马 琳 中国人民大学
Ma, Lin, Renmin University of China
原文Original
圣人不远游？——海德格尔与《道德经》之关系新论
海德格尔与《道德经》的关系问题一直是学界十分关注的一个焦点。本文从一个新的角度对这个问题进行探讨。
文章开始对海德格尔在“语言的本质”中有关“道”的两段讨论以及在“同一性的原则”中对“道”的提及作审慎的解读，表明我们不能从其中得出“道”是海德格尔思想的指引词这一论点。
在“语言的本质”一文中，海德格尔认为，道路可能是一个原初之词，而老子诗性运思的指引词“道”从本真意义上说指称道路，并且他对道路被认为是连接两个地点的路径因而不适于用来翻译道之事表示遗憾。同时，海德格尔表示，“道”可以是那所有开辟着道路之道路——此处的虚拟语气的词语“可以是”（könnte）显示出他并没有把这两个词语完全等同。海德格尔思想的指引词是他自创的术语“道路”，而不是中国的“道”。他所瞩目的是道路，而其对道的讨论则服从于对道路的阐说。
在《巴门尼德讲演录》（Parmenides）中，海德格尔关于希腊词语道路的讨论与“语言的本质”中的相关段落极其相似。他讲到，道路与两点之间的间隔或距离无关，它不是一种延伸，道路与揭蔽具有本质性联系，希腊文中源自“道路”（hodos）的“方法”（methodos）一词作为探究本身是一种逗留于已然存在的道路之上，它并非具有特定程序的探究过程。
此外，文章指出，尽管在描述、铺陈“道路”的措词和修辞方式方面，海德格尔可能从《道德经》的词句中获得灵感和启发，甚至借助于对“道”的解说来诠释“道路”，但是，从他的思路整体来看，“道”和“道路”具有明确的区分。根据他1957年的演讲“同一性的原则”对“道”的提及，海德格尔没有讨论本成事件与“道”是否具有直接的联系，他绝对没有毫无保留地赋予“道”与道路或本成事件同等的地位，对中国的道的引入，在很大程度上是为了更好地敷陈道路之义。
在文章的第二部分，笔者联系海德格尔哲学思想的基本前提与导向、国际学界《道德经》研究的最新成果以及海德格尔本人所参考的四个德文译本，对迄今为止所发现的海德格尔七次在其著述中征引《道德经》五个篇章的文献资料加以情景化的深入剖析。
其中，在文章的第6节，作者重点探讨了海德格尔对《道德经》第11章中有無部分的引用。在考察了古汉语文本的断句问题与中国哲学中的有無观念后，作者指明，海德格尔的这一引用意在强调有关存在的模态的词语“之间”，即存在显现于“之间”、显现于有与無的相互引发之中。
文章进而指出，阐释的可能性不仅包括老子对海德格尔的影响，逆向来看，海德格尔的哲学也直接影响到了对老子的阐释与重新建构。作者建议对这种阐释持开放包容的态度，并认识到阐释的有限性与绝对真理之不可能。
综上所述，作者的结论是：海德格尔“实际上”引用了《道德经》只是问题的一方面，另一方面则是这种“引用”的“实质性”意义，而后者更为重要。海德格尔的征引具有重要的局限性，他始终坚持西方哲学传统的中心地位，对亚洲经典的关注也局限于为其以存在为核心的思想寻求支持，获得恰切的表述，以使其顺当地嵌入预先设计好的运思路向中。老子认为，在获得知识的过程中，人们毋需关切无关的事物。从而海德格尔对待《道德经》的态度恰好可概括为：“圣人不远游”。
译文Translation
Does a Saint not Wander Far (Shengren bu yuan you)? – A New Theory on Heidegger and the Daodejing
Academic circles have always focused on the special relationship of Heidegger and the Daodejing. This paper tries to explore the question from a new perspective.
The article starts with analyzing and interpreting Heidegger’s two treatises on the “dao” in his The Essence of Language and his comments on the “dao” in his The Principle of Unity. These passages show that we cannot conclude that the “dao” is a guiding principle in Heidegger’s thought.
In The Essence of Language, Heidegger thinks that perhaps “way” is an archaic word, and Laozi’s poetic ideal of the “dao” as a guiding concept implies really a road, and he expresses regret over the fact that a road is supposed to connect two places and thus cannot be translated as “dao”. At the same time, Heidegger states that the “dao” can be the road of anybody who opens up a new way – the subjunctive (could) which he uses in this passage shows that he does not fully equate these two words. The guiding concept of Heidegger’s thought is the “way” (Weg) which he created by himself, and this is not the Chinese “dao”. He is centered on the “way”, and his discussion of the “dao” is based on his explanation of the “way”.
In his Parmenides, Heidegger’s discussion of the Greek word “way” is very similar to the respective passages in The Essence of Language. He says that the “way” has nothing to do with the distance or separation that separates two localities, the “way” is not an extension but the “way” has essential connections to “discovering”, and the Greek root of the word “way” is “hodos”, which has to do with “methodos” and with an exploration as a kind of dwelling on a pre-existing way, it is not pointing to the process of exploration within a special procedure.
Besides this, the article points out that even in the dimension of description and rhetorical devices of opening up the “way”, Heidegger was perhaps inspired by the wording of the Daodejing, and he even borrowed from the interpretations of the “dao” to explain his “way”, but seen from his central train of thought, the “dao” and the “way” are clearly separated. According to his speech “The Principle of Unity” held in 1957, where he mentioned the “dao”, Heidegger did not discuss whether the event of becoming has direct connections to the “dao”, and he certainly did not give an equal position to the “dao”, the “way” and the event of becoming unreservedly. The introduction of the Chinese “dao” was to a high degree only to explain the meaning of the “way” more thoroughly.
In the second part of this paper, the author combines the basic precondition and orientation of Heidegger’s philosophical thought, the most recent results of international studies on the Daodejing, and the four German translations of the Daodejing which Heidegger consulted. According to recent studies, Heidegger has quoted seven times from five passages of the Daodejing, and this paper tries a thorough analysis of these passages and their contexts.
In the sixth part of this article the author explores Heidegger’s quotations of the word “wu” (nothingness) from the 11th chapter of the Daodejing. After exploring the questions of dividing the sentences of the Chinese text and the concepts of “being and nothingness” (you, wu) within Chinese philosophy, the author shows that Heidegger’s motive of quoting from the Daodejing in this passage was to emphasize the “between” as a mode of existence, namely that the being manifests itself in the “between”, it manifests itself in the mutual eliciting of being and non-being.
The article states in a further step that the possibility of interpretation does not only imply that Heidegger was influenced by Laozi, but on the contrary also that Heidegger’s philosophy directly influenced the interpretation and re-construction of Laozi’s thought. The author suggests that we should harbour an open and tolerant attitude toward this kind of interpretation, at the same time the author also accepts the limitations of any interpretation and the impossibility of absolute truth.
As a conclusion of the above the author points out that Heidegger’s “actual” quotations from the Daodejing are only one side of the problem. The other side is the “substantial” meaning of these “quotations”, and this is even more important. Heidegger’s quotations have important limitations, he always emphasized the central position of the western philosophical tradition, and he was only interested in the classical books from Asian because he wanted to find some support for his central train of thought; he looked for a suitable expression which he could fit into his well-designed way of thinking. Laozi thought that in the process of acquiring knowledge the people do not need to pay attention to irrelevant things. Maybe we can appropriately sum up Heidegger’s attitude towards the Daodejing with the words “a saint does not wander far” (shengren bu yuan you).