唐人思想與命論的向度，見諸唐傳奇文本中，不僅作品題材廣泛，尤其側重於文人對於功名富貴的追求及其幻滅，抑或寄託於豪俠、或者神異題材的意匠經營，儼然成為唐人關注「命運」思想與意識型態的總彙。本文乃聚焦於〈古鏡記〉系列文本，視為唐人命論的神話原型，蘊含著「鏡鑑」命運歸宿的特質，作為閱覽者鑑照與觀照的向度。再者通過古鏡與銅鏡文化的底蘊，亦可視為唐人命論思想的原型結構；乃以宇宙氣化的觀念，一反道德覺察的進路，進而統攝自然命定、陰騭因果以及思想啟悟的層面。亦即通過「以鏡原命」的意向，試圖闡釋此一糾葛於科舉、儒釋道三教，以及天命數勢觀的思維方式。此一論述，乃有別於過去儒家論命與性「性能則命通」的觀點，一轉而為「命通性能」的意識型態，實為此一階段特殊的「命論」義理架局。證諸〈古鏡記〉以及多元的銅鏡文化脈絡，唐人傳奇至為顯著的義理，即是統攝於「物類相感」的文化模式，關涉了巫、釋、道等中介角色的敘事功能；是以「物類感應」的模式，乃作為可與天人與神鬼交感的文化模式，互為補充。誠如青銅古鏡之照物，儼然自成一有機與「交感」的世界。進而得以重建吾人與萬物、神異繫聯與對話的模式；在中國哲學普遍關懷「天人關係」的義理框架之外，確立另一個「物類感應」的表述型態。

The dimensions of the thought and the doctrines of destiny in the Tang Dynasty are found in the texts of the legends of the Tang Dynasty, which not only contain a wide range of subjects but also particularly focus on the litterateurs’’ pursuit and disillusionment of success and fortune. These legends revolve around either knight-errantry or gods and spirits, becoming actually the corpus of the thoughts and ideologies about “destiny” in the Tang Dynasty. The core of this article is the texts of the “Record of an Ancient Mirror” series as the mythological archetypes of the doctrines on destiny in the Tang Dynasty, mirroring destiny and working as the readers’ approaches. Moreover, by the implications of the ancient-mirror and bronze-mirror culture, this series could also be seen as the archetypical structures of the doctrines on destiny in the Tang Dynasty, that is, these texts hold the idea of “the universe consisting of Qi” against the approach of moral insight and furthermore guide the aspects of natural destiny, causality and enlightenment. Namely, through the approach of “tracing destiny to its origin through mirror,” they are intended to interpret a way of thinking that is tangled in the imperial examination system, Confucianism, Buddhism and Taoism, along with other views about destiny. Distinct from the Confucian view on destiny and nature, “empowerment of nature leading to the understanding of destiny,” these texts move to the ideology of “understanding of destiny leading to the empowerment of nature,” and such a change is indeed the argumentative framework of the particular doctrines of destiny during this stage. In view of “Record of an Ancient Mirror” and the pluralistic context of bronze-mirror culture, the overtly obvious argumentation of the legends of the Tang Dynasty is its cultural mode guided by “categorical correspondence,” involving the narrative functions of such mediators as Witch Cult, Buddhism and Taoism. Therefore, the mode of “categorical correspondence” should complement each other with the cultural mode of heaven-man and god-spirit correspondence, forming indeed an organic and corresponding world just as the things reflected in the ancient bronze mirror do. In this manner, the mode of contact and dialogue between men, all things gods and spirits get to be re-built; outside the argumentative framework of “the heaven-man relationship” of Chinese philosophy, another expressive mode of categorical correspondence is established. The approach of tracing destiny through mirror is obviously meant to discover or reveal individuals’ destinies, just like the enlightenment brought by “opening the case to see the mirror,” which will be instrumental to exploring the breakthrough of philosophy in the Tang Dynasty and the Confucian thought with respect to heaven-man correspondence and categorical correspondence, as reinterpreting all of them in a creative way.