郭店楚簡《老子》“絶僞棄詐”證説

An Argument on"Jue Wei Qi ZhaH(絶僞棄詐)In GuoDian Chu Bamboo Lao Tzu

郭店簡《老子》"絶僞棄■"之"■",目前學者多釋爲"慮",但其措意於學派爭鳴的大前提是靠不住的,且晚近新見與"■"相近之字形證明倒是應該釋爲"詐"。所謂"無慮"、"不慮"之説,只見於《莊子》以下較晚文獻,用此來證明《老子》要"棄慮"頗覺牽强。"慮"字在較早或與《老子》相對"共時"的文獻中多爲中性或正面含義,《老子》此章的"絶"與"棄"意思上雖與"無"、"不"接近,但語氣和感情色彩無疑更重,故"棄詐"之説顯然較"棄慮"更爲合理。鑑於"絶"、"棄"的語氣和感情色彩,可知學者有關"棄作"、"絶爲"等的搭配或解讀亦難信從。

The word"■"in the sentence"Jue Wei Qi■"in Guo Dian Chu Bamboo Lao Tzu is currently interpreted as"Lv"慮,but such an interpretation does not conform to the premise of School contention at the time.Based on new and recent proof,the word"■"should be interpreted as"Zha"詐.The idea of"Wu Lv"無慮or"Bu Lv"不慮came into existence after Zhuang Zi,So,it is stretching a point to say Lao Tzu’s idea is"Qi Lv"棄慮.The word"Lv"慮in early literature is mostly neutral or commendatory,"Jue"絶or"Qi (棄)"are close in meaning to"Wu"無or"Bu"不,but they are stronger and more serious in tone and emotion,so the interpretation of"Qi Zha"棄詐can be more reasonable than"Qi Lv"棄慮。In view of such a tone and emotion"Jue"絶and"Qi"棄take,some hypothesis like"Qi zuo"棄作or"Jue wei"絶爲also do not hold.