Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/73545
Title: | 《周易》〈彖〉〈象〉體例及思想研究 A study for stylistic rules and philosophy of Tuanzhuan and Xiangzhuan |
Authors: | Hsing Tsao 曹行 |
Advisor: | 傅佩榮(Pei-jung Fu) |
Co-Advisor: | 李賢中(Hsien-chung Lee) |
Keyword: | 周易,易經,易傳,彖傳,大象傳,小象傳,儒家, Zhouyi,Yijing,Yizhuan,Tuanzhuan,Daxiangzhuan,Xiaoxiangzhuan,Confucianism, |
Publication Year : | 2019 |
Degree: | 博士 |
Abstract: | 周易《彖傳》《大象傳》及《小象傳》都是解釋周易古經之作。本論文首要目標在針對此三傳,探究其解經的方法、規則、文體、及慣例,並將之說清楚,講明白。先求能對三傳釋經體例有清楚的認識及解說,其次才是對三傳思想的客觀剖析與比較。
為了讓上述的研究工作能有一個好的起始點,本論文從二擱置及一假設開始。二擱置指擱置傳統易學的二個信念,即(1)周易與天地準;(2)周易成書人更三聖。一假設指本論文假設《彖傳》《大象傳》及《小象傳》為三份各自獨立的文本。第一項擱置旨在暫時解除易經神秘的面紗,第二項擱置旨在降低非必要的學術限制,一個假設的目的在避免《經》與《傳》之間,《傳》與《傳》之間的彼此糾纏。 在二擱置及一假設的前提下,本研究對三傳解釋卦畫及解釋卦爻辭的方法,作了全面性的整理、分析及比較,並從其易例及文例中,研判《大象傳》與《小象傳》相差甚遠,不能是同一時期或同一著作。《彖傳》與《小象傳》則近似處甚多,有可能同源,甚或是同一著作。此外,亦依研究所現之事證對三傳提出一些新觀點:三傳未必是源於儒家,亦有可能源自王官。尤其大象傳,應成書於彖傳及小象傳之前,並在孔子之前。 Tuanzhuan, Daxiangzhuan, and Xiaoxiangzhuan are three most important commentaries for interpreting the ancient Chinese classic Yijing (I Ching). In conventional Yi-ology, the study of the Yijing has to refer to these three documents. The ancient Yijing along with the three commentaries should be treated as one. The main purpose of this dissertation is to study the methods, rules, literal style, and conventions for each of these three documents separately. Try to speak it out clearly and distinctly, and then, to analyzing and comparing for those concepts and ideas they involved. In order to establish for this research a suitable starting point, this dissertation begins with two suspensions of judgment and one assumption. The two suspensions parenthesize two beliefs of traditional Yi-ology, namely, (1) the Zhouyi is proximate to the universe and (2) the Zhouyi (Jing & Zhuan) was completed by the three sages. The assumption is that Tuanzhuan, Daxiangzhuan, Xiaoxiangzhuan are three separate texts, each has its own system independently. The first suspension of judgment is intended to temporarily remove the mysterious veil surrounding the Zhouyi. The second suspension is intended to reduce unnecessary academic research constraints on the Zhouyi. The purpose of the assumption is to avoid tangling the analysis of the Tuanzhuan, Daxiangzhuan, and Xiaoxiangzhuan. Given these two suspensions of judgment and one assumption, this research focuses on how these documents interpret the hexagrams, including each figure, name, hexagram statement (guaci 卦辭), line statement(yaoci 爻辭), and the relationship among these elements. After detailed and comprehensive study, analysis, and comparison, resulting in several conclusions: (1) Daxiangzhuan and Xiaoxiangzhuan are totally different, and should not be treated as one text. (2) The interpretation methods, rules, and even literary style of the Tuanzhuan and Xiaoxiangzhuan are mostly similar, meaning they are possibly from same source, or even part of the same original text. (3) These three documents are not necessarily derived from Confucianism, but may be derived from official education of Zhou (wangguanxue 王官學). (4) The composition of the Daxiangzhuan precedes both the Tuanzhuan and Xiaoxiangzhuan and precedes even Confucius. |
URI: | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/73545 |
DOI: | 10.6342/NTU201900580 |
Fulltext Rights: | 有償授權 |
Appears in Collections: | 哲學系 |
Files in This Item:
File | Size | Format | |
---|---|---|---|
ntu-108-1.pdf Restricted Access | 10.09 MB | Adobe PDF |
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.