论中国经典诠释的两个基型:直释与旁通--以《易经》的诠释为例

中国经典诠释传统有没有自己的特点?经作者研究之后,感觉到传统经学的实践中确实有直释与旁通两个基型, 可惜没有受到学者充分的注意。故本论文为了具体讨论起见,特别以《易经》的诠释为例,依以下各节:一、前言,二、对“中国经典诠释基型”的界定,三、《易》籍著作的诠释体式,四、直释型诠释的方法与问题,五、旁通型诠释的方法与问题,六、结论, 来论述。其中第四、五两节又各立细目,详细讨论诠释的方法与问题。中国经典的诠释体式是依字-句-章-篇-卷逐次解释而成立低层的训诂、章句、注、笺、解、疏、说、传,甚至更有不泥于文句。而依义理而成立高层的释义、通释、通义,乃至最高层的哲理诠释。其诠释可归纳成两个基型,即依各经本身在历代表现出日新乎高明的直释诠释与依异经互释在后代表现出富有乎博大的旁通诠释。在中国经典诠释传统中,此两型诠释之于经典正犹乾坤之于易,经典在诠释中表现其生生不息的生命力。

On two basic modes in interpreting traditional Chinese classics:direct interpretation and comprehensive interpretation--taking the interpretation of Yi jing as an example

Whether Chinese classics interpretative tradition has its own characteristics? Through certain studies, I find there are indeed two fundamental modes in the practice of interpretations of traditional classics, which has not aroused adequate attention in the academic circle. To concretely discuss this topic, this paper takes the interpretation of Yi jing as an example and elaborates it in the following six aspects: (1) preface; (2) definition to the "modes of Chinese classics interpretation";(3) hermeneutic styles in the interpretation of Yi jing ; (4) method of direct interpretation and problems aroused by it; (5) method of comprehensive interpretation and problems aroused by it; and (6) conclusion, in which the (4) and (5) are analyzed in more detail. A step by step interpretative style from character to sentence, to paragraph, to chapter, to volume gives rise to a lower leveled result in lexical interpretations, annotations, commentaries, and supplements, whereas there are also a higher leveled thorough interpretation which does not stick to lexical interpretations and even the highest-leveled philosophical interpretations. These interpretations can be summarized into two basic modes: one is direct interpretation based on a Classic per se and new understandings in different dynasties; the other is comprehensive interpretation based on mutual interpretations between different classics and manifesting a broadness and profoundness. In the tradition of Chinese classics interpretations, these two modes are as important to the classics as hexagrams Qian (?) and Kun (?) (the former two hexagrams in the received version of Zhouyi which are generally regarded as the parents producing the other 62 hexagrams) to Zhouyi. The vitality of the classics is exhibited in the ever lasting interpretations to them.