Liezi

The Liezi (Chinese: 列子; Wade–Giles: Lieh-tzŭ) is a Taoist text attributed to Lie Yukou, a c. 5th century BC Hundred Schools of Thought philosopher.

There is a three-century historical gap until the next evidence of the Liezi: the Jin dynasty commentary by Zhang Zhan 張湛 (fl.

This "Simplicity and Vacuity" is Wing-tsit Chan's translation; chongxu (literally "soar/young/simple empty/skies/modest") usually means "soar aloft, rise high; carefree, unburdened with ambition".

During the later reign of Emperor Zhenzong of Song, the Liezi was further honored as the Chongxu zhide zhenjing (沖虛至德真經; “True Classic of Simplicity and Vacuity and Perfect Virtue”).

The Liezi is generally considered to be the most practical of the major Taoist works, compared to the poetic narrative of Laozi and the philosophical writings of Zhuangzi.

Whenever the minutest existing thing or the faintest sound affects me, whether it is far away beyond the eight borderlands, or close at hand between my eyebrows and eyelashes, I am bound to know it.

"[2] Liezi scholars have long recognized that it shares many passages with other pre-Han texts like the Zhuangzi, Daodejing, and Lüshi Chunqiu.

Chapter 7 records the Yangism philosophy of "Yang Zhu" (Yangzi), infamous for the criticism of Mencius that he, "believed in 'every man for himself.'

"[6] Zhang Zhan speculates that this chapter, focusing on indulgence in physical and temporary pleasures, was from Lie Yukou's earlier years in Yangism, before he became a Daoist.

"[7] Chapter 8, "Explaining Conjunctions," is primarily taken from other early sources, not only Daoist but Confucian and Mohist texts, two philosophies that opposed the philosophical Daoism this book expounds.

The present book describes the hedonist 'Yang [Zhu]' chapter as 'so unlike the rest of [Liezi] that it must be from another hand … The thought is certainly very different, and it does show the signs of editing and interpolation by the Taoist author … But although close scrutiny generally reveals marked differences in style between the body of the book and passages borrowed from earlier sources, I could find none to distinguish the hedonist chapter from the rest.

Suggestions of Buddhist influences in Liezi chapters 3 and 6 are potentially corroborating evidence for a late date of composition; see Buddhism in China.