德川中晚期日本氣論的兩種面向：安藤昌益的身體論與山田方谷的養氣論

Abstract

本文主要關懷「自然」與「氣論」關係下的身體論，特別扣緊日本氣論的自然觀思維，選擇德川中期思維，選擇德川中期思想獨特的安藤益(1730?-1762)之「自然真營道」的互性一氣論，與德川末期陽明學者山田方谷91805-1877)的「從一氣自然的養氣論，分別探索他們「直耕」的身體論與「直養」的養氣工夫論之思維特色。 本文首先分析二者的「直耕」與「直養」之「直」字思想，在日語的文化脈絡下實有「自然」意養的特色，其次考察二者氣論身體觀之思維特色。本文指出安藤昌益的直耕身體論，是一種「作為客體九化的身體論」，認為身體活動本身就是一切存在的意義，故不求之於內面的精神，是一種無神論概念的自然唯物身體觀。另外也指出山田方谷「直養」的養氣工夫論，是一種「作為主體農化的身體論」，這種身體觀既不是唯心身體觀更不是唯物身體觀，而是一種有神體概念意義的自然身體觀。雖然二者強調的身體功夫論截然不同，但他們基於「直」字的「自然」思維卻有異曲同工之妙。

The main concern of this essay is about the body theories associated with “nature” and “energy.” On the strength of naturalistic thought of Japanese Qi, in particular, the essay focuses on the “energy of mutuality” derived from the “way of the operation of the self-acting truth,” theorized by the unique thinker of the mid Tokugawa period, Ando Shoeki (1703?-1762), and “energy-cultivation” that evolved from the “nature of everlasting energy,” articulated by the late Tokugawa Youmeigaku scholar, Yamada Hokoku (1805-1877), exploring characters of thought of “righteousness-cultivating” body theory and “righteousness-nurturing” Kung Fu theory, respectively. First, the essay points out that the implication of the term “righteousness” in both cases means “nature” in the cultural context of the Japanese language. Second, it has an insight into the characters of thought expressed in different body views of both energy theories, illustrating that Ando Shoeki’s “righteousness-cultivating” body theory, as a body theory of objectified energy, held that body movement itself was the meaning of being. So this was a naturalistic, materialistic body view, resulted from the concept of atheism, to which inner spirit was unnecessary. In addition, the essay also makes a point that Yamada Hokoku’s righteousness-nurturing Kung Fu theory, as a body theory of objectified energy, held that body movement itself was the meaning of being. So this was a naturalistic, materialistic body view, resulted from the concept of atheism, to which inner spirit was unnecessary. In addition, the essay also makes a point that Yamada Hokoku’s righteousness-nurturing Kung Fu theory, as a body theory of subjectified energy, was neither idealistic body view nor materialistic body view. Instead, it was a naturalistic body view with the meaning of divine concept. Albeit the highlights of both body views were absolutely different, based on the meaning of the term “nature,” they turned to be identical in some regard.