汉宋之争与经典解释——以阮元、李翱的“性命”为例

The Han-Song Controversy and the Classical Hermeneutics: Taking Li Ao and Ruan Yuan's Nature-Life Theories for Example

李翱尝试取法佛老,以期在形上的方向上完善思孟的心性论,并由此成为宋学的远源。于是,在汉宋之争中,援佛入儒的李翱受到了阮元的批驳。李翱、阮元虽有共同的话语平台,但由于各自对思孟之心性论的定位不同,以致在解读儒家的性命观时,李翱以"心通"解经而发明"复性"说,阮元则认为应以"事解"注经而申明"节性"说。二人的不同解读,引发了一些关于经典解释的问题。

By using Taoism and Buddhism for reference, Li Ao hoped to regulate the theories of mind-nature of Simeng School in the metaphysical orientation, and then he became the headwaters of Song school. Therefore, he was refuted by Ruan Yuan in the Han-song Controversy. They had common groundwork, but they had different orientation to Simeng School, so they affirmed conflicting explanations to Confucian naturelife theories. Li Ao gave the spiritual judgment of ＂Fu Xing＂, but Ruan Yuan claimed the material judgment of＂ Jie Xing＂. And their dispute aroused some questions on the classical hermeneutics.