A Hidden Issue in Confucius's Theory of Mind-Body Relations: Three Interpretive Paradigms of the Analects Ⅳ: 15 and ⅩⅤ: 3
|Authors:||黃俊傑||Keywords:||孔子;心學;論語;道;詮釋學;Confucius;Learning of mind-heart;Analects;Tao;Hermeneutics||Issue Date:||Jul-2004||Publisher:||法鼓人文社會學院||Journal:||法鼓人文學報||Journal Issue:||1||Journal Pages:||19-37||Abstract:||本文主旨在於分析孔子（551～479B.C）心學思想中所潛藏的「心」與「道」之關係之解釋及其發展，並扣緊朱子（1130～1200）對孔子「吾道一以貫之」解釋之典範，及其所引起的後儒之批判進行討論。全文共分五節，除第一節引言之外，第二節說明朱子詮釋典範融舊鑄新之內涵，並簡別朱子立論之方法論基礎在於其傾向個體論之「理氣相即」之立場。本文第三節及第四節，分別討論朱子詮釋典範所激起的兩種主要的批判。第一種是王陽明（1472～1529）為代表的「整體論的批判」，第二種是清儒所發動的「內在論的批判」。本文第五節綜合全文論點提出結論，並指出各種詮釋典範之張力，正是儒家思想史發展之驅動力。 在「吾道一以貫之」的詮釋史上，南宋大儒朱子實居分水嶺之地位。朱子以「通」釋「貫」，並主張必先掌握事物的「分殊之理」才能「一以貫之」，掌握「一本之理」。朱子的詮釋，對朱子以前為融舊鑄新，對朱子以後儒者則為開宗之範，在《論語》詮釋史實居樞紐之地位。 十三世紀以後，追求景從朱子對孔子之「道」的詮釋典範者固然甚多，但批判攻擊者亦不在少，約可分為兩大陣營：一是來自王陽明及王門諸子的「整體論的批判」，主張必先立乎其大，才能釋其小；亦即主張「一本」優先於「萬殊」，並較「萬殊」重要。二是來自清儒的「內在論」的批判，主張抽象性內在於具體性之中，並受具體性所決定；亦即主張「一貫之道」只能內在於並見之於「忠」「恕」等具體行為之中。
In confucius’s (551~479B.C.) theory of the mind-body relations, there exists a hidden question, namely, how can human mind apprehend the Dao? Although Confucius himself did not analyze this issue explicitly, it had been fully discussed in the history of interpretations of the Analects in East Asia. This paper discusses three interpretive paradigms in the hermeneutic traditions of the Analects IV: 15 and XV: 3 as set forth by the great Sung Neo-Confucianist Chu Hsi (1130~1200), Ming Confucianist Wang Yang-ming (1472~1529) and Ch’ing Dynasty scholars. The core of the Analects IV: 15 and XV: 3 lies in Confucius’s statement that “there is one single thread that binds [his] way together.” What did Confucius mean by “a single thread?” How is “binding” possible? What is the “way” in Confucius’s mind? These questions have attracted tremendous attention from interpreters of the Analects. Among them, Chu His stands out as a pivotal interpreter. Chu His represents Confucius’s “貫” as “通” (penetrating) and argues that this “one single thread” can be grasped only by “plumbing into” diverse “principles” (理) in a myriad of entities in the universe. Chu His is inclined to what may be called “methodological individualism.” Since the thirteenth century, attacks against Chu Hsi’s interpretation of Confucius have come from two major fronts. The “holistic criticism,” represented by Wang Yang-ming and his followers, insists that the “one single thread” is prior to and therefore more important than the diverse principles in all things. The second attack against Chu Hsi is launched by the Ch’ing Dynasty scholars of “evidential studies.” Ku Yen-wu (1913~1682), Zuan Y?an (1764~1849) and Chiao Hs?n (1763~1820) take Confucius’s “貫” as “to work” (事) or “to practice” (行). They argue that Confucius’s “one single thread” can be found only in the concrete behaviors of “loyalty” and “reciprocity.” They launched vehement attack against the metaphysical tendency in Ch’eng-Chu Neo-Confucianism. They subscribed to a position that the abstract “universal” can only be found in the concrete “particulars.” In other words, they agreed that the “universal” is immanent in the “particulars.” In this sense, they are inclined to a “immanentalist” position. In conclusion, some kinds of “creative tensions” can be observed in the changing interpretive paradigms pertaining to Confucius’s punch line: “there is one single thread binding [his] way together.” This type of tensions is the inner dynamism that makes Confucianism alive in history.
|Appears in Collections:||學術出版組|
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.