讀韓非子〈解老〉和〈喻老〉

Reading Hanfeize’s “Interpreting the Laoze” and “Clarifying the Laoze”

〈解老〉、〈喻老〉是目前所知最早的《老子》注，而本文論述的重點在於：一、韓非當時所見到的《老子》版本是何面貌無法得知，只能斷定與今所見傳本不同。二、肯定老子的道論是韓非學說理論基礎，其關於道與德之關係解釋比《老子》詳細清晰，不過，韓非的道所指就是「一」，所謂執一、用一皆如此，顯然與老子「道生一」不同，後人仍可在這兩說發揮。三、韓非援道入法，書中提到「道生法」之說，但似乎沒有明確對道如何生法作解釋，因此，如何理解道生法，仍是一值得繼續探討的問題。四、〈解老〉、〈喻老〉明確展現對老子尊重態度，超越其他諸子。

“Interpreting the Laoze” and “Clarifying the Laoze” are the earliest remarks on 《Laoze》 we know. This article has its points in 1. As there is no way to know what the version of 《Laoze》 Hanfei had available was about, all we know for sure is that it is not the version we have access to this day. 2. Agreeing with Laoze’s doctrine is what makes the Hanfei theory firmly founded and it delivers a clearer view of the relationship between doctrine and virtue than《Laoze》. Only Hanfei’s doctrine is about 1. The so-called carrying out 1 and implementing 1 are 2 know examples. This makes it clear that Hanfeize’s doctrine is different from 1 comes from the doctrine claimed by Laoze, leaving the same an issue to explore the 2 schools. 3. In Hanfei’s carrying the doctrine into the rule, it is claimed that the rule originates from the doctrine, though there are no clear explanation on how the rule comes from the doctrine. Consequently, it remains an issue to discuss how to explain the fact that the rule comes from the doctrine. 4. Both “Interpreting the Laoze” and “Clarifying the Laoze” have shown much more respect to Laoze than all other renown scholars.