On the Interpretation of Ziran in the Three Commentaries on Laozi in the Han Dynasty

The tradition of Chinese philosophical interpretation contains an inherent tension between “objectively interpreting classics” and “subjectively constructing systems”, with three major Han Dynasty commentaries on the Laozi—Laozi Zhigui, Laozi Daodejing Heshanggong Zhangju, and Laozi Xiang’er Zhu—serving as typical manifestations of this tradition. As a core concept of the Laozi, ziran constitutes a shared entry point for their interpretations. However, due to differences in ideological positions and construction goals, they have formed distinct interpretive approaches. Laozi Zhigui constructs a philosophical system centered on ziran. At the cosmological level, it defines ziran as both the Dao’s inherent nature of being without will or deliberate intervention and the fundamental law governing all things’ self-generation and self-sufficiency, thereby dispelling the Dao’s attribute as a ruling entity. At the practical level, it advocates “the naturalness of xingming”, proposing that rulers should practice wuwei to purify their minds while the people follow their inherent nature to achieve self-harmony, pursuing the social ideal of “returning to primal simplicity”. Its core aim is to criticize the theological teleology prevalent in the mid-to-late Western Han Dynasty and provide an alternative path of rational speculation for the intellectual circle. Laozi Daodejing Heshanggong Zhangju puts forward the idea that “the nature of the Dao is ziran”, emphasizing that ziran is the inherent nature of the Dao rather than the innate state of humans. It rejects the notion of all things generating themselves independently, highlighting the Dao’s supreme status transcending all things and its ruling role over the universe. This interpretation is closely bound to the commentary’s core tenet of “cultivating the Dao for longevity”, arguing that humans can only obtain the Dao’s nourishment by consciously aligning themselves with “the Dao’s nature as ziran” through practice. Thus, ziran becomes an “ought-to-be” state requiring active pursuit, integrating distinct health-preserving practices and preliminary religious overtones. Laozi Xiang’er Zhu undertakes a subversive reconstruction of ziran from a purely religious perspective, reducing it to a synonym for the deified Dao (Supreme Old Lord) and completely eliminating its independent philosophical status and original connotation. Abandoning the traditional understanding that “the nature of the Dao is ziran”, the commentary fully serves the construction of Taoist doctrine, completing the ideological leap from “interpreting the Laozi” to “establishing Taoist theory”. The differentiated interpretations of ziran in these three works not only demonstrate the diverse possibilities of interpreting the Laozi but also clearly reflect the historical trajectory of Han Dynasty thought transitioning from philosophical speculation to religious practice.