荻生徂徠「不言」的詮釋方法析論

An Analysis of Ogyū Sorai’s Method of Interpretation of the Classics

本文旨在分析日本德川儒學史上，佔有舉足輕重地位的學者荻生徂徠在解釋儒家經典中，善用「不言」之意的解經特質及其問題。首先，分析徂徠基於《六經》古文辭方法，指出他的學問之道在於追求「名」、「物」相合的先王之道，「名」即是秦漢以前典籍中的古文辭語言――即《六經》的語言；「物」即是名所指涉的事物，即《六經》所載的禮樂制度。徂徠認為唯有語言與語言所指涉的對象物相合，才可能論議先王與孔子之道。其次，探討徂徠「不言」之意的解經特質，分析（一）徂徠特強調「禮樂不言」，「不言」在此係作為強調實踐禮樂的動態意義，以區別宋儒基於「理學」而重視言語之教的靜態意義；（二）「不言」作為否定後儒「無中生有」的解經之批判用法，反對後儒編造如「性善」、「天理人欲」、「內聖外王」等概念來解釋古代經典，恣意解釋《六經》的道理；（三）從徂徠《論語徵》有意的闕解《論語》章節中，窺知徂徠有排除緊張的君臣關係，以及貶低顏回地位之「不言」之意。最後，由以上分析徂徠的「不言」詮釋特質，進而指出徂徠詮釋方法的矛盾及其衍生的解釋問題，即徂徠常自犯其「無中生有」的解經原則，以及使其經典解釋侷限在特殊性意義，而忽略其普遍性意涵，有可能扼殺經典解釋的開放性或創造性。

This essay is meant to analyze how the influential thinker in the history of Tokugawa Japanese Confucianism, Ogyū Sorai （1666-1728）, while interpreting the Confucian Classics, made much of “unspeakable” hermeneutic traits and the matters which arose therein. First, having analyzed how he based his scholarship on the study of old phrases and syntax in the Six Classics, the essay then points out that Sorai’s scholarship lay in the pursuance of the compatibility of the “term” with the “things” practiced by the early Confucian sage rulers. The “term” referred to the old phrases written in the texts prior to the Chin-Han period, namely, the language used in the Six Classics; the “things” were the objects the “term” referred to, that is to say, rites, music, law enforcement, and political administration, as noted in the Six Classics. Sorai held that only with the language matching objects it referred to, could one be allowed to discuss the philosophy of the early Confucian sage rulers and Confucius. Second, to explore Sorai’s “unspeakable” hermeneutic traits, the paper expounds （1） Sorai’s emphasis on the “unspeakable rites and music.” The term “unspeakable” here was used to emphasize the dynamic implications for the practice of rites and music. It was far different from the emphasis laid by Song Confucianists on the static implications in the language education on the basis of Neo-Confucianism; （2） Sorai’s use of the term “unspeakable” as a denial of the critical method for hermeneutics advanced by the later Confucians as “out of nothing.” He objected to their interpretation of the Classics via their fictional concepts such as “good human nature,” “divine principles and human desires,” and “inner sagacity and outer kingship.” He was opposed to their random interpretation of the Classics; and （3） Sorai’s own “unspeakable” intention to get rid of the tense hierarchical relations and to downplay the role of Yen Hui, in terms of his purposed, selective interpretation of passages in his A Reexamination of the Confucian Analects （《論語徵》）. Last, the paper, based on the above-mentioned analysis of Sorai’s “unspeakable” hermeneutic traits, further points out the paradox formed in Sarai’s method of interpretation and the problems it gave rise to. That is to say, Sorai often nullified his own out-of-nothing principle of interpretation of the Classics and thus confined his interpretation of the Classics to the spectrum of particular meanings, ignoring the universal meaning of the Classics. This possibly stifled openness and innovation inasmuch as the interpretation of the Classics was concerned.