《漢書．五行志》是西漢災異思想的總結，雖然其結構以《尚書．洪範》中的五行、五事、皇極為綱領，所述事例，實以《春秋》所記二百四十二年與西漢二百一十一年中之災異為主，其中《春秋》災異幾乎都是引述董仲舒與劉向歆父子之說。扭文從他們對《春秋》災異的衍釋、古今歷史類比之詮釋與運用，以與《春秋》三傳相關內容，作一比較分析，發現董仲舒與劉向歆父子對《春秋》災異的詮釋，與三傳截然異趣的傾向，相當明確。他們以天人感應的角度推衍《春秋》災異，利用「天戒」與「經典」的權威，在當時政治實務中，曾經產生一定的作用。 但是，尋繹董仲舒等人對天人感應的闡述，實多災異現象的類比及主觀推論而甚少涉及知天方法的說明。由於缺乏知天的方法論，無法有系統的建立知天的知識，累積知天經驗，進而真正掌握災異譴告的真意，對一般人而言，天心終是遙不可及，難以體會的；而他們對同一災異解釋的歧義，影響所及，則可能因人言言殊令人無所適從，也可能導致各是其所是而互相攻訐。

“Han-shu Wu-xing-zhi” is the summary of thought on calamity of Western Han Dynasty, whose structure is based on the “Five-element”, “Five-incident” and “Divine Sovereignty” of “Shang-shu Hon-fan”. But the stated examples from it rely mainly on the calamity written in 242 years of “Chunqiu Studies” and 211 years of Western Han Dynasty, and the calamity of “Chunqiu Studies” all quotes from the sayings of Dong Zhong-shu, Liu Xiang and Liu Xin. This article discusses the sayings evolved from the calamity in “Chunqiu Studies”, the interpretation and application of history at all times among them, and compares and analyzes with the contents related to the three Commentaries of “Chunqiu Studies”. We find out that the interpretation of Dong Zhong-shu, Liu Xiang and Liu Xin between the three Commentaries of “Chunqiu Studies” are entirely different. They interpreted the calamity in “Chunqiu Studies” with the angle of the interaction between mankind and universe, and used the authority of “Heaven’s warning” and “Scriptures” which borought influence on political affair at that time. However, this kind of intention of yielding to the subjective purpose that they wanted to use ancient history to satirize the present had brought negative influence on the explanation of the calamity in “Chunqiu Studies” unavoidably. What they had interpreted was ambiguous and different, and it makes people to be at a loss as to what to do and easy to be used by certain people, which caused a result that the “earthly desire” flows by beans of the “heavenly heart”.