Ge Hong's Dao: locating the Baopuzi Neipian within the contexts of Early Medieval China

Abstract

This thesis examines Ge Hong’s 葛洪 (283–343) Baopuzi neipian 抱朴子內篇 (Inner Chapters of the Master Who Embraces Simplicity), a pivotal early fourth-century text on transcendence (xian 仙). By situating the Neipian within its intellectual, social, and political contexts, this study sheds light on how Ge Hong integrated intellectual concerns into Daoist traditions, thereby constructing in the Neipian a close and dynamic interaction with both earlier and contemporary scholarly discourses. Chapter I analyses Ge Hong’s construction of his framework for advocating transcendence by responding to anti-transcendence discourses in early scholarly writings. It explores how Ge Hong addressed scepticism towards transcendence by establishing a robust intellectual defence that positioned this pursuit as a legitimate and attainable goal. Chapter II examines the broader intellectual and social motivations behind the Neipian. By situating Ge Hong’s critiques of misinterpretations of Lao-Zhuang thought within his contemporary intellectual trends, particularly within the so-called “Mystery Learning” (Xuanxue 玄學) tradition, it highlights how the Neipian sought to correct what it regarded as basic interpretive errors , addressing their detrimental impact on social and scholarly norms as a consequence of their misunderstandings about the true meaning of dao 道. Chapter III uses a case study of Ge Hong’s discussion of Laozi 老子 to delve deeper into how the Neipian engaged with key intellectual debates of its time. This chapter reveals how Ge Hong employed transcendence as a means of engaging in dialogue with broader intellectual and social discourses, thus positioning the ideas of Daoist traditions as a relevant intellectual force. Chapter IV explores how Ge Hong redefined “lineage of dao” (daojia 道 家 ) through advocating the correct understanding of transcendence and dao. By linking daojia to early Daoist traditions, Ge Hong emphasised its authority as the teachings of sages, elevating daojia to a position comparable to lineage of ru 儒. This connection also served as an active engagement with the intellectual debates of his time. This study challenges the reductive “religious/philosophical” dichotomy in past Neipian research by recontextualising it within its historical setting, Daoist development, and Ge Hong’s broader works. By offering a more integrated interpretation, this research repositions the Neipian as a key text for understanding Daoism’s formation during early medieval China.