牟宗三與唐君毅對蕺山學詮釋系統之再議

Abstract

本論文是以劉蕺山心性論之當代詮釋做為探討主題，其中以當代新儒家之兩位巨擘－－牟宗三與唐君毅作為研究之對象。筆者先從蕺山學興起之機緣作為研究起點，並由此推演出蕺山心性論所具「離心無性」及「體用一原」之特色。由此探究牟宗三與唐君毅掌握此特色下，各自闡發對蕺山本體論之詮釋。牟先生以「心性分設」、「以心著性」作為其詮釋系統的核心，性體是自然且定然之理，但此定理不能自顯，須由心的主動形著而將之朗現。牟先生據此將蕺山與胡五峰劃歸為同一系，建立起宋明理學三系說。唐君毅著重在蕺山對情、氣的闡發，蕺山將情視為性的真實顯露，而氣亦是性理的具體展現。故此唐先生將情、氣高看，並且由情氣之周流說明性理之所在。兩位學者的詮釋架構相異，而兩者最大的差異在於對性的體認，以及對氣的安頓。雖然二位先生的詮釋途徑不同，但筆者仍試圖將兩家思想加以會通。其中，筆者發現唐先生由心之氣論性，由氣的於穆不已處，可以補充說明牟先生於「體用一原」中所建立的「心即理」此外，唐先生根據情、氣所建立的理解途徑，可以解決牟先生對「意根」之闡釋所出現的扞格。雖然二位先生對蕺山心性論的理解相異已成定論，但筆者於此中尋得兩者可互為補足的可能，以期為蕺山學之當代詮釋另闢新的視野。This thesis discusses contemporary interpretations of the theory of moral cultivation by Ji-Shan Liu, using the two giants in contemporary Confucian studies – Zong-San Mou and Chun-I Tang – as the research subjects. The author begins with the circumstances behind the rise of the School of Ji-Shan Liu and from there to deduce the characteristics of Ji-Shan Liu’s theory of mind and nature: “human nature is dependent on the mind” and “the consistency of the noumenon and phenomena.” The author discusses how, using these characteristics, Mou and Tang developed their respective interpretations of Ji-shan Liu’s ontology. Mou put “the separate existence of the mind and human nature” and “the revealing of human nature with the mind” at the core of his interpretation. The substance of human nature is a natural and certain theorem. However, this theorem is not self-evident and requires the mind’s active revelation in order to be manifest. Base on this, Mou classified Ji-shan Liu and Hong Hu under the same system when establishing his classification of three systems of Neo-Confucianism. Tong, on the other hand, focused on Liu’s elucidation of human “qing” (emotion/sentiment/mood) and “qi” (according to Zhang Zai). Ji-Shan Liu interpreted qing as the true revelation of the human nature and qi as the concrete manifestation of human mind and qing. Base on this Tang attached more importance to qing and qi and used “the flow of qing and qi” to explain the existence of human nature and mind. The interpretation frameworks by Mou and Tang are different and the two’s biggest difference is in their understanding of the human nature and their interpretation of qi. Although the two differed in the interpretations, the author attempted to form coherent understanding of the two. The author founded that Tang’s interpretations of human nature based on qi as a manifestation of human mind and of qi as profound and incessant can be used to supplement Mou’s “mind is rational ideal” based on his idea of “the consistency of the noumenon and phenomena.” The path formed by Tang’s interpretation of qing and qi can also be used to solve the contradiction in Mou’s interpretation of “Yigen” (a translation of the Sanskrit “manendriya,” which refers to the consciousness conceived as a sixth sense organ “gen”). While it is a known fact that the two contemporary philosophers had different understandings on Ji-Shan Liu’s theory of mind and human nature, the author has found the possibility of the two complimenting each other’s interpretations. The author hopes this can open a new possibility for the modern interpretation of the school of Li-Shan Liu.