宋代老子學受到當代學術背景的帶動，對於「心性問題」等課題有諸多著墨，此一特點使宋代老子學在中國老學史中，成為魏晉、唐代以外最重要的一個朝代；另一方面，在《老子》諸多注家中，因「御注派」的注家們的統治者身份，與其他注家相比之下較為特殊，故其注書動機引起筆者的好奇與注意。職是之故，本論文以宋徽宗所撰寫之《御解道德真經》作為研究對象，擬就探析其如何接受《老子》文本、如何與《老子》思想互動而提出詮解，而此詮解之方式與內容，是否因注者的「統治者」身份，對《老子》思想有所創發，抑或僅是沿襲舊說。諸此種種為本論文研究動機與目的。 由於《御解道德真經》的原本已經失傳，故初步工作乃就《道藏》本《宋徽宗御解道德真經》、章安《宋徽宗道德真經解義》、江澂《道德真經疏義》與彭耜《道德真經集注》四書所保留的徽宗《御注》內容進行互勘點校，再就點校結果（如附錄）重複研讀、歸納分析之後，而逐步形成本論文之章節架構。本論文共分五章，首尾二章分為「緒論」與「結論」，主體部分區分為兩層次：一者針對徽宗《御注》注《老》動機及其體例與詮釋方式等外緣問題，作成檢索資料，而寫成第二章〈徽宗《御注》外緣問題之考察〉；一者則為徽宗《御注》內在義理架構的解析，從微觀角度探究徽宗《御注》對《老子》「道」、「德」之概念的理解，以及其從老子思想所推衍而出的「聖人形象」、「治身論」、「治國論」等議題，分別撰寫為第三章及第四章，期能接續前人所奠立之基礎，為徽宗《御注》勾勒出思想架構。 Studies of Lao-tzu’s Philosophy in Song Dynasty emphasize “the inward cultivation” which makes Song become one of the most significant dynasties studying Lao-tzu’s Philosophy as well as Wei-jin and Tang. Among those interpreters on Lao-tzu’s philosophy, the imperial interpreters are more special because of their status as an emperor. Therefore I am particularly interested in the imperial interpreters’ motives to interpret Tao Te Ching. This essay aims at Emperor Hui-tsung‘s Interpretation Of Tao Te Ching and discusses if Hui-tsung’s methods and content correspond to the original ideas of Lao-tzu or the interpreter himself innovates something else because of his own status. However, the complete version of Emperor Song Hui-tsung‘s interpretation has been failed to hand down from the past generations. Therefore, my first step to work is to collect and compare four books which used to quote Hui-tsung‘s interpretation to rehabilitate his fully ideas. Through repeatedly reading up, generalizing and analyzing the resources, this essay has been carried out. The content of this essay is as following—First, I investigate Emperor Song Hui-tsung‘s motives, the format of writing and the interpreting methods used. Second, I analyze the framework of the interpretation and Hui-tsung‘s comprehension of the concept “Tao” and ”Te” in Lao-tzu. And next, I discuss how Hui-tsung replies to “the figure of a saint”, “life theory” and “political theory” developed from the philosophy of Lao-tzu. Hopefully by following the predecessors’ research accomplishments, this essay integrates and outlines Hui-tsung’s opinions about Tao Te Ching.
