Retired chief justice Warren E. Burger urged the Senate to confirm Supreme Court nominee Robert H. Bork yesterday but voiced opinions on two constitutional issues that appeared almost diametrically opposed to Bork's stated views.

Under questioning by Judiciary Committee Chairman Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.), Burger said he considered the Ninth Amendment to the Bill of Rights "very, very important."

Bork, in testimony last week, compared the amendment to an "inkblot" on the Constitution and said it should not be used "unless you know something of what it means." In earlier writings and statements he has suggested the amendment is of little or no importance.

"I don't think the court can make up what might be behind the inkblot if you can't read it," Bork told the committee last week.

The amendment says, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." It has been cited in some Supreme Court decisions to support an expansive view of individual rights guaranteed by the Constitution, an approach to constitutional interpretation that Bork has repeatedly denounced.

Biden also read from a court decision written by Burger saying that there are "important rights not enumerated" in the Constitution, among them the rights of association, privacy and travel.

"I would be astonished if Judge Bork did not subscribe to it {the opinion}," Burger said. "I have no thought he would disagree with these First Amendment decisions.

"There has never been any question that {the Constitution} does have limits, but within those limits it does have considerable flexibility . . .That was not a difficult case."

Bork was not questioned about this Burger decision and he backed away from his previous stand upholding only explicitly stated constitutional rights. He also testified that while the right to travel was an "unenumerated right" he could find no "general right of privacy" in the Constitution.

"If the Supreme Court makes up a new right for which there is no historical evidence, I think it has exceeded its authority under the Constitution," Bork said.

The polite, low-key exchange between Biden and Burger dealt with more than arcane issues of constitutional law and theory. Bork's opponents are trying to build a case that he has an exceptionally narrow view of the Constitution's implicit guarantees that would inevitably lead him to support restrictive court decisions and possibly overturn landmark rulings he has severely criticized.

"That's what this debate is all about," Biden told Burger after reading the opinion on the importance of "unenumerated rights."

Burger said he had never seen a judicial confirmation process with "more hype or disinformation on a nominee" than the fight over Bork's nomination.

"It astonished me to think he is an extremist any more than I am an extremist," Burger said.

"If Judge Bork isn't in the mainstream, neither am I and neither have I been," he added. "I simply don't understand allegations that he is outside the mainstream."

Burger also dismissed charges that President Reagan is counting on Bork to help impose the conservative social agenda that Reagan supports but has been unable to push through Congress on issues such as abortion and prayer in school. He said Supreme Court appointees frequently disappoint their presidential sponsors and that Bork could not "turn back the clock," as his critics say he intends, "even if he wanted to."

Bork, a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals here, was also supported by Lloyd N. Cutler, a Washington lawyer who was White House counsel to President Jimmy Carter.

"I appraise Judge Bork as a conservative jurist who is closer to the center than to the extreme right," Cutler said. He said that even if Bork's confirmation led to "some shift in the court's balance and direction," that was not a reason to reject the nomination.

"Those who prefer the status quo ought not to convert this preference into a rigid orthodoxy that bars the confirmation of any nominee who has at times been critical of a prevailing majority view," Cutler said.

Bork was opposed by a panel of college professors, including John Hope Franklin, professor of history at Duke University, who said, "One searches {Bork's} record in vain to find a civil rights advance he has supported from its inception."

"Has the nominee ever supported the claims of blacks or of women at the time they were litigated, or is his support always retrospective?" asked William E. Leuchtenburg, professor of history at the University of North Carolina.

He added that Bork's description of some of his most controversial writings as only speculations by a law school professor before he was named to the Court of Appeals "invites incredulity."