本文指在討論佛教哲學（或者廣欺說的中國硩學）中，「心」的哲學之現代詮釋問題。由於現代對「心」的哲學詮釋，多半將之理解為主體性，可是在佛教哲學中，「心」必須同時扮演經典詮釋學側面與主體之內省側面間相連結的功能，而我們若將這一功能交給主體性，這是否合適？就本文的觀點而言，將心理解為任何意義的主體性，其實並不合適。本文以為我們應循現象學的進路，將心引導到某種「說話主體」的概念上，並在區別於語法層次的語義學層次，來談上述的連結功能。而若是如此的話，我們便必須要將構成意義世界之憑藉，從主體性及其法則，轉換到象徵語言上。 根據上述理解，本文以天臺的詮釋為例，說明了天臺依本於法華開宗，其主要義理憑藉即在「即」之一字上，而此一即字並不適合用主體性的進路來理解，而是必須將之放到「煩惱即菩提」的語脈上，將之當成一個運徵語言來處理。這也就是說，法華經中的種種「譬喻」，其實正是「即」這個象徵語言的表現方式，我們也只有恢復此一語言的象徵性，才能真正進入天臺的教學中，重新把握法華經的意義世界。

The purpose of this text is to discuss the issue of the modern philosophical hermeneutics of ‘the ‘mind’ in Buddhism philosophy (i.e. the China philosophy in generally).Today, most of people comprehend it as the subjectivity in regard to the hermeneutics of philosophy. In fact, ‘Mind’ must bridge the function between the like of Canon and the reflection of the Subjectivity in Buddhism philosophy. Is it really appropriate to let the Subjectivity bridge the function? In term of text, it is not appropriate to interpret the ‘mind’ into any meaning of the Subjectivity. In our opinion, we believe it would be much better to follow the way of the phenomenology, to lead the ’mind’ upon the conception of the ‘speech-subject’, and to link the differentiation between the semiotics and semantics. If those can be don, we will have to turn the rules and principles of the subjectivity to the language of metaphor. According to the above-mentioned comprehension, the text uses it as an example the interpretation of Tian-Tai school of Buddhism as it is based on the essence of Fa-Hua scripture. The core meaning is upon ‘Ji’, however, it is not appropriate to comprehend the ‘Ji’ with the progressive way of