在西方對中國哲學的研究中，非反射性地使用理論分析（這種分析肇因於特定［西方］的歷史過程、以及相關的典型社會組織結構），到頭來可能是一種危險而誤導性的機制。也就是說，概念和類別不能直接從一個社會文化情境轉移到另一個社會文化情境。因此，就當前的跨文化論述而言，在重新發現及應用特定傳統中國方法論的取向、概念及類別的號召下，有關中國典籍的哲學面向、以及這些面向在中國思想的脈絡中扮演何種角色的辯論，已經發展得越來越成功。意識到復興中國哲學方法論的重要性，本文旨在釐清外在超越性和內在超越性之間的差異，以及笛卡爾二元論模式與對立範疇之間的區隔。據此，針對研究古典中國文本的分析方法應用和詮釋方法應用，筆者做了一個簡短的評價，並提供一個創新的詮釋模式，這種模式是源於境界融合的概念，以這個基礎來取代備受爭議的西方詮釋學方法。

In Western research on Chinese philosophy, the non -reflected use of a theoretical analysis, which is a result of specific (Western) historical processes and the related, typical organizational structure of societies, may prove to be a dangerous and misleading mechanism. Concepts and categories can namely not simply be transferred from one socio-cultural context into another. Thus, in current intercultural discourses , the debate on the philosophical dimensions of Chinese texts and their role in the context of Chinese tho ught has been developed increasingly successfully under the aegis of rediscovering and applying specific traditional Chinese methodological approaches, concepts and categories. Based on the awareness of the importance ofsuch revival ofclassical Chinese philosophical methodologies, the present paper aims to clarify the difference between external (外在超越性) and internal (or immanent) transcendence (內在超越性) and the difference between Cartesian dualistic models and binary categories (对立范畴). On this basis, the author provides a short evaluation of the application of analytical vs. hermeneutic methods in investigating classical Chinese texts and proposes an innovative mode of hermeneutics, which is based on the fusion of jingjies (境界融合), aiming to replace the controversial Western hermeneutical method, rooted in the concept of the fusion of horizons.