􃛧􀀃 􀀃 􅰐􀀃 􂂼􂦚􂍂􅀀􄤓􅀢􂐇􅳽􆑚􃡈􃆞􂮩􂅴􃽷􁇬􄠞􄤓􃇱􃆞􂛗􄚍􁧨􄏅􂞟􂅉􄵚􂂚􁇷􃽷􂂜 􆱐􅀢􁧨􄠞􂂜􆱐􃽷􁇸􄤓􂘮􂓖􁧨􂦷􂺜􂓜􂅉􅱲􆑚􃓏􃱚􃒟􄤓􅱲􆑚􃸆􂚁􂂼􁧨􂘊􂙗􃦘􃦃 􂮩􃽷􅱲􅊔􂙜􂺜􂓜􂅉􄤓􄠞􅱲􁇭􂂏􆍷􁇷􅀢􂐇􁇸􂦷􅀢􆋝􃈛􂂥􃖐􅄛􄤓􃽷􅱲􃈛􁧨􂺜􅀢 􂐇􃦻􆄺􂅴􂙙􅄋􃈏􄤓􅱲􆑚􅊔􁧨􃦘􅛦􂄳􆖾􄦇􅨜􄤓􃈀􆪎􁧨􄴅􄵮􂝹􂊚􃽷􅱲􅊔􄤓􅱲􆑚 􆆒􅎌􂍂􆋣􁇷􂇫􅊔􂘮􃎞􁇸􁧻􅊛􁇷􂇫􅊔􂘮􃎞􁇸􅒖􁇷􂇫􂝐􂘮􃎞􁇸􂃮􃦘􂂜􂚛􄤓􃎞􅈸􁧨 􅕴􂏸􅊔􂚛􃖖􅱲􆑚􂸱􅱏􃊶􄤓􂒳􄄥􁧨􅎌􂚵􃈭􃠖􃦻􂂼􂺚􂒉􁧨􂅜􂋋􃈦􅲝􅵥􁇭􅱲􆑚􅊔 􆎌􅑹􅴜􅎌􃈦􅀢􂐇􃦻􅈸􁧨􅕴􄎰􃽤􄭉􂸩􁇷􂇫􅊔􂘮􃎞􁇸􃒥􁇷􂇫􂝐􂘮􃎞􁇸􁧨􂓖􄧍􂮩 􄤓􃽷􅱲􂙹􃦘􄦇􂺜􃎞􅈸􂂙􁇷􆆒􂰌􄤓􁇸􅱲􆑚􁧨􅊛􄎰􄿤􂺜􄤓􄭉􅱲􁇭􄏅􅊛􂺜􃡋􃠖􃦻 􄤓􅶇􂮩􅱲􆑚􁧨􂘊􂙗􂛗􄚍􂒉􅀢􂐇􃓏􂐆􃦘􄤓􆠚􃟍􃊶􁧨􃷳􆠚􃟍􃊶􆋸􆁂􂅴􃆅􂻤􅊛􃒟 􂂏􅀢􂐇􅱲􆑚􄤓􃸆􂚁􁇭􃦻􃠖􂅴􁇵􅊐􂷟􁇶􂂘􂗐􂏼􄵯􄍉􂈚􁧨􂺜􃈛􂅉􄒼􅷿􅊐􂷟􃢾􂚵 􄍉􃶙􅶏􃽤􅫢􅊔􂋩􂂏􅳽􆑚􂸇􄤓􂙜􄦐􁧨􅡘􄟀􆊨􂊚􄚕􅱲􃁽􄟿􄤓􂈚􂷟􁧨􂈕􃘱􅲝􆡫􃡋 􅀢􂐇􅳽􆑚􄤓􂟞􆫛􁇭

Abstract The Chinese tradition classical commentaries were mostly established in the foundation of forefathers’ commentaries. But commentators frequently denied the forefathers’ annotations and sought the reason of on the remade annotations. On the other hand, they perhaps criticize predecessors’ annotations and make other annotations of what they think right. However, after later generations keep making annotations of classics, many annotations interfere with each other. But which one can exactly express “the author’s original meaning”? “The author’s original meaning” is a criterion to explain objectivity. Whether people can draw it from the text or not? All commentators think themselves can get the original meanings of classics. However, we are not sure “the author’s original meaning.” For this reason, there is just relatively better one among the multitudinous annotations. In other words, there is no absolutely correct annotation. So, how do we regard annotations and divergent annotations? This article takes the 36th chapter inLao Zi as an example to discuss this question.