中國哲學詮釋傳統的一個突出特點就是以比較完整的經典注釋的方式建立哲學家自己的思想體系。從現代學術的角度看來，這種形式的哲學創造活動中必然包含著兩個方向的緊張和衝突。因為注釋工作要求的是歷史的、文本的、客觀的定向，盡可能避免主觀的見解，而哲學創造活動是個人的、當下的、主體的、創造的定向。這二者是潛藏在詮釋者個人內心的兩種定向。而詮釋者在這兩個方向中的選擇、游移和決定就表現在最後完成的注釋中。不同的注釋作品往往表現為在兩種取向之間的某個特定的位置。根據素樸性的解讀原則，即盡可能扣緊經典原文和注釋原文的直接比較的方法，我們可以發現不同的詮釋作品的方向性，如王弼的《老子注》恰好可以代表以文本和歷史為主的詮釋取向的外化，簡稱為順向的詮釋；而郭象的《莊子注》恰好可以代表以個人和當下為主的詮釋取向的外化，簡稱為逆向的詮釋。研究經典詮釋中的方向性問題有利於深入研究中國哲學詮釋傳統的內在機制，以及思考中國哲學在現代社會的發展問題。

This article explores how philosophical development proceeded through the practice of textual commentary, one of the major features of the Chinese philosophical tradition. This view of the history of interpretation in Chinese thought has hitherto not been addressed, though many articles on Chinese hermeneutics have been published. Most important Chinese philosophers constructed their new theoretical systems in the course of working out their annotations of early texts rather than by directly writing their own books and essays. Two key examples, Wang Bi and Guo Xiang, significantly set out and developed theories that would anchor Neo-Taoism (Wei-Jin Xuanxue or the mystery school) in their reinterpretations of the Laozi and Zhuangzi, respectively. Furthermore, Zhu Xi elaborated his impressive philosophical system in his commentary on the Four Books. The Chinese commentary practice is different from a general reinterpretation of a text because, as commentators, philosophers are supposed to explain the “original meaning” of the text sentence by sentence and piece by piece, not to read into it their own divergent ideas. But there are two conflicting orientations in this hermeneutical activity: one bent towards ancient texts, the other towards contemporary needs and innovation. Both these oppositional orientations are always embodied in complete commentaries, which represent a certain mixed position between the historical-textual orientation and the current-creative orientation. Thus the conflict between these orientations can be detected retrospectively within these works. This article will demonstrate how these two orientations play out through two examples, namely, Wang Bi’s commentary on the Laozi and Guo Xiang’s commentary on the Zhuangzi. The article argues that Wang’s work exemplifies an orientation basically following the direction of the original text, while Guo’s work exemplifies one that is essentially concerned with contemporary issues and personal innovation.