廖平的兼治三传与《三传折中》

廖平《春秋》学的特点,是兼治三传。所谓“三《传》镌后,别为《折中》”。即在兼治三传的基础上,力求三传会通。认为三传同源,所说经义大同小异,而历来治《春秋》者过分夸大三传的区别而忽视三传在经义上的大同,实际上完全蒙蔽了三传的真意。由此,廖平指出:《春秋》三传或文异而义同,或各明一义而皆可通,或须会观三传而《春秋》之义始明。因此,三传同出一源,同为解经之作,大纲宗旨并无不同,甚至最终否定了经学今古的壁垒。廖平会通三传,首先是论证《左传》与《公羊》、《谷梁》二传一样,都是解经之作,二是以三传经义的大同来弥合三传文字的小异。尽管他会通三传的结论仍有待于深入论证,但其兼治三传的学术思想則是值得肯定的。

Liao Ping's Compromise on Studies of Sanzhuan and His Sanzhuan Zhezhong

In Liao Ping's opinion, the pre - scholars exaggerated the difference of the three commentaries for Chunqiu but overlooked their affinities which hoodwinked their basic meanings. He indicated that the three commentaries for Chunqiu be either with different words but having the same meaning, with different meaning but being related or synthesized their standpoints to understand Chunqiu's principles. So, he asserted that the three commentaries had the same origin without different principle. Moreover, he even denied the difference between the modem literature and the ancient literature. Liao Ping showed unified comprehension of the three commentaries from the following two aspects: Firstly, Zuozhuan had been considered as one explanation of Chunqiu as the same as Gongyang and Guliang; secondly, by the similarity meanings of the principles to compensate the minor differences of words and phrases.