宋代老子學的一個詮釋觀點
No Thumbnail Available
Date
2005-03-??
Authors
江淑君
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
國文學系
Department of Chinese, NTNU
Department of Chinese, NTNU
Abstract
宋代注《老》解《老》者的數量，堪稱為老子學的巔峰。上自帝王卿相，下至僧人道士、儒者文士，研習《老子》蔚然成風。其中最突出的一個特點就是注釋《老子》的儒家士大夫有明顯增多的趨勢。就詮解的理論向度而言，以儒家觀點進行《老子》的解讀，是該期老子學多元發展的主要特徵之一。在援引眾多儒典詮解《老子》的現象中，《論語》、《孟子》被徵引的頻率相當多見。其如何能以摘章摘句的方式與《老子》文義交相附會？是創造性的賦予《老子》新義？抑產生與原義悖離割裂的現象？凡此，皆是筆者認為值得進一步理析的焦點。因此，本論文的切入點就在於「援儒入《老》」的問題意識上，宏觀學者們如何以《論語》、《孟子》合會《老子》，為《老子》一書的儒家詮釋展開一個新的詮釋系統。 首先是以相類的字辭語句相比附，藉以達到相互發明的效果。如以《論語》「仁者必有勇」釋「慈故能勇」、以《孟子》「正己而物正」釋「我好靜而民自正」等。而在援引《論語》篇章詮解《老子》方面，則以「天何言哉？」章最常見。此章因為具有形上況味，學者們特喜就此加強發揮《老子》「道」的義蘊。又因「無言」字辭的使用，亦多將其與《老子》「多言數窮」、「不言而善應」、「不言之教」相指涉。除此之外，也經常提舉孔門弟子為奉行老子學說者。眾多弟子中，以顏回最受青睞，其「以退為進」、「大智若愚」、「專氣致柔」的形象是玄化下的結果。至於援引孟子哲學概念與老子思想互訓者，則主要以孟子「養浩然之氣」、「大人者不失其赤子之心」、「存心養性事天」、「養心莫善於寡欲」與老子相關學說相證解。種種論點的爬梳，蓋能對宋代老子學「以儒解《老》」的整體輪廓，更加清晰周延的建構出來。
The Song Dynasty could be called the top of “Lao-ze” in the part of interpreting. And the most important is the obviously increasing of Confucians who interpreted “Lao-ze” and it became one of the main characters of the multiple developments of “Lao-ze” in this period. How to inter-text “Lao-ze” with “Confucianism” and “Mencius”? Did they give “Lao-ze” a new creative meaning or lapse into obscurity? That's what the focus should be analyzed on further I think. Therefore, the problematic consciousness of cite Confucianism into “Lao-ze” is the incision in this paper. How did macroscopic scholars evolve a new interpretative system for “Lao-ze” by “Confucianism” and “Mencius”? Firstly, compared and interpreted with the likely words and it could affect each other by doing so. Secondly, they also liked to set Confucius' students as examples who observed “Lao-ze”. Yan-hui (顏回) was the most famous and popular one in this group. As to cite “Mencius” into “Lao-ze”, they mainly interpreted “Lao-ze” by Mencius' impartial spirits. In a word, I'd like to discuss and construct the configuration of “Interpret ‘Lao-ze’ by Confucianism” clearly in the Song Dynasty.
The Song Dynasty could be called the top of “Lao-ze” in the part of interpreting. And the most important is the obviously increasing of Confucians who interpreted “Lao-ze” and it became one of the main characters of the multiple developments of “Lao-ze” in this period. How to inter-text “Lao-ze” with “Confucianism” and “Mencius”? Did they give “Lao-ze” a new creative meaning or lapse into obscurity? That's what the focus should be analyzed on further I think. Therefore, the problematic consciousness of cite Confucianism into “Lao-ze” is the incision in this paper. How did macroscopic scholars evolve a new interpretative system for “Lao-ze” by “Confucianism” and “Mencius”? Firstly, compared and interpreted with the likely words and it could affect each other by doing so. Secondly, they also liked to set Confucius' students as examples who observed “Lao-ze”. Yan-hui (顏回) was the most famous and popular one in this group. As to cite “Mencius” into “Lao-ze”, they mainly interpreted “Lao-ze” by Mencius' impartial spirits. In a word, I'd like to discuss and construct the configuration of “Interpret ‘Lao-ze’ by Confucianism” clearly in the Song Dynasty.