“神解”之外：江澂《道德真經疏義》對宋徽宗御注《老子》之闡發

《宋徽宗御解道德真經》頒示天下之後，太學生江澂曾為之疏解，寫成《道德真經疏義》一書。在宋代老子學的學術舞臺上，《老子》文本，經由徽宗「注解」，再到江澂「疏義」，君臣之間的推廣衍義，確實達到一個新的顛峰時期。《疏義》既是針對御注《老子》而來，將二者吸納成為一個有機連繫的整體而加以闡幽發微，進行相關學術論題的反省思考，當該是值得認真勾稽的議題。江澂雖然標榜御注《老子》為「神解」，然而對於御注的義理闡發，實非亦步亦趨、簡單沿襲而已。其一方面多所承繼發揚，另一方面也自下己意，在「神解」之外，充分發揮了一些不同於君王的看法。其間岔出徽宗「神解」的義理脈絡之外，以建構屬於自家老學觀點的地方也是有的。因此，本論文的焦點即在於理析江澂如何閱讀徽宗的注解《老子》，擬以兩條進路作為探究的切入點：一是就《疏義》「深化御注《老子》中的儒家意識」而言，申說江澂更為強烈鮮明的儒家精神。疏文中，他熱切期盼徽宗能以堯、舜作為理想君王的傚仿楷模；以孔子、顏回等儒者形象作為老子相關學說的代言人；特別喜歡將儒家的仁政之說與老子政治思想相叩合；又大量援引儒典文獻或其哲學命題來證解《老子》相關學說等等。凡此，在在顯示出江澂更為深刻的儒家傾向；二則是就《疏義》「對御注《老子》傾向『無為』一邊的義理轉化」而言，深入剖析江澂理解的「無為」，並非如御注以「因其固然，付之自爾」為主要內容，徽宗言「不立一物」、「不廢一物」，終至於有消極守成、無所作為的傾向。江澂的重點則在於極力綰合「無為」、「有為」的「體」、「用」關係，深刻論證彼此相依相須、缺一不可的義理架構，以轉化御注偏執「無為」的趨向。此君臣注《老》的整體性觀察，對於宋代老子學各式詮解取向的多元化樣貌而言，當能使其具體輪廓更加清晰完整，俾使當期相關專題、專家的研究，更為詳實周備。

關鍵字

宋徽宗；江澂；御注老子；道德真經疏義；老子學

並列摘要

After the publication of the 'Imperial annotation of Tao Te Ching' written by Sung dynasty Emperor Hui-tsung, Chiang Cheng, based on his annotation on the Emperor's masterpiece, also published a book of the same kind with the title 'On the Meaning of Tao Te Ching'. Chiang Cheng's 'elucidation', together with Hui-tsung's 'annotation' on 'Tao Te Ching', can be portrayed as bringing the texts of 'Lao Tzu' to a new zenith in the history of the study of Lao Tzu in Sung dynasty. This paper is a reflection on both the 'Imperial annotation of Tao Te Ching' and 'On the Meaning of Tao Te Ching'. I will argue that although Chiang Cheng praised the 'Imperial annotation of Tao Te Ching' as an 'ingenious annotation', his annotation on Hui-tsung's work was not completely in line with the Emperor's viewpoints, but turned out to be the one of its own right. Therefore, I select two tracks to begin our exploratory journey. On the first track, I elaborate on the firmly inherent Confucianism in Chiang Cheng's works; while on the other track, we analyze Chiang Cheng's interpretation on the concept of 'non-doing' (wu-wei) in the 'Imperial annotation of Tao Te Ching', and further illustrate on how he combined the two dialectical concepts of 'non-doing' and 'doing' in his 'On the Meaning of Tao Te Ching'. Through such comprehensive observation, I expect to diversify the Study of LaoTzu in Sung dynasty, and hopefully to complement the research on the related subjects and fields.