Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://rportal.lib.ntnu.edu.tw:80/handle/77345300/24957
Title: 老子非陰謀捭闔之術
Other Titles: Laotze Shall Not Be Considered as Trickery and Craftiness--The Explanation of Chapter 36, Tao Te Ching from the Viewpoint of Scholars of the Ming Dynasty
Authors: 江淑君
Issue Date: Mar-2010
Publisher: 國文學系
Department of Chinese, NTNU
Abstract: 明代老學研究者好發議論,對於前人老學觀點進行多面向的批評與反省,蓋為其時老學重要特徵之一。曾被提出來討論的議題相當多,其中「老子是否為陰謀捭闔之術」,一向是其思想議題中最具爭論性的話題。之所以形成此說,乃主要源自於對《老子》三十六章不同義理向度的解釋。因為《老子》言簡意賅以及「正言若反」的語言特質,形成表面文字的模糊性,導致在詮釋空間極大之下,充滿著彈性十足的發揮餘地,無可避免的也就產生了一些誤解,而三十六章所引發的誤會也確實最大、最深,因而得到明代老學研究者最多的關注與著墨。在詮註的義理趨向上,此章主要有兩條不同的詮解進路:其一是以韓非〈喻老〉以及宋儒二程、朱熹的觀點為代表,他們的思路係將三十六章詮解為政治人事上的陰謀權詐之術;其二則是以明代注《老》解《老》者的觀點為主,他們以為此章並無任何機詭巧詐之意,大多站在批駁先儒之說的基礎點上,用力澄清以狙詐之學看待《老子》的謬誤。其中論說的切入點有二:一是強調「固」字字詞疏釋的重要性,企圖釐清「固」與「故」、「姑」二字的混淆,說明先儒以為老子雜權術、耍心機,歸根究底就在於「以『固』作『故』」、「認『固』作『姑』」的缺失。其間申述以「故」、「姑」二字訓義三十六章,很難與權詐之說脫勾,而「固」字釋作「已然之辭」,代表一種物勢發展的自然之理,才是最恰當的正解;二是透過義理內蘊的深入解析,重新申述三十六章首在闡明天道運行「物盛則衰」之理,其次則以此天理為據,極言「柔弱勝剛強」的道理,末則戒人不可以剛強自逞,而歸諸於柔弱的自處之道。明代學者的這些說法,很值得作一個全面性的研析與整理,如此對於先秦原創時期老子思想的衡定以及明代老子學具體圖象的建構,皆能有實質性的助益。文末,則擬就老子「正言若反」的思想特徵以及整體思想的精神方向,進一步評議將老子視為陰謀捭闔之術,乃是一種嚴重的歪曲與誤解。
Scholars of the Ming Dynasty had criticized and examined Laotze in various aspects. One of the prevalent arguments focused on Chapter 36 of Tao Te Ching. It was because the concise and paradoxical language of Laotze that created ambiguity. The obscure meaning would inevitably lead to distinct explanation. Consequently, most of the famed Confucians of the Song Dynasty, such as the Cheng brothers, Chu Hsi (朱熹) and Su Che(蘇轍), had considered Laotze as trickery and craftiness according to their (mis) interpretation and (mis) understanding of Chapter 36. There were two ways to review Chapter 36. One was based on Analog to Laotze authored by Han Fei (韓非) and the viewpoint of the Song Confucians. The other was from the viewpoint of the Ming scholars. The latter controverted the former's contention that Laotze should be considered as trickery and craftiness. The Ming Scholars addressed this issue in two aspects. First, they clarified the definition of "固" (literally means "originally") and differentiated it from "故" (purposely) and "姑" (tentatively). The key word "originally" was in accord with Laotze philosophy that highlighted the causality by nature. The Song Confucians referred "固" to "故" or "姑" that was associated with tricky and crafty scheme. For this reason, the Ming scholars attributed the Song Confucians' misunderstanding of Chapter 36 to the misinterpretation of "固". Second, they reaffirmed the true meaning connoted in Chapter 36 that all things would develop in the opposite direction as soon as they reached extremity. Therefore, the perception of nature implies that soft and weak overcome hard and strong. The Ming scholars' efforts to redress the fallacy of the Song Confucians on Laotze would be helpful to clear up the incipient concept of Laotze philosophy and its evolution into Huang-Lao Taoism in the later period.
URI: http://rportal.lib.ntnu.edu.tw//handle/77345300/24957
Other Identifiers: A863AB8E-FE83-55AC-1B6C-AFB79A04B834
Appears in Collections:中國學術年刊

Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.