詩化的主宰：蘇軾詩中的上帝、天公、造物――兼論其頌美與怪奇書寫

Poeticised Ruler: The Supreme Deity, Heavenly Grandfather and The Creator in Su Shi’s Poems: Lauding the Sublime and Depicting Oddities

蘇軾經學著作及祭文多沿襲「於皇上帝，子惠我民」的儒家觀念，他說「楚賦亦虛傳，神仙安有是」，但其詩卻屢見「帝遣巫陽招我魂」等意象；今存蘇詩中含天公、造物者凡69首，這數量超過了《全唐詩》相關用語的總和，也遠超蘇軾之前任何一位宋人――那應如何闡釋其筆下詩化的天人關係？
本文以蘇軾作個案研究，並考《全唐詩》、《全宋詩》與天之主宰、創造者同義關鍵詞，指出：（1）宋詩中陳述上帝與個人關係者較唐詩多，惟宋詩中上帝並非可茲批評或開玩笑的對象，於是人與主宰爭辯，甚者嘲諷創造者的內容，常藉天公、造物的形象呈現，蘇軾是其中佼佼者；（2）宋代禮樂、宗教關於何謂上帝的複雜討論，對宋詩中主宰的形象幾無影響；（3）蘇軾是自唐迄宋運用天公、造物意象的集大成者，藉此豐富了宋詩對鬼斧神工之奇與美的想像，他云「造物豈不惜，要令工語言」，又以「勞心以耗神，盛氣以忤物」解釋何以詩人固窮；（4）宋代同一作者的不同詩作，主宰形象並不統一，反映主宰的涵義乃隨個別詩歌主題變化，而不在乎其在哲學觀念上的一致。宋詩中有情有性的主宰不僅未隨理學興起減少，反而形象日益豐富。

Su Shi’s works on classics studies and his ritual texts mostly inherit the Confucian concept that “the supreme heavenly ruler takes everyone as his own offspring”. He believes “the deities in the odes of Chu does not exist in reality,” but at the same time says in one of his own poems that “the ruler sends Wuyang for my soul”, suggesting that his poems are full of imagery. At least 69 of his poems mention the heavenly grandfather and the creator, exceeding the total number in Tang poems, which is far more than any other person from the Song before him. Based on this, how should the poeticised heaven-man relationship in his works be interpreted?
This article is a case study of Su Shi, examining the key words synonymous to the heavenly ruler in all Tang and Song poems, pointing out that: 1) Song poems have a greater tendency than Tang poems to depict the relationship between Heaven and an individual. However, in Song poems, Shangdi (the supreme deity) is never a subject of criticism or joke, resulting in the use of other euphemistic terms, namely the heavenly grandfather and creator, by writers desiring to argue with or satirise the heavenly ruler, and Su Shi was amongst the most frequent practitioners of these terms; 2) the sophisticated discussions seeking to define ‘the supreme deity’ in Song etiquette and religion, have nearly no impact on the representation of the ruler in Song poetry; 3) Su Shi was the greatest in manipulating the ruler’s literary construct from the Tang through the Song. His works have enriched the imaginative content in Song poems. He says that “the creator feels for poets, but still has to make them go through hardship so as to refine their language and expression,” and opines that the mentally tiring nature of poetry writing could explain the misfortune of most poets; 4) the representation of the ruler in different works of a single Song author is not always the same. There are sometimes contradictions, indicating that its meaning depends on the subject matter of the poem, whether or not the term is strictly defined from a philosophical perspective. Despite the rise of Neo-Confucianism, the humane representation of the ruler in Song poems continued to diversify, meaning that classics studies and philosophy did not necessarily affect Song people’s pursuit of the art of poetry.