摘要
在上个世纪80年代,作者对《左传》筮例的"某卦之某卦"用法提出一个新的解释,与传统说法以"之"当作动词,理解为"往","某卦之某卦"指筮法得出来的变卦不同,提出了"之"是一般所属虚词,意思相当于白话文的"的","某卦之某卦"只是指定第一个卦的某一爻。在2013年,《周易研究》发表了山东大学博士研究生高原女士的文章,对新的筮法说法提出激烈抗议。本文针对高文所提出意见作回答,指出所提意见都围绕古人怎样理解与解释《周易》筮法所遇到的结果,而并不说明筮法本身怎样产出结果。本文又根据新出清华竹简《筮法》提出古代筮法不仅只有一种做法而已。中国先秦时代应该有几种不同的筮法,这些筮法之间不一定完全一致,甚至有的可能彼此矛盾。
In the 1980s, the author proposed a new explanation of the phrase “Hexagram 1 之 Hexagram 2” seen in cases of milfoil divination recorded in the Zuo zhuan. Against the traditional interpretation that the word 之 in this phrase should he understood as a verb, meaning “to go,” and that the phrase indicates that the first hexagram “changes into” the second hexa- gram, the author proposed that .之 functions as the typical possessive particle, similar to modern Chinese 的, and that the phrase indicates one line of the first hexagram （the line by which the hexagram picture of the second hexagram differs）. In 2013, Ms. Gao Yuan of Shandong University published an article in Studies of Zhouyi that criticized this interpretation. The present article responds to Ms. Gao’s criticisms, and points out that they all revolve around how the ancients understood the results of Zhou yi divination, and not how these results were produced in the first place. This article also uses the newly pub- lished Qinghua bamboo-strip Shi fa （Method of Divination） to argue that in antiquity there was not simply one way of per- forming milfoil divination. Rather, there must have been many different methods, not all of them similar, and some possibly even contradicting each other.
出处
《周易研究》
CSSCI
2015年第3期29-35,共7页
Studies of Zhouyi
关键词
周易
筮法
左传
清华竹简
Classic of Changes
divination method
Zuo zhuan
Qinghua bamboo strips
