本文對於船山反對朱子學的因病施藥之說做一說明。朱子學注解《論語》時，常有因材施教之說，船山反對所有孔子之言都是就個別者而有針對性，船山認為孔子所言常就大方向，而不是只針對一兩人的缺失；若只把孔子之言，視之為對治某人某病之藥，而不是普遍地為所有人講，則將狹隘了《論語》；他認為朱子這種講法，也許是從佛學的大醫王的因病施藥而來，故船山不取。於文中，吾人順船山之言，取了三段他對《論語》的見解，特別以〈為政篇〉為例，程朱及其後學幾乎都以因材施教視之，然船山反對這種講法，並提出理由。最後吾人斷定朱子與船山的詮釋誰是誰非。並且對於朱子與船山這種經典的詮釋建構之方法，置於當今文化之脈絡中，能給出什麼影響，並能激出什麼火花，做一解說。

This paper introduces Chuanshan's opposition to Zhuzi's interpretation of Confucius' teaching method by analogy with applying medicine based on the disease. When Zhuzi annotated the Analects, he frequently emphasized that Confucius taught his students in accordance with their aptitude. However, Chuanshan was opposed the contention that all the sayings of Confucius were referred to specific individuals. He believed that Confucius often discussed a general direction rather than only focusing on the flaws of one or two people. If one only regards Confucius' words as medicine to treat someone's disease rather than general discourse to everyone, it would narrow the meaning of the Analects. Chuanshan believed that Zhuzi's interpretation may have borrowed from the Great Medicine King in Buddhism on applying medicine based on the disease; thus he did not accept it. This paper discusses Chuanshan's interpretations on three passages in the Analects, in particular the passages in the chapter of ＂Section on Governance＂ as an example. Cheng Yi, Zhuzi and all their followers viewed these passages as Confucius' teaching students with accordance to their aptitude. Chuanshan was opposed to this view and provided his rationale. Finally, this paper determines whether Zhuzi and Chuanshan were right or wrong in their interpretations, and explains how could this construction of interpretations of classics has effects on and create sparks in the contemporary cultural context.