【作者】 周琦；

【导师】 柳长华；

【作者基本信息】 中国中医科学院 ， 中医医史文献， 2010， 博士

【摘要】 儒、释、道通常被视为中国传统文化的核心内容。然佛学本非源自中国,道家于官修目录归于诸子之列,则中国传统文化的代表非儒家莫属。而儒学要旨自当归属于以《诗》、《书》、《易》、《礼》、《春秋》(《乐》经早佚,或散见于《礼》经之中)五经为基础的经学之中。自秦有“掌通古今”的博士官起,汉以后的博士几乎为经师所垄断。后世在五经之上衍出九经、十三经,亦或是朱子的四书等,均是儒家孔孟思想的演绎和提炼。因此,在这两千余年的历史中,经学的传承牵系着中国学术的大脉。而经学自孔子删订六经之后,又经历了秦汉两代相接的特殊历史变革时期,演变为今文经学与古文经学两支风格迥异的经学派别。这两种经学派别之争一经肇始,便一发而不可收,自汉时起绵延至今。那么,欲把握中国传统学术的精髓,必然要对今文经学与古文经学进行探讨。如章太炎先生曾言：“讲国学而不明派别,将有望洋兴叹、无所适从之感。”中医古籍,尤其是《内经》,在传承过程中亦经历过秦汉之际的文字变革,在理论上亦与汉代经师一样同讲阴阳五行,在两千余年经学统领中国传统学术核心的背景下,今古文经学对《内经》的学术传承有着怎样的影响,是本文要探讨的重点。孔子删订六经是中国历史上最具影响的文献整理事件。但孔子与经书的关系,后世今文经学与古文经学却说法不一：今文经学家认为六经为孔子所作,古文经学家认为六经自古就有,孔子仅删述而已。无论孰是孰非,五经典籍历经王朝的更替,焚书坑儒之灾,文字的变革,至西汉时已不复春秋时原貌。因此,在西汉初期经历过黄老时期的休养生息之后,经书的传承大抵如伏生口授《尚书》,讲求家法师承。而至汉武末年,孔子壁中古文经书的出现改变了这种今文经学的传承格局。这些古文经书均由先秦古文书写,在文字上有别于用时行隶书所书的今文经书,对于当时的汉儒而言难识难读,因而仅传训诂而已。今古文经学的学术分野亦由此而逐渐清晰起来。在这样的背景下,为使现有典籍得以更好的承继下去,刘向父子的校书工程应运而生。对于中医学而言,《黄帝内经》之名首见于今古文经学纷争兴盛的两汉时期,与《内经》同时的诸多中医经典也与五经、诸子典籍一样经受过刘向、刘歆父子主持的经籍文献整理。而虽为父子,刘向主倡今文经学,刘歆却偏执于古文经学,如《汉书·刘向传》云：“歆数以(《春秋左氏传》)难向,向不能非间也,然犹自持《谷梁》义。”可见今古文经学之间的学术鸿沟在当时已愈裂愈大。此外,刘向还撰《尚书五行传》,于经学中发挥五行理论。后世学者责其“功在《七略》,罪在《五行传》”,意为此五行理论为经师杜撰,有碍五经大义。至东汉末郑玄校注五经时,出现今文五行与古文五行两种不同五行说的争议,而这种争议则直接关乎中医五行理论中五行与五脏的配属关系。今古文经学的论争因西汉发现古文经书而起,至东汉古文经学地位日益强势,今文经学与古文经学之间的分歧已由今古文字之别而转为学术派系之争。今文经学倡导发挥五经的微言大义,务求通经致用,古文经学强调对经书的名物训诂,讲求实事求是——这已是截然不同的两种治学途径。不论《内经》中篇章的内容是何时代的思想,其书编辑成文在刘向校书时的西汉已无异议。那么,在这个今古文字经历隶变的巨大文字变革时期,《内经》中是否也有诸如五经中的今古文字之别,这些今古文字对于解读《内经》有何文献价值；在今文经学占据博士官主导地位的西汉,今古文经学之间的分歧与隔阂会在《内经》中得到怎样的体现；今文经学与古文经学两种不同治学态度对后世医家传承注疏《内经》又有着怎样的影响?本文将就这三个论题进行详尽的阐述。因今文经学与古文经学之争先由文字上的差异而起,本文首先亦从今古文字入手,参照经书中今古文字的不同,将《内经》各版本中的今古文一一对应拣出,并进行分析。可以看出《内经》与经书一样经历过秦书同文与汉代文字隶变的过程；其次,从五经中今文经与古文经五行配属五藏不同的内容着眼,参合《内经》五行配属中有别于主流今文五行配属的条文,证明现行的《内经》五行理论受到当时今文五行配属的影响,而间残有非今文五行配属的痕迹；最后,从今古文两种不同的治学态度出发,审视杨上善《太素》注与王冰《素问》注语之不同,阐述今古文经学不仅在客观文字及理论上影响着《内经》学术思想,今文经与古文经两种不同的学术风格同样也渗透进后世医家对于《内经》的注疏、发微之中,从而在潜移默化中,影响着中医学术渐至形成有类于今文经学与古文经学的两种不同治学态度。通过上述研究,笔者认为：今古文经学因汉代文字的今古不同而起,所倡行的五行学说又有今古文之别,这些经学上的争端均影响着《内经》的文字与五行理论。许慎曾言：“文字者,经义之本,王政之始,前人所以垂后,后人所以识古。”辨析五经中的今古文字,可达到“垂后”及“识古”的目的。如金德建先生所论：“我们想推究汉代经传的沿革变迁,只能从汉代的异文当中加以考察。我们分析这些异文,便能够明瞭汉时某种经传流传今文本或者古文本；明瞭汉时经传今古文本子前后的一番沿革变迁。”这同样也可以拿来诠释《内经》中今古文字的意义。一来考镜源流,辨别版本时代；二则可更好的训释古文经意,勿使解经时偏离了古文本义。根据分析比较经学中今古文五行理论与现存《内经》文献中的五行理论,本文对于《内经》中的五行理论持以下观点：一、《内经》中的主流五行理论与两汉经学博士所主导的五行理论一样,应当是受今文五行影响而成型；二、无论中医是否还在运用五行理论指导临床,缕清中医学五行理论与今古文经学五行理论的渊源关系,有益于我们从文化根本上理解《内经》中的五行理论；三、无论今文经学的五行理论与《内经》中的五行理论出现的时间孰先孰后,我们至今尚无法证明五行理论与中医学的结合并非单纯的医疗实践结果；四、先秦两汉时期的五行理论纷繁复杂,最后归拢于今文五行配属。但在今古文经学争论剧烈的两汉时期,有着两种甚至是多种五行配属关系存在,这些有别于今文五行的五行配属不仅存在于某些经学典籍中,也同样存在于《内经》之中；五、以孙诒让等后世学者所论而言,将五经相关五行配属五味文句参照于《内经》中的相关篇章,五经文字的五行配属当有“譌互”现象,至少由此看出今古文经学家所论的儒家经典与《内经》理论存在相互影响的可能。经学由文字的今古之别最终转而为今文经学与古文经学经说之分,传统学术遂而形成两种截然不同的治学态度。今文经学讲求发挥孔子的微言大义,当学以致用,如清代今学家廖平所言：“今学书皆为王制”,可用以治世,方显经学真旨；古文经学家倡导名物训诂,对于经书当实事求是,如古文经学家所言：“六经皆史”,客观求证,所有所据,才能明晰经文本真。这两种风格迥异的学风自汉时有今古文经学之争起至今,一直牵系着经学传承的脉络,造就出一代又一代各守其法的今文经学家与古文经学家。将王冰与杨上善注疏《内经》的风格与今古文经学两种治学之风相类比,笔者发现,经学中的今古文之争亦潜移默化的影响着中医学《内经》学术的传承,即杨氏注文多类古文经学家重实事求是,而王氏注文多类今文经学家重义理发挥。再比较清代古文经学家与医家对《内经》的注疏：临床医家注重发挥《内经》医理,并以其理施用于临证治验,而古文经学家则更长于文字、音韵、训诂之学,力求训示经文真意,还其原貌,以达“考镜源流”之旨。可知《内经》的学术传承亦是赓续着名物训诂与通经致用这两种不同经学学术风格而走到今天的,这是本文论述今古文经学之争影响《内经》学术传承的主要意义所在。今文经学与古文经学虽相互对峙,势不两立,却共同将传统经学学术传承至今。对于《内经》的学术传承而言,文献研究好比以“考镜源流”为主旨的古文经学,临床治疗犹如以“通经致用”为指归的今文经学,二者互为补充,相得益彰,共同担负着中医《内经》学术传承的重任。更多还原

【Abstract】 Confucianism, Buddhism and Daoism are usually considered to be the cornerstones of Chinese culture. However, Buddhism is not indigenous to China, and Daoism was classified as "non-Confucian philosophy" in the Guan Xiu Bibliograpy, therefore the most important components of traditional Chinese thought are not Confucian at all. Confucianism therefore refers to Scholastic Confucianism which is based upon the "five classics":the Book of Poetry, the Book of History, the Book of Changes, the Book of Rites, the Spring and Autumn Annals, and the Book of Music (which was lost quite early in history; however fragments are preserved within the Book of Rites). Beginning in Qin times, there was a trend towards "grasping both the New text and Old Text traditions" in the official government academies. From the Han onwards, however, the exams for holding official positions were essentially monopolized by Scholastic Confucians. In later times, scholars expanded beyond the "five classics" to include the "nine classics" and the "thirteen classics" and even the "four books" of the philosophers as the basis for traditional scholarship. These were all basically expansions and extractions from Confucian and Mencian Thought. Therefore, one can say that throughout the two thousand years of Chinese history, both the continuance and development of Scholastic Confucianism have been inextricably linked to the development of Chinese thought. The trajectory of Confucianism, then, begins with Confucius’s editing of the Six Classics, it then underwent extensive changes during the reforms in the Qin and Han periods due to specific historical conditions, and ultimately culminated in the development of two distinct schools of thought-the Old Text and the New Text schools of interpretation.The debate between these two schools has been like a horse that cannot be put back in the gates; once started it has never ceased, extending from Han times all the way up to the present day. Therefore, if one wants to grasp the essence of Chinese traditional scholarship, one must first comprehend the nature of this debate. As Zhang taiyan once said, "Studying "National [Chinese] Scholarship" without distinguishing between schools of interpretation is like looking out over the ocean-one feels overwhelmed with its vastness." Chinese medical classics, especially the Yellow Emperor’s Classic, were also deeply influenced by the writing reforms of the Qin-Han period. On the theoretical level, yin-yang and the five phases were given emphasis due to the work of the Han dynasty Scholastic Confucians. Scholastic Confucianism dominated traditional Chinese scholarship for two thousand years, and therefore also had a major impact on the study and interpretation of the medical classics. This paper will attempt to answer the question of exactly how the Old and New text schools of interpretation influenced the tradition of interpretation of the Yellow Emperor’s Classic.Confucius’s editing of the Six Classics was the first large-scale literary editing project in Chinese history. However the relationship between Confucius the classics was a subject of debate between the Old and New text schools with each supporting a different version. The New Text school claimed that Confucius personally wrote the Six Classics. The Old Text school, on the other hand, claimed that they were passed down from antiquity and were merely edited by Confucius. Regardless who was right in that regard, the five classics were indisputably altered by deliberate changes by dynastic courts, book burning, and Chinese script reforms. From the Western Han onward, it was no longer possible to recover the original versions from the Spring and Autumn periods. Therefore, after the beginning of the Western Han and the introduction of the influence of the Huang-Lao cultivation culture, the Five Classics were passed down through oral tradition and one needed to find a master who would agree to teach and explain them to you as their disciple.Beginning from the later Han Wu period, the discovery of manuscripts of the classics from the pre-Qin period radically altered the way in which adherents of the New text school studied and passed down the classics. The script used in these pre-Qin manuscripts differed markedly from the classics used by the New Text school and were therefore challenging for Han Confucians to read and understand, leading to a change in emphasis from interpretation to literal memorization. The distinctions between the scope of scholarship pursued by the New and Old Text schools became clear from this time forward.Against this cultural and historical background, the Liu xiang father-son team embarked upon their grand project to collate and annotate the classics so that they could be passed down more accurately and authentically. In terms of Chinese medical classics, the Yellow Emperor’s Classic was first given the title by which it is known today at the peak of the debate between the Old and New text schools during the two Han periods. Many medical texts, including the Inner Classic, along with the five classics and numerous other scholarly works, were all edited and preserved through the work of the father-son team of Liu xiang and Liu xin. Although they were father and son, the two had some differences of opinion. Liu xiang advocated New Text ideas and methods, while Liu xin leaned more towards the Old Text school. The Biography of Liu xiang in the Han Book states that "Liu xin debated with his father on numerous occasions using the Spring, Autumn and Zuo Annals to point out contradictions in his father’s thinking, however, Liu xiang steadfastly held to the views of the Gu Liang." One can see that the gulf between the two schools was already quite wide at that time.Regardless of the dating of the content of the thought of the Yellow Emperor’s Classic, there is no disputing that it was edited into the book we know today during the Han period. Therefore, since the New Text school dominated the Western Han, and the differences between the New Text and Old schools gradually led to the production of very different scholarship, we can ask the question, "How did these conditions influence the Inner Classic?" Specifically, this dissertation will examine in detail exactly how the tradition of interpretation of the Inner Classic, which is deeply embedded in traditional Chinese culture, was shaped by the scholarship of these two schools.Since the Old-New text debate began with differences in script, this dissertation will also take this as a starting point and, using the Five Classics as a reference, will analyze examples of Old and New Text influence in the various editions of the Inner Classic. It will be apparent that the editions of the Inner Classic, like the Five Classics, also underwent the unification of script under the Qin and the reforms under the Han.In addition, using differences in correspondences between the five phases and the five zang-organs in the New and Old text schools as a foundation, as well as passages from the inner Classic that do not match the correspondences in mainstream New Text works, I will show that the theory of the five phases in the currently extant version of the Inner Classic was influenced by New Text thought during the Han. A comparison of traces of the influence of other schools of thought that are still preserved in the Inner Classic will further bring this to light.Finally, I will examine the differences in attitude towards scholarship between the two schools by using the annotations in Yang shangshan’s Tai Su and Wang bing’s Su Wen as examples. This will show that the Old and New Text schools not only influenced the scholarship of the Inner Classic in terms of written script and theory, but they also deeply influenced the tradition of annotation and understanding of later generations of scholars.更多还原