Talk:Huahujing

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)
 * There is an ambiguity here. We have two quite unrelated versions, the written fragment and the oral tradition. Which is claimed as the forgery? The claim of forgery is also muddled up with the idea that there never was such a work by Laozi in the firts place, in which case both must be forgeries. These two claims need teasing apart, and if a study of a particular version is claiming that version to be a forgery then the study and the associated claim should be moved into that section. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:33, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Done my best, but see next topic. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:37, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Identification
Does the honorific title Taishang lingbao Laozi huahu miaojing apply to the Huahujing generally, or specifically to the document fragments found in the cave? I had to take a flyer on this when I tidied up the article, so I may have mentioned it in the wrong place. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:38, 25 November 2014 (UTC)


 * There is a related issue here: on what basis are these two quite unrelated texts claimed to be versions of the same original? Is one of them not in fact the Huahujing at all? &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:34, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Huahujing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110717124726/http://www.daoistcenter.org/texts.pdf to http://www.daoistcenter.org/texts.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:01, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Short description
I reverted the addition of the short description "Literary work" because this is regarded by Daoists as their most important religious text. By comparison the one given to the Christian Holy Bible is "Collection of religious texts". Importing it just because Wikidata uses it is not adequate reason, per WP:OTHERSTUFF. May I suggest instead "Taoist religious and philosophical text"? &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 07:11, 16 March 2023 (UTC)