The Imperial Commentary on Dao De Jing 唐玄宗御注道德真经

Authored by Emperor Xuanzong of Tang, Li Longji, this work was compiled between the 20th year (732) and the 21st year (733) of the Kaiyuan reign period.

Originally consisting of four volumes and eighty-one chapters, it is included in the Yujue (Jade Commentary) category of the Dongshen Section of the Daozang (Daoist Canon).

In the 23rd year of the Kaiyuan reign period, acting on the advice of Sima Xiu, the Director of Taoist Rituals, Emperor Xuanzong ordered that in every prefecture across the empire where Taoist temple rituals were performed, a stone stele be erected at a major Taoist abbey to engrave this commentary. Surviving engraved versions today include those from Yizhou and Xingzhou. Additionally, there exists a Dunhuang manuscript, reproduced in Dunhuang Daoist Texts·Tuzhuan Chapter by Japanese scholar Onishi Jinsaburo. This manuscript preserves the complete text of Chapters 35 to 37 from the first volume of the Dao Jing (Classic of the Dao), though it lacks chapter titles—a divergence from the format of the Daozang version. According to the colophon at the end of the manuscript, it was transcribed in the 23rd year of the Kaiyuan reign period.

Commissioned by Emperor Xuanzong out of his interest in Taoist scriptural exegesis, this commentary takes Laozi’s political philosophy of ziran wuwei (naturalness and non-action) as its core tenet. It opens with a preface in which the emperor argues that previous commentaries on the Laozi failed to capture the profound subtleties of Xuan Yuan (a reference to Laozi and Taoist metaphysics), prompting him to compose this work. In practice, the commentary draws on Guo Xiang’s theory of xingfen (inherent nature and proper boundaries) from his Commentary on the Zhuangzi as a key principle for self-cultivation. It also adopts the Chong Xuan (Double Mystery) school’s theory of miaoben (subtle origin) from early Tang Taoism to elaborate on the ontological meaning of being and non-being in the Dao. The political philosophy of "acting through non-action" is derived precisely from this metaphysical framework.

While this commentary boasts notable philosophical merits, its arbitrary emendation of the ancient text—changing the phrase "er gui shi mu" (valuing the nourishment of the mother) in Chapter 20 to "er gui qiu shi yu mu" (valuing seeking nourishment from the mother)—has been criticized by later scholars.