³1username³2AyeSpy³2name³2text_default³2version³21³2ts³2981590178³2ip³2209.66.79.109³2data³2newauthor³31³3minor³30³3text³3TaoTehChingTalk

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. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'd suggest you simply make the change that you believe is necessary; this will save time, and if the author doesn't like it, he can always change it back (and then you could discuss the problem). Just my suggestion. -- LarrySanger 



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(moved here from the body of the text -- AyeSpy) 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: 

  Even the 'biography of Lao Tzu' which may be found
  in the 'Historical Records' (Shih-chi) of Ssu-ma Ch'ien (second
  century B.C.) is not without its inconsistencies. This record 
  describes Lao Tzu as having been an archivist of the Court of 
  Chou, and further states that he is said to have 
  personally instructed Kung Fu Tzu (Confucius). (Which is
  inconsistent with other supposed information about Lao Tzu.)

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. 



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I would be happy to attribute the above comments, but their author has chosen to remain anonymous, while not refraining from materially altering the text I contributed. I will be happy to repsond to any comments, and alter the text to accomodate competing views. The above is not the final word on the Tao Teh Ching. It is merely a cursory introduction to the subject matter for those who are unfamiliar with it. -- AyeSpy 






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
³3summary³3*³2tscreate³2981590178³2keepts³2981996165³2id³21084³2host³2cobrand.bomis.com³2revision³21³1username³2AyeSpy³2name³2text_default³2version³21³2ts³2981996165³2ip³2209.66.79.109³2data³2text³3COMMENT: 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. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'd suggest you simply make the change that you believe is necessary; this will save time, and if the author doesn't like it, he can always change it back (and then you could discuss the problem). Just my suggestion. -- LarrySanger 

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: 

  Even the 'biography of Lao Tzu' which may be found
  in the 'Historical Records' (Shih-chi) of Ssu-ma Ch'ien (second
  century B.C.) is not without its inconsistencies. This record 
  describes Lao Tzu as having been an archivist of the Court of 
  Chou, and further states that he is said to have 
  personally instructed Kung Fu Tzu (Confucius). (Which is
  inconsistent with other supposed information about Lao Tzu.)

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. 
³3minor³30³3newauthor³30³3summary³3*³2tscreate³2981590178³2keepts³2981996652³2id³21084³2host³2cobrand.bomis.com³2revision³22