The greatest flaw of the sages of ancient China

The greatest flaw in the theory of sages of ancient of China is the point of view we had of them. And this point of view is reflected by others points of view also flawed. No one claims to have the knowledge of Confucius, hence no one is able to completely understand Confucianism; No one claim to know the Dao道 as Laozi老子, hence no one understands Daoism completely, no one claims to have the knowledge about strategy as Sun Tzu孙子, hence no one is able to fully understand his teachings of war, No one claims to know the theory of the Yi jing(I ching) 易经 (易經) as King Wen or the Duke of Chou, hence no one is able to understand fully its content.
Even if these sages were perfect, the points of view we have or receive of them are flawed. We see their texts through a number of copyists if you see one of the copies recovered by archaeologists, and even a transforming language through the time in the received texts (see the modernist school of the Yi Jing as a good example), if by a translation, by its author; you see the forms of Taijiquan (Taichichuan) 太极拳 (太極拳), that are even more abstract then texts, through a number of persons.
My point of view is perhaps also flawed; it is your role to point my faults.