the Heshanggong commentary seems instead to use 毋已. For example, the commentary explains the line on heaven: “It says heaven should have yin and yang, slackening and stretching, with day and night alternating functions. It cannot only desire to be clear and luminous without a moment of rest [wuyi 無已], or else it would fracture and not be heaven” (言天當有陰陽弛張晝夜更用不可但欲清明無已時將恐分裂不爲天) (Wang Ka, Laozi Daodejing Heshanggong zhangju, 155). For arguments in favor of following the Mawangdui text, see Gao Ming, Boshu Laozi jiaozhu, 13, and Liu Xiaogan, Laozi gujin, 409–10. D. C. Lau translates the line on heaven as: “It will mean that not knowing when to stop in being limpid heaven will split” (Tao Te Ching).

47. Guo Qingfan, Zhuangzi jishi, 253.

48. Wang Zhongjiang, “Fanwu liuxing de yuzhouguan.” It is common to read shao 少 here as xiao 小 (small), but in context it is difficult to see why the result of the heart overcoming the heart would be labeled as small or minor. For an argument on this point, see Cao Feng, “Fanwu liuxing de ‘shaoche’ he ‘shaocheng,’” and, “Zailun Fanwu liuxing de ‘shaoche’ he ‘chaocheng’” 再論《凡物流形》的“少徹”與“訬成” (Jianbo yanjiu wang 簡帛研究網, January 11, 2010). Chan takes it as xiao but translates it as “basic” (Chan, “Oneness”).

49. The reading of the character as a variant of chao 訬 comes from Yang Zesheng 楊澤生, who then reads 訬 as chong 崇, meaning revered or great (“Shuo Fanwu liuxing cong ‘shao’ de liangge zi”). Cook (B) suggests instead that the original character be read as cao 操, meaning to master. For Cao Feng's argument, see “Zailun Fanwu liuxing de ‘shaoche’ he ‘chaocheng.’”

50. In his commentary on the Guanzi, Li Xiangfeng 黎翔鳳 links “white” to the phrase in Laozi chapter 41 “Great whiteness is like shame” (大白若辱) and then explains it as “making the heart pure and still” (xin qingjing 心清靜) (Guanzi jiaozhu 管子校注 [Beijing: Zhonghua, 2004], 788). Chen Guying explains it by appeal to the phrases “purify their sense organs” (jie qi guan 潔其官) and “empty their desires” (xu qi yu 虛其欲) in the “Xinshu shang” 心術上 chapter (Chen Guying, Guanzi sipian quanshi, 187). W. Allyn Rickett translates the chapter title as “Purifying the Mind” (Guanzi: Political, Economic, and Philosophical Essays from Early China, Volume II [Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1998], 82).

51. Guo Qingfan, Zhuangzi jishi, 1082.

52. Ma Chengyuan, Shanghai Bowuguan cang zhanguo Chu zhu shu III, strip 6.

53. Ziporyn translates the phrase, “The empty chamber within you will generate its own brightness” (Zhuangzi: The Essential Writings, 27). For a discussion of these examples of the use of bai, see Cao Feng, “Shangbo chujian Fanwu liuxing.”

54. As discussed in the following note, Gao Ming reads bai 百 here as ri 日; I read it as is.

55. The use of bai 白, white, in two of the three lines seems odd on a formal level, and it contrasts the received versions of the text, which use bai in contrast to dark (hei 黑) but rong 榮 (glorious, honorable) as the contrast with shameful (ru 辱). The “Dao ying” (道應) chapter of the Huainanzi 淮南子 quotes the line with rong, showing that such a reading was around by 139 b.c.e. (Liu Wendian 劉文典, Huainan honglie jijie 淮南鸿烈集解 [Beijing: Zhonghua, 1989], 402). The Mawangdui B manuscript, though, clearly uses bai in both lines, as does the Beida Laozi (strips 195–96). The “Tianxia” chapter of the Zhuangzi quotes a shorter version that opposes bai and ru, attributing the saying to Lao Dan: “Know the masculine but preserve the feminine to be the ravine of the world. Know the white but preserve the shameful to be the valley of the world” (知其雄，守其雌，為天下谿；知其白，守其辱，為天下谷) (Guo Qingfan, Zhuangzi jishi, 1095). Yi Shunding 易順鼎 argues that this was the original form of the line and that because the contrast between bai and ru was lost over time, the lines were expanded, so that dark was added as a contrast to bai, and glorious was added as a contrast to ru (see Gao Ming, Boshu Laozi jiaozhu, 371–76). The contrasting of bai with ru also appears in Laozi chapter 41, which says “great whiteness is like shame” (大白若辱). In chapter 28, the Mawangdui A manuscript uses ri 日 (sun) in the second line, while the character is left out in the third line. Based on the A version and the received text, Gao Ming takes the first bai in B as a mistake for ri and then takes ri as a loan for rong, thus matching it to the received text. Another possibility is that ru 辱should be read as ru , meaning stained or dirty. This is how it is read by the editors of the Beida Laozi, and by Ames and Hall, who translate the line: “Know the clean yet safeguard the soiled” (Laozi—Making This Life Significant). For discussions of these lines, see Gao Ming, Boshu Laozi jiaozhu, 371–76, and Liu Xiaogan, Laozi gujin, 313–14.

56. As discussed in note 18 above, there is disagreement on how the character preceding the one should be read in Fanwu liuxing. There may have been some uncertainty in the Laozi as well. The Mawangdui and Beida Laozi manuscripts have zhi yi 執一, but the Wang Bi and Heshanggong texts have bao yi 抱一, to embrace the one (the same phrase used in chapter 10).

57. These three characters are damaged in the A manuscript and are filled in based on the B manuscript.

58. Both Mawangdui manuscripts use ji 計, as does the Beida Laozi. Gao Ming reads it as jie 詰, which is the character in the received versions of the text. I read it as is.

59. For a good discussion of this point, see Wang Zhongjiang, “Fanwu liuxing de yuzhouguan,” and Chan, “Oneness.”

60. The bracketed characters are damaged in both Mawangdui manuscripts. I have filled them based on the Beida Laozi (strips 27–28). Mawangdui B clearly has ming 名 (name), as does the Beida Laozi and all versions of the received text. Gao Ming reads it as ming 明 (clear seeing or perspicacious), but I read it as is. Fanwu liuxing makes a similar connection between naming and not seeing in strips 21 and 13A quoted above.

61. These lines are heavily damaged in both Mawangdui manuscripts, but they appear on strips 25–27 in bundle A of the Guodian bamboo strips. I have followed that version, based on the reconstruction of the text in Cook, Bamboo Texts of Guodian, 265–66. The missing characters have also been filled in following Cook.

62. The “Zhong yong” 中庸 chapter of the Li ji 禮記 contains a similar claim but applied to self-cultivation: “The archer resembles the noble [junzi 君子]: if they miss the center of the target, they turn to seek the cause in themselves. The way of the noble is like the way a distant journey must start from what is near or ascending high must start from what is low” (射有似乎君子，失諸正鵠，反求諸其身。君子之道，辟如行遠必自邇，辟如登高必自卑) (Zhu Xi 朱熹, Sishu zhangju jizhu 四書章句集注 [Beijing: Zhonghua, 2003], 24). This suggests it may have been a common saying that could be applied in different ways.

63. In Guodian, the first half of chapter 64 appears on strips 25–27 in bundle A. The second half of the chapter appears in two versions, once on strips 10–13 in A and then again on strips 1–14 in C. For the Beida Laozi, the first half is on strips 74–75; the second half is on strips 76–78.

64. Brook Ziporyn, Ironies of Oneness and Difference: Coherence in Early Chinese Thought, a Prolegomena to the Study of Li (Albany: SUNY Press, 2012), 139–62.