〈性自命出〉提到「道者，群物之道。凡道，心術為主。道四術，唯人道為可道也。其三術者，道之而已。」由於郭店楚墓竹簡之整理者並無解說，因而學者對於「道」之「四術」或「三術」各有解讀。自從濮茅左解讀〈性情論〉，將「道」之「四術」或「三術」的關鍵點放在「禮」與「樂」的安頓上，接著又有學者分別就「禮」與「樂」的或分或合進行多方解讀，雖然各有所見，但也各有所限。另外又有學者跳脫於「禮」與「樂」之外，嘗試從其他之觀點以討論「道」的「四術」或「三術」問題，不但眾說紛紜，而且各有所限。不過，「禮」與「樂」之問題，實與「道」之內涵密切相關，故而本文先客觀呈現學者們的說法，並提出其侷限所在，再從「禮樂」的分合以及形上特性，以討論〈性自命出〉中有關「道」之「四術」或「三術」的問題，嘗試解決其糾葛。

“Xingzimingchu” states: “Tao is the principle of everything in the world. To comprehend the true meanings of Tao, a disciplined mind is a prerequisite. Among the four aspects of Tao, only humanity is stable and therefore expressible; the other three aspects are contiguous and always changing.” Because the regulators of Guo dian Chu bamboo slips do not provide a satisfactory explanation of the above point, scholars are often confused about the connotation and extension of Tao’s four ways or three ways. Since Pu Mao-Zuo organized “Xingqinglun”(性情論) and explained that the key to solving the above confusion is to define the meaning of “rite” and “music”, and scholars can then resolve these difficult questions by analysis from different dimensions. Although some studies offer valuable insights, there are still important limits to be overcome. The relationship between “rite”, “music” and “Tao” is fundamental to comprehension of the “Tao”. Therefore this article focuses on the analysis and synthesis of “rite” and “music” to tease out the source of the confusion as whether Tao in “Xingzimingchu” consists of four ways or three ways. The study will also discuss and compare the research methods employed by scholars in the field.

性自命出;道;四術;三術;禮樂;研究方法

“Xingzimingchu”;Tao;four ways;three ways;rite;music;research method