象山學與孟子學關係深厚，全祖望與當代學者唐君毅、牟宗三等人皆肯定兩人學問在一脈相承，亦具有創造性轉化的屬性；依此屬性吾人可進行兩項思考，第一是在表達的起點上，如果先秦文本如象山所言有許多「無頭柄」之語；即本文自身有其表達的不完備時，象山的解讀方法與態度為何。同時，其解讀態度，例如所謂六經皆我註腳，到底是屬於「創造性轉化」，亦或是屬於「過度詮釋」，又，此兩者的評斷標準為何，亦屬本文反思問題。其反思目標主要有二：第一，從《周易》、《論》、《孟》至象山文本皆指出「書不盡言」的意義，儒家在理解此客觀事實後如何面對，其選擇面對的方法之價值何在。第二，如果表達的起點有其先天的不完備性時，後世歷代儒者詮釋先秦文本時，其工作成果的獨立性，以及歷史的客觀文本在後世的詮釋脈絡中扮演的意義為何。即本文將反思象山是否能如實詮釋孟子，如果我們肯定其作法，肯定其合理的基礎為何；又在此合理性中，其具體的創造性成果為何。反之，如果象山的六經皆我註腳被視為過度詮釋，那麼又是在何種觀點下形成此一看法。

Lu Xiang-shan’s close relationship with Mengzi studies, as Quan Zu-wang and contemporary scholars, such as Tang Jun-yi and Mo Zong-shan, affirm the consistency of their scholarships. Accordingly, we would discuss the following two issues: the first one is how Lu reads and views the unclear expressions he finds in the texts of the Pre-Qin Period; and the second one is whether his interpretation of those texts, such as “the Six Classics interpreting me,” is creative transformation or over-interpretation. Furthermore, the judgement of creative transformation or over-interpretation is also part of our reflection. Our reflection proceeds in two parts. First, how do Confucians comprehend the fact of “writing unable to exhaust words” as pointed out by Zhou Yi, Analects, Mengzi and Lu’s text, how they the cope with it, and what is the value of their way of coping with such a fact? Second, how do later Confucians interpret the texts of the Pre-Qin Period, how independently do they interpret them and what role do the historical texts play in the context of later Confucians’ interpretations? In other words, this article would reflect on how truthfully Lu interprets Mengzi, what the rationality of his interpretation is if we approve his interpretation, and what the creative result of such a rational interpretation is. On the other hand, from what perspective is Lu’s saying, “the Six Classics interpreting me,” considered an over-interpretation if it is seen that way?