蘇軾說「天人不相干」，卻批評「以天人爲不相知」是「小人無忌憚者」；他說「祈禳何足數」，卻「精誠禱必赴」，「探靈籤以決餘生」──應如何解釋這些看似矛盾的記述？本文從〈潮州韓文公廟碑〉出發，論證篇中參天地、天人之辨、浩然之氣、氣化、祈禱有應、文道論等命題；以之連結蘇軾及宋人相關材料，指出：（1）、蘇軾說「天人不相干」僅針對形象化神祇和方士降神法；他認為天地鬼神不能與人直接交通，故以「致氣召物」爲其方式。就善惡報應而言，他以爲「天人之應，捷於影響」。（2）、蘇軾主張「氣化萬物」，在此基礎上提出「精氣爲鬼」、「志氣爲神」。「志氣」即「浩然之氣」，是萬物中的「妙於物者」，「在天爲星辰，在地爲河嶽，幽則爲鬼神」，聖賢志氣為神；這些觀念在其〈告文宣王祝文〉、《蘇氏易傳》及奏疏、尺牘等公私文章反覆出現，可視為他一以貫之的天人觀。這個觀點和張載「天之不測謂神」、二程「只氣便是神」，朱熹「鬼神者造化之迹」都有不同。（3）、蘇軾多次化用韓愈詩文鬼神典故，指出自己「命宮」和韓愈「身宮」相同，其遭遇均是「人厄非天窮」。〈文公廟碑〉既論韓愈，也是蘇軾自況之辭；他認為自己的「文」和「道」和韓愈一樣：「生無惡，死必不墜。」

Su Shi once claimed that there exists no relation between Heaven and humans; however, he considered those who did not believe in any connections between Heaven and humans audacious. Su doubted the significance of praying; while praying regularly with frequent engagement in fortune-telling activities. How to interpret these ‘seemingly’ contradictory remarks? This paper, starting from investigating ‘the Stone Tablet of Han Wengong’s Temple in Chaozou’, testifies theses such as, the communication and relations between Heaven and human, the flood-like Qi, the transformation of Qi, the response from praying, the relations of Wen and Dao, linking the findings with texts related to Su Shi as well as the Song people. The paper points out: 1. Su Shi’s advocate of there being no relations between Heaven and human only applies to figurative god and the summons of god by Daoist priest. He reckoned that ghost and god in Heaven and earth cannot communicate with human directly; therefore Qi was used as a medium for communication. Regarding the reward and retribution for good and evil deeds, Su perceived that the interaction between Heaven and human is rapid. 2. Su held that everything came from the transformation of Qi. Based on this assumption, he proposed that Jing Qi（精氣） as ghost, while Zhi Qi（志氣） referred to the flood-like Qi as well as gods. The flood-like Qi is more amazing than all creatures for it transforms as stars in Heaven, as rivers and mountains in earth, and as gods after sages died. These concepts, being Su’s views about Heaven and human all along, have been repeatedly found in ‘A prayer for Confucian’, ‘Su’s Elucidation on I’ and both public and private writings such as memorials to the throne as well as letters. This concept differed from Zhang Zai’s way of interpreting god as the unpredictable part of Heaven, Cheng Yi’s and Cheng Hao’s advocate of all Qi was god and Zhu Xi’s stance of god and ghost being the creatures of the nature. 3. Su frequently cited allusions about ghost and god in Han Yu’s works, pointing out that he had the same Ming Gong（命宮）as Han’s Shen Gong（身宮）and what they have been through were the consequences of human, but not Heaven. ‘The Stone Tablet of Han Wengong’s Temple in Chaozou’ was the depict of both Han Yu and Su himself. Su perceived Han’s and his own Wen and Dao were the same, holding the stance that they did not commit wrong doings when alive and they would not fall after death.

蘇軾; 氣論; 文道觀; 天人之辨; 潮州韓文公廟碑

Su Shi; Theory of Qi; Conception of Wen and Dao; Heaven and Human; the Stone Tablet of Han Wengong’s Temple in Chaozou