本文討論三教會通中具有重要意義的「應病予藥」說，分別以王夫之和方 以智為準，呈現兩種詮釋觀點、模式的差異。方氏說散見於著作中關於「藥 病」說法;船山則以其{論語〉詮釋中對「應病予藥」說之反駁為主。兩說各 有其成立之依據，也各自E將其觀點推至窮盡周延。 應病予藥或藥病說，在其譬喻與引用有幾個轉折本出於佛教之贊佛、菩 薩，而後來更為儒者取用以稱譽儒學教法，更進而用以指孔子之教法，再進而 以此會通三教，其為喻似可普適廣用。但由自山、密之二人均能別出新解，非僅 止於援下東說為典要之學舌而已。方以智用力於藥病說各1戰寞式之建立，使其成 為全面性的教法。如方以智由「統而用之」原則，立藥病說之諸義;並歸結於 集大成，以成就真正的「應病予藥」，乃包括著應機的隨宜性，與涵蓋眾機的 全面性，深化「應病予藥」說的意涵，並補充一般見解之不足，試圖救治「藥 →病」實踐過程已見的種種偏蔽。然而船山則在辨破「病」的真實生之後，更 進而據此義著力於批判，不斷披露「藥病喻」預設論點之謬誤，尤以二元對立 觀點為首，申明其顯非孔子所持。實際上，不論就日常生活言，取做法之圓融 言，以及概念自身之關係言，均不存在「非此即彼」的簡陋關係。船山以孔子 實際教法為例，說明即使弟子明，思具有偏病，其引導方式仍是徹上徹下的教法， 非僅適於一時一地一人之權法，並不是專對住人之偏病立教，確然別有特殊心 行與教法。 二人在肯否的意向上F戲白不同，但仍可考察其共通處，大抵有四點可說 一、均能居於後設觀點，或思考「藥病」說成立必備之體系，或解構「應病予 藥」說之底據;二、基於後設觀點重審此說之際，文同時說明「人的負面性」 並非如「病J 不可視為真實的現象。簡言之，即同時做破病的真實性。若病 具有真實性或負面真實，貝IJ其針對性的蹦百乃必然之舉，而藥/病間亦絕無易 位可能。三、皆將儒輯命「中」之特殊意義，作為解決/說明藥病說的最終教 法，雖則雙方之應用略有差異，仍不害其慧識之相近。四、皆歸宗孔子。再將 此議題，歸宿至聖人教法之所是，即最高教法型態的思索。

This article discusses the theory of “ particular cures to particular ills" a very significant component in the synthesis of the three teachings , and highlights the anti-theses between the two perspectives and models represented by Wang Fu-Zhi and Fang I-Zhi to interpret this theory Fang's view is reflected by his opinions on “ cure and ill" in his works; Wang's antithesis to the theory of “ particular cures to particular ills" can primarily be found in his interpretation of the Analects There are some turning points in the simile and use of the theory of、 “ cure and ill" or “ particular cures to particular ills": this theory originated in Buddhism; it was later adopted by Confucianists , and was finally applied to the synthesis of the three teachings. Both Wang and Fang not only cite it as a scholarly source , but also come up with new interpretations. Fang focuses on establishing various models to explain the theory of cure and ill , making it a general teaching. Fang, for example , creates the principle of “ unifying before utilizing" , and concludes that both f1exibility and generality are present in the theory. Fang's insight deepens and supple ments previous understanding on this theory. Wang, on the other hand , after collapsing the reality of “ ill" , points out the errors of the hypothesis of cure and ill , especially and primarily the binary. Wang's reason is that the binary is not the viewpoint held by Confucius , and that the cure-ill relationship should and could not be simplified as an either-or relationship Wang takes Confucius' practical teachings as an example , explaining that although individual disciples may have bias , Confucil時， way to guide his students still remains the same , i.e. , his guidance is essentially based on the general teachings Though there are diHerences between Fang's and Wang's perspectives, they nevertheless share four points in common: 1. Both the two take a meta-perspective to ponder the system necessary for the theory of 咒ure and ill" or to deconstruct the basis of the theory of “ particular cures to particular ills". 2. While reviewing the theory with meta-perspecti 間， they also collapse the reality of ills , and thus argue that it is possible for cure and ill to exchange their position. 3. They both adhere to the characteristic principle of “ moderation" in Confucian discourse and apply it as the ultimate teaching to amend and explain the theory , though there are little diHerences in their approaches. 4. They both not only trace back to Confucil時， teachings , but also see the origin of this topic in a common ground among all the sages' teachings , i.e. , the meditation on the model of ultimate teachings.