學術界對於黃宗羲解釋孟子學說在思想史上之定位問題，看法大致有二：其一，將黃宗羲歸入王陽明心學傳統之中；另一，將黃宗羲視為「自然主義」者或「唯物論」者。陳榮灼先生嘗分別就此二種定位方式對黃宗羲所言「氣」之意涵作批判性檢討，指出此二種方式對於黃宗羲之「氣」概念的理解與解釋，俱有未盡全顯黃宗羲之孟子圖像與其孟學解釋之特質的侷限與缺失，並且明白確認黃宗羲在孟學解釋上忠實追隨其師劉宗周之立場，並未溢出其師學說。然而，黃宗羲在《孟子師說．題辭》中自承其心中對於是否確切把握劉宗周學說宗旨所在，終究有「或不能無所出入」之憂慮；據此，亦提醒我們在探討黃宗羲理解《孟子》文本所進行之文本解釋，以及釐清黃宗羲把握劉宗周學說宗旨所闡述之內容的同時，應當也須自覺黃宗羲關於劉宗周學說之詮釋或者果有異於其師見解之可能性。本文主要就《孟子師說．浩然章》關於心、性概念之詮釋進行探討，以說明黃宗羲以心、氣一元說作為理解《孟子》文本意義之詮釋視域，以及其孟學詮釋的意義方向明確溢出《孟子》作者原有之意圖。同時，藉由《孟子師說．浩然章》之詮釋學經驗之表現，思考《孟子師說．浩然章》在孟學詮釋傳統中之意義。在嘗試探討上述問題時，本文參考德國哲學家Hans-Georg Gadamer在其哲學詮釋學理論中，針對時間距離及其對於理解之重要性，所強調「理解的歷史性」之見解，藉此提供一個思考向度。

The academic society largely have two opinions about the position of Huang Zong-xi’s interpretation of Menzi in the history of thought: first, Huang belongs to the tradition of Wang Yang-ming’s doctrine of mind, and second, they see Huang as a naturalist or materialist. Chan Wing-cheuk tries to make a critical review about the immanence of Huang’s idea of “qi” based on these two opinions, pointing out that these two opinions do not show completely the limitations and mistakes of Huang’s interpretations of Menzi and that Huang’s interpretations of Menzi do not surpass the position of his master, Liu Zong-zhou. However, Huang admitted in “Foreword,” Mengzi Shi Shuo, that he was worried whether he might have deviated from Liu’s doctrine, which reminds us of one thing: we should be cautious about possibility of Huang’s interpretations about Liu’s doctrine deviated from his master’s insights when we inquire Huang’s textual interpretations of Menzi and clarify how Huang grasped Liu’s interpretations. Examining the interpretations about the concepts of mind and nature in “Hao-ran Chapter,” Menzi Shi Shuo, this article is intended to explain how Huang understood the textual meanings of Mengzi based on mind and the monism of qi as well as how his interpretations of Mengzi surpassed the author’s intentions. In the meantime, we will contemplate the significance of “Hao-ran Chapter,” Menzi Shi Shuo in the hermeneutic tradition of the doctrine of Mengzi. In attempt to explore this question, we turn to German philosopher, Hans-Georg Gadamer, for his insights about the “historicity of understanding,” which concerns the impact of “temporal distance” to understanding.