“文义”与“血脉”:朱熹、陆九渊的文本阐释过程论

“Literal”and“Bloodline”:Zhu Xi and Lu Jiuyuan’s Theory of Classic Interpretation Process

朱、陆之辩是思想史上的重大问题。与前人“德性/问学”或“实践/知识”的二分化认识不同,朱陆之异的根本在经典阐释思想的差异,尤其是阐释过程的相逆,而“文义”能否作为阐释过程的起点乃是分歧的焦点。朱熹基于对语言达意功能的肯定,确立了“言→义→意(理)”的正向阐释过程,兼融了经学训释和理学涵泳的方法,并强调“文义”的基础性。陆九渊则反对拘泥于“文义”造成的“血脉”窒碍,而以“血脉”为发端,以期对文本片段做出有效的阐释,故与朱熹的路径相逆。其实“文义”与“血脉”均是完整阐释活动的要义,构成循环关系,而朱陆的论辩放大了这种分歧。

Although the two debates between Zhu Xi and Lu Jiuyuan were more than 10 years apart,their thinking and differences are consistent,that is,is it possible or limited of language to clarify the humanity and truth?Zhu Xi highly affirmed the expressive function of language.In comparison,Lu Jiuyuan showed suspicion and caution about language.Their differences in concepts concerning language are also reflected in their classical hermeneutics.Zhu Xi established the positive interpretation process of“word-meaning-intention(truth)”,which combines the exegesis of Confucian classics with the“hanyong”(涵泳)method of Confucianism,and emphasizes the basic position of“literal”,which is to ensure that the Sages’intention is revealed.Lu Jiuyuan took the opposite path to Zhuxi,with“bloodline”as the starting point,in order to make effective interpretation of fragments,and he resisted adhering to the“literal”which leads to“bloodline”obstruction.Therefore,whether sinking into the literary content is the key difference between Zhu Xi and Lu Jiuyuan’s interpretation thought.In fact,both“literal”content and“bloodline”are key components of interpretation practice.Zhu and Lu both agreed to attain the hermeneutic circle with these two components.But they each had their own emphasis,and their debate enlarged the differences.