聖人之書與天理的恆常性：朱子的經典詮釋之前(7)

[39] 現代學者面對這種自然與人文之理不加分別的狀態，往往會產生極大的困擾。這也是有關朱子的「天理」、「理氣」、「性理」觀的研究，長期紛爭難定的一個重要原因。本文的重點在於討論朱子思想中「天理的恆常性」，對此問題不能詳加發揮。然而這一問題，代表了中西近世世界觀的根本異點，影響實為重大。參見拙著，〈朱子世界觀的基本特質〉。

[40] 朱子所重在人文，他所觀測探究的自然之理，以切近人類生活，而為人仰觀俯察所能見者為主。其所得當然不能與現代自然科學界之發現相比。然而對於朱子乃至古今人類而言，天地自然的道理確實有其一定的客觀性與恆常性。人類對這些道理的認識可以不斷進步改變，但無害於諸如晝夜、春夏秋冬、生老病死等基本的自然規律在此世間有其穩定性之事實。

[41] 朱熹，〈大學章句序〉，《四書集註》，1。

[42] 《語類》，卷4，16。

[43] 《語類》，卷8，1。

[44] 《語類》，卷78，20。

[45] 《語類》，卷8，1。

[46] 《語類》，卷12，1。

[47] 《語類》，卷12，7。

[48] 主性善，相信人皆可以為堯舜，佛教則認為人皆有佛性，人人皆可成佛。兩家說法皆肯定人心本然的光明，而朱子性如寶珠之說，實深受佛教「摩尼寶珠」說的影響。基督教則認為人有原罪，必需遵循天啟律法並信靠上帝才能得救。伊斯蘭教認為人軟弱無知，有賴真主、先知與律法的引導，否則必將犯罪。雙方對於人性的看法不同，然而基督教與伊斯蘭教對於愛人、無私、公義、光明、合理等德性的看重，實與儒、佛兩家相通。

[49] 《語類》，卷11，10。

[50] 《語類》，卷10，1。

[51] 《語類》，卷10，1。

[52] 《論語》序，《四書集註》，4~5。

[53] 《語類》，卷10，1。

[54] 《語類》，卷11，10。

[55] 清儒如顏元說：「見人人禪子，家家虛文，直與孔門敵對。必破一分程朱，始入一分孔孟，乃定以為孔孟、程朱兩途。」《顏習齋先生年譜》(畿輔叢書版，臺北：藝文， 民55)，卷下。戴震之力反程朱去人欲之說。以及現代學者普遍的重氣化、身體、情感、欲望而反理學的思想，雖然都有其言之成理之處，然而若論義理的大綱大節，程朱堅持仁義禮智之說，仍較近世以來重人欲氣質之思想為得孔孟之本旨。參見錢穆，〈程朱與孔孟〉，《中國學術思想史論叢（三）》，358。

[56] 《莊子．內篇．德充符第五》（北京：中華，1997），190。

Book of Sage and the Constancy of Tian Li (Cosmic Texture/Vein): （转载自http://zw.NSEAC.com科教作文网）
Basic Premises of Zhu Xi’s
Interpretation of the Classics

Abstract:This article carefully analyzes Zhu Xi's view of the classics by evaluating two of the philosopher's basic premises: that classics are “books of the sages” and that reading the canon not only enables one to understand the constancy of Tian Li (cosmic texture/order) but itself aims at learning the sages' wisdom. In addition, the author compares Zhu Xi’s mode of thought with ontological hermeneutics and points to a number of fundamental differences between the two. Zhu Xi believes that the central value of the classics lies in their status as works of the sages, ancients who perfectly embodied the Tian Li of selfless good. In Zhu Xi’s opinion, it is possible for readers to grasp the original meaning of the classics because they and the authors share common human nature and “universalistic” truth. Yet ontological hermeneutics has departed from that stance, emphasizing the inherent limitations, historicality and subjectivity of human understanding. On one hand, Zhu Xi acknowledges these limitations, but on the other he discusses the enlightened and selfless state achieved by the sages as a witness of the possible unity of Tian Li and human beings. It is only through a mindset of true selflessness that Tian Li can be fully, naturally, and freely expressed and thus receives proper recognition from the people as the highest ideal. This kind of sagely learning does not appear on the analytical “horizon” of ontological hermeneutics; the difference lies in the latter approach's belief in the indispensable and unsurpassable self. The ancients view a state of “selflessness” as the most worthy of pursuits and thus underscore the "universalistic" significance of Tian Li and the good of human nature. In contrast, ontological hermeneutics stresses the subjectivity and shortcomings of individual perception and human existence.

Keywords: Zhu Xi, interpretation of the classics, premises, Tian Li, sage, constancy, Ontological Hermeneutics, Heidegger, Gadamer.