從歷史和文化的觀點讀《論語》“子不語怪力亂神”章

《論語•述而》「子不語怪力亂神」一語，爲後世學者所習引，，幾落爲孔子反宗教思想的口實；魯迅亦曾以此非難孔子，以爲是中國神話文學式微的要因。凡此議論，若單從文字上看，並無破綻；諸家註釋，自馬融、何晏、皇侃以降，也無論定之辭。但若把此一問題置諸歷史和文化的角度中作宏觀的考察，則不難今現，孔子此言或有另一層面的意義，必須跳出文字的局限，以窺其端倪。歷來注「怪、力、亂、神」四事，非不盡善，但總覺意有未盡，找不到孔子對此四事真正不滿意的原因。皇侃引李充之言，把四事分析爲二，一曰「怪力」（「力不由理，斯怪力也」，一曰「亂神」（「神不由正，斯亂神也」），拈出一個「理」字和一個「正」字，作爲力和神的標凖，頗暗合周期呆法社會中呆教和祭祖的觀念。孔子對「郁郁乎文哉」的周期，備極心儀，而對殷商以來殘留的巫術和迷信思想，則一如齊之晏嬰，魯之展禽，排斥拒抗，不遺餘力。子不語怪力亂神，實是他對一種合情合理思想的支持，以別於尚巫棄賢的殷商政治，非絕口不言也。

關鍵字

怪；力；亂；神；子不語；何晏；皇侃；李充；祀與戎

並列摘要

The statement ”Confucius spoke of no freaks of nature, feats of powers, disorders, or spirits” in The Analects, having been frequently quoted over the centuries, has become unfittingly an anti-religious trademark of the Master. Lu Xun, for one, believes that Confucius had done a severe damage in the development of Chinese mythology by this remark. On the surface, this statement does not seem to deny any such accusations. Yet on a closer examination, especially when placed in a historical and cultural context, one sees the possibilities of different readings. One annotator of the sixth century, Li Chong, possibly under the influence of Zheng Xuan, suggested an alternative exegesis. He combined and reduced the four items which Confucius spoke not of into two: freakish powers and disorderly spirits, which made a better sense in Zhou society whose political and religious demands called for a more rigorous discipline against shamanism and superstition left over from the previous Shang dynasty. In making this statement, Confucius seemed to have a stronger cultural intention than a mere personal predilection.