Abstract
自20世紀初古史辨運動興起，易學界受科學主義思潮影響，多視"經"為卜筮記錄，"傳"為哲理新創，"經"與"傳"必須分別而觀，不可以以"經"釋"傳"，亦不可以以"傳"解"經"。本文列舉九個論點,論證《易記》為政治典冊，蘊含義理；《易傳》義理之精義即多承繼自"經"。《周易》"經""傳"關系，一如父母子女之關系。父母之基因為子女所承繼，"經"之基因亦為"傳"所傳承。"經"與"傳"固有區別，就像父母子女各具獨立人格。我們當然不應混"經""傳"為一，但亦不宜認"經""傳"為絕無關系之兩種文獻。
Since the arising of the Gu shi bian or Debates on Ancient History movement from the beginning of 1920s on, influenced by the "scientific" spirit, the academic circle of the studies of Changes had tended to argue that the ancient Text (i.e., judgments and line statements) of the Classic of Changes were but individuated records of divination and the Commentaries on it were attributed to philosophical creation and thus they should be distinguished respectively other than be mutually interpreted. This paper illustrates nine points to demonstrate that the ancient Text was a political document which conceives meanings and principles, and the subtleties of the meanings and principles of the Commentaries were by large inherited from the Text. The association between the Text and Commentaries just likes that between parents and children. As the genes of the parents are inherited by their children, the Text’s genes were also succeeded by the Commentaries. Nonetheless, the Text and Commentaries differ intrinsically as parents and children possess independent personalities respectively. So, we should neither amalgamate them into one nor separate them into two documents without any relevance. Copyright © 2012 山東大學中國周易學會.
Since the arising of the Gu shi bian or Debates on Ancient History movement from the beginning of 1920s on, influenced by the "scientific" spirit, the academic circle of the studies of Changes had tended to argue that the ancient Text (i.e., judgments and line statements) of the Classic of Changes were but individuated records of divination and the Commentaries on it were attributed to philosophical creation and thus they should be distinguished respectively other than be mutually interpreted. This paper illustrates nine points to demonstrate that the ancient Text was a political document which conceives meanings and principles, and the subtleties of the meanings and principles of the Commentaries were by large inherited from the Text. The association between the Text and Commentaries just likes that between parents and children. As the genes of the parents are inherited by their children, the Text’s genes were also succeeded by the Commentaries. Nonetheless, the Text and Commentaries differ intrinsically as parents and children possess independent personalities respectively. So, we should neither amalgamate them into one nor separate them into two documents without any relevance. Copyright © 2012 山東大學中國周易學會.
| Original language | Chinese (Simplified) |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 24-32 |
| Journal | 周易研究 |
| Volume | 2012 |
| Issue number | 2 |
| Publication status | Published - 2012 |
Citation
鄭吉雄(2012)：論《易經》非占筮記錄，《周易研究》，2012(2)，頁24-32。Keywords
- 《易經》
- 《易傳》
- 《周易》
- 經傳分離
- Text of the Changes
- Commentaries
- Zhouyi
- Separation of the text and commentaries
- Exegesis
- Alt. title: The judgments and line statements of the classic of changes are not individuated records of divination