This paper takes the “various Daoist precepts” recorded in Ge Hong’s葛洪

Baopuzi Neipian

抱朴子内篇 as the core historical sources to re-examine the existing form of the precepts of Ce

lestial Masters Daoism during the Han and Jin dynasties and their relationship with the precepts found in the ancient Lingbao scriptures 古灵宝经. The study challenges prevailing scholarly views that there were no codified precepts in Celestial Master Daoism during this period， and that Daoist precepts originated only in the late Eastern Jin period with the ancient Lingbao scriptures， which were modelled on the Buddhist “Posadha precept”. This research demonstrates that the “various Daoist precepts” quoted in the

Baopuzi Neipian

already possessed the complete form and content of precepts， and can be regarded as a faithful reflection of Celestial Master Daoist precepts during the Han， Wei and Western Jin periods. Completed in 317 CE， this work provides a definitive historical coordinate for the existence of early Daoist precepts. Further analysis reveals that Celestial Master Daoist precepts during the Han and Jin dynasties were rooted in indigenous religious and cultural traditions. Their concept of retribution primarily derived from the theory of “interaction between Heaven and humankind” and the doctrine of “inherited burden” found in the Scripture of Great Peace （

Taiping jing

太平经） in the Han dynasty， fundamentally differing from the Buddhist doctrine of “karma and reincarnation”. Through textual comparison， a clear line of inheritance can be traced from the “various Daoist precepts” to the precepts of the ancient Lingbao scriptures. Although the Lingbao precepts show some influence from Buddhism in certain forms and concepts， the main content represents the continuation and development of the Celestial Master Daoist precept tradition. The paper concludes that the Celestial Master Daoism had already developed an independently originated and systematically complete precept system during the Han and Jin dynasties， which was an inevitable outcome of the maturation of its religious organization. Reaffirming this historical fact holds great academic significance for objectively understan

ding the developmental trajectory of early Daoism and the relationship between Buddhism and Daoism.