郭店楚墓與馬王堆三號墓都有不同抄本《老子》與多種儒家典籍陪葬，「五行」並重出於兩個墓葬中，可能反映出兩墓下葬期間楚地儒道交融的學術狀況。「五行」並極可能是當時流行的儒家學說中相當普遍而具代表性的一種。初步觀之，其論題不少與《孟子》、「中庸」有呼應之處。唯郭店簡本「五行」有經無說，帛本「五行」除經文之外，自第六節經文以下並有說。說文解經固多的當然，亦有違離；如：經文「五行」並重而崇「聖」，說文則偏傾仁義。經文以「思」說仁、智、聖，義、禮不在其內，大有仁內義外之意；說文則以「氣」釋仁、義、禮，聖、智不在其中；而遍索經文，實不見任何「氣」之類概念。一般推論「五行」為思孟學派作品，說文多闡仁義，或較親近，經文恐不盡然。

　　　　　Archeological discoveries at Guo Dian, Hubei and Ma Wang Dui in Hunan have given us many different versions of the Lao Zi and Confucian material. The “Five Elements” parts found in both excavations reflect the mutual influence of Daoism and Confucianism of the time. The “Five Elements” could have well been a very common and representative Confucian work of the time. At first glance, this “Five Elements” chapter seems to be tied in which the Mencius and The Doctrine of the Mean. The Guodian version of the Five Elements, however, contains text but no commentary. The Ma Wang Dui Silk Scroll version of the Five Elements contains the text and commentary on the sixth section. The commentary is consistent in some places and others not so consistent with the text. For example, the text esteems what is “sagely” while the commentary leans toward “benevolence”(Ren) and “righteousness”(Yi). The text proceeds from “thought” (Si) in explaining “benevolence”(Ren), “wisdom”(Zhi), “righteousness”(Yi) and “propriety”(Li). The commentary, on the other hand, proceeds from the notion of “Qi” in explaining “benevolence”, “righteousness”, “propriety”, “sageliness” (Sheng) and “wisdom”. The text itself has no mention of the concept of “Qi”. Those who advocate that the five “Elements chapter is a work of the school of Mencius, must take into account these discrepancies between the text and the commentary.