反叛的重新凝視──嵇康〈管蔡論〉之兩層詮釋理路試探及其反思

Regazing with a Rebellious Spirit: Exploring Two Interpretive Pathways into Ji Kang's ＂Guan Cai Lun＂ and their Significance

本文從〈管蔡論〉的詮釋爭議出發，希望能在「史實時事寄託派」與「思維方法派」的說法之外，權衡於理事之間，反思於隱顯之際，嘗試勾勒出兩層詮釋理路：「反隱為顯，管蔡之心見理」與「權實相須，內外兼敘」，一則證成該論在翻案史論中的關鍵角色，二則回應嵇康論體一貫的相須思維。透過〈管蔡論〉之兩難史論的重訪，筆者認為「管蔡之心見理」是重解該論的關鍵所在，值得我們從史論的整體脈絡中彰顯其破舊開新的價值，畢竟若直接訴諸「相須論」或「調和論」，每易消減其反隱為顯的批判力道；惟權事固顯，該論亦同時指出周公的苦心，並標舉聖人行權是何等不易之事，表現其兼顧管蔡與周公而不偏於一端的相須思維。依此可見，嵇康一改經（常）與權（變）的傳統論述範疇，從「實理」與「權事」另闢蹊徑，又在隱顯的相互轉化下，強化了權實相須與內外兼敘的效用，是以當充分掌握這兩層詮釋理路的微妙關係，該論對於傳統之解放性與規範性的思考，方能釋出進一步輾轉對話的空間。經此兩層詮釋理路的揭示，我們對於這一篇翻案史論之反叛精神便能予以重新的凝視，從而消弭其歷來的理解爭議，如此不惟可以見證它在魏晉玄學面向上的開拓，對於臺灣身處兩難的當代處境，亦未嘗沒有啟示性的意義。

Building on interpretive disputes regarding ＂Guan Cai Lun＂, this article aims to trace two interpretive pathways beyond the approach emphasizing historical truth and a stressing thinking method: ＂unveiling the hidden by making Guan's and Cai's thoughts connect with the truth＂ and ＂making power and truth meet by attending to the inner and the outer＂. This paper confirms the critical role the work has played in rewriting history, and on the other hand, it responds to the thought-embodiment connection underpinning Ji Kang's work. Through the re-visiting of the dilemma of ＂Guan Cai Lun＂, the author believes that the key to sidestepping from the situation is through ＂making Guan's and Cai's thoughts connect with the truth＂. This would make it possible for us to break away from the current disputes and relocate its value from the overall context of history. The ＂necessary theory＂ or ＂harmony theory＂ tends to reduce the critical need to unveil the hidden. ＂Guan Cai Lun＂ also points out Zhou Gong's extraordinary effort and marks the difficulty of saints' exercise of power. This shows Ji Kang's departure from the previous discourse, attempting to chart a new path based on Shi Li (real principle) and Quan Shi (interim measures). This study sheds light on the subtle interpretive pathways that involve making the implicit explicit and making power and truth meet, thus creating further space for mutual dialogues without regard to the traditional debate concerning liberated versus normative thinking. Through the revealing of the two interpretative pathways, we can re-gaze at the rebellious spirit of Ji Kang's work aimed at rewriting history, thus eliminating its historical controversy. As such, his work not only marks a pioneering development in the Wei-Jin's metaphysics and but also provides Taiwan facing a dilemma with a heuristic perspective.