從孟學詮釋史論中國詮釋學之特質

Characteristics of Chinese Hermeneutics Exhibited in the History of Mencius Exegesis

本文以中國思想史所見之孟子學詮釋史為中心，分析中國詮釋學之三大面向：一、作為解經者心路歷程之表述的詮釋學：許多儒者透過註經以表述企慕聖賢境界之心路歷程，如朱子集註《四書》以建立一己之哲學，解釋《孟子》「知言養氣」說以表詮個人對生命之體認；王陽明(1472～1529 )在其「百死 千難」的心路歷程中所得之「心即理」與「致良知」之精神體驗中，重新解釋 孟子學，都是具有代表性的例證。二、作為政治學的儒家詮釋學：由於帝制中 國的政治體制是以君主為主體，而儒家政治理想是以人民為主體，儒家之價值 理想難以在現實世界中實踐，於是，許多儒家學者在有志難伸之餘，以經典註 疏之學術事業寄寓其經世濟民之政治理想。這種詮釋學是一種道德學，而且其 中「治道」遠多於「政道」，如康有為(1859～1927 )著《孟子微》於二十世 紀列強對中國鯨吞蠶食之危機年代，皆寄託其救世宏圖於名山事業之中。三、 作為護教學的儒家詮釋學：歷代儒者以經典註疏作為武器，批駁佛、老而為儒 學辯護者代不乏人，如韓愈(768～824)撰〈原道〉、〈與孟尚書書〉，以孟子傳孔子之道，認為其「功不在禹下」，皆有詮釋經典以護教之用心在焉。王陽明通過對孟子的「盡心」與「集義」等概念的重新解釋以批駁朱子學；清儒戴震(1724～1777)在西元一七七七年撰《孟子字義證疏》駁斥宋儒及佛、老之思想，也是這種類型的中國詮釋學的代表作品。在以上這三個中國詮釋學的突出面向中，第一個面向較為重要。歷代許多儒者註疏經典，常常或是作為一種個人安身立命的手段，或是作為表達個人企慕聖域的心路歷程的一種方式。這正是儒家「為己之學」的一種表現，而將經典解釋與個人生命交織為一，這是「融舊以鑄新」的傳統思考方式。第二種面向與詮釋者對社會、政治世界的展望有關。詮釋者企圖透過重新解釋經典的途徑，對他所面對的社會、政治問題提出解決方案，這是一種「返本以開新」的思考模式。第三面向則是詮釋者身處於各種思潮強烈激盪的情境中，為了彰顯他所認同的思想系統之正統性，常通過重新詮釋經典的方式，排擊「非正統」思想。這是一種「激濁以揚清」的思考模式。

This paper explicates the characteristics of Chinese hermeneutics and its distinctively Chinese cultural characteristics as illuminated and instantiated by its long historical tradition of Confucian exegesis on the Mencian Classics. This essay has explained Chinese hermeneutics as having three types: hermeneutics as personal cultivation, as political pragmatics, and as apologetics. Since hermeneutics originated in the breakdown of communication between the contemporary reading subject and the ancient text, the first type of hermeneutics as personal cultivation is primary in origin and importance. For hermeneutics bridges our gap-linguistic, contextual-with the ancient sages, so as for us to befriend them, be in dialogue with them, in order to cultivate and fulfill ourselves. In this respect, hermeneutics as political pragmatics and as apologetics are two directions in which the subjectivity of the exegete stretches to express himself. Faced with the risky complex political situation of the times, the exegete has no option but to propose his view through the route of his ostensibly objective textual research, reinterpretations of the classics. Faced with the bewildering plethora of competing schools and views, one has to return to, to dig into, the original classics, to bring out, to demonstrate “truths” to which he is committed, thereby to refute “heresies.” The above three types share in common the writing commentaries on the Classics, so as to poetically evoke (hsing 興)the reader to metaphorically (pi 比) grasp what is truly there from time immemorial, by way of longing aspiration towards the sages and their views expressed in the classics, of advising the powers that be with the immutable political views of the classical ancients, of redressing mistaken views in various divergent schools.