Talk:Huahujing
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is supported by the Taoism WikiProject.
This project provides a central approach to Taoism-related subjects on Wikipedia. |
|
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
|
[edit] Forgery?
I notice that the text has been ammended to state that the Hua Hu Ching is a forgery. I wouldn't wish to openly dispute that claim, but I imagine that opinion is maybe divided on the matter. If not, and if its widely accepted that the text is a forgery, then the article is fine. But if there are those who would dispute this then perhaps it would be better to put something like "claimed/proven to be a forgery by such and such a person, or such and such an investigation." It would be interesting to know who found it out to be a forgery.
- Much like Confucianists attributed many texts to Confucius, Daoists attributed many to Laozi, but modern sinologists only believe the Lunyu and Daodejing might contain their teachings. Many scholars believe Laozi might have written the Daodejing, but I couldn't find one source claiming he wrote the Huahujing (excluding translators and publishers of it). Likewise, the book blurbs about this text having been lost and orally transmitted are unverifiable, and anyway, the truth about it being found hidden in the Mogao caves is a much better story. Keahapana 19:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
