對牟宗三批評朱熹與程頤依《大學》建立體系的方法論反省

A Reflection on the Mou Tsung-san's Critique about Chu Hsi and Cheng Yi's Methodology of Building a System Based on to Ta Hsueh

杜保瑞(Bau-Ruei Duh)

《哲學與文化》 36卷8期 (2009/08) Pp. 57-75

https://doi.org/10.7065/MRPC.200908.0057

摘要

本文討論牟宗三先生對朱熹與程頤依《大學》建立體系的批評意見，牟先生認為，有感於濂溪、橫渠、明道未及深入工夫入路的問題，以致提出了特有的工夫論命題，然而卻因為不能正視本體宇宙論的縱貫縱講的理論模型，以致成了靜涵靜攝的系統，這就是程頤從《大學》格物致知之學所建構的涵養用敬、進學致知之學的型態，此型完全為朱熹繼承，並與象山形成對峙。牟先生此說中其實充滿了個人的立場，以及哲學基本問題混淆的作法。本文之作，即是就牟先生所論，藉由哲學基本問題意識的釐清，而企圖扭轉已為牟先生所扭曲的認識系統與研究途徑。本文旨在提出：程朱並沒有建構出如牟先生所說的靜涵靜攝系統，那都是牟先生依據象山的指控以及自己的疏解而架構起來的特殊型態理論，是把工夫次第論的格致工夫與窮理觀念結合到存有論的理氣心性情之討論中，因而認定程朱之工夫是客觀外在的形式知解而不能立體見道。筆者認為，程朱也談了陸王所重的本體宇宙工夫境界的種種問題，只是多為牟先生刻意忽略，並特出程朱與象山不類之論點。而建立的牟先生特殊義涵下的程朱系統型態。當代研究應多融通程朱之理論，對其有所不同的理論部分，則應以良好的解釋架構詮釋清楚，從而得以彼此照看互相欣賞，而不是自建系統以強分朱陸。

關鍵字

牟宗三 ； 大學 ； 程頤 ； 朱熹 ； 格物致知 ； 工夫論

並列摘要

This paper is on Mou Tsung-san's criticism about how Chu Hsi and Cheng Yi built a system based on Ta Hsueh. In Mou's opinion, Cheng Yi proposed a special proposition about the doctrine of cultivation, in view of that Chou Tun-yi, Chang Tsai and Cheng Hao didn't delve profoundly into the approach to cultivation. And yet, since Cheng Yi couldn't directly address the subjective-objective theoretical model of ontological cosmology, Cheng Yi's proposition became a static system, which is exactly the pattern of Cheng Yi's doctrine about how self-cultivation lies in reverence and the progress in learning lies in the extension of knowledge. Cheng Yi constructed such a pattern based on the doctrine of the investigation of things and the extension of knowledge from Ta Hsueh, as this pattern was then carried on by Chu His and put in contrast with the claims made by Lu Chiu-yuan. Now, through clarifying the fundamental philosophical problem consciousness, this paper is meant to address Mou Tsung-san's remarks and redress the cognitive system and research approach that have been distorted by Mou. The key is to point out that neither Cheng Yi nor Chu Hsi constructed the static system as Mou described. It is in fact a special theory built up by Mou himself based on Lou Chiu-yuan's accusations and Mou's own understanding, as he incorporated the cultivation of ”extending knowledge and investigating things” along with the idea of ”exhausting principles” into the ontological discussion about li, chi, hsin, hsing, and ching and consequently presumed that Cheng and Chu's understanding about cultivation was rather formal than substantial. Here, the writer wishes to point out that Cheng and Chu did address the many issues of ontological cosmology that Lu and Wang cared about, only Mou deliberately ignored them and emphasized instead how some of Cheng and Chu's claims were different from Lu's. Regarding how Mou interpreted Cheng and Chu's system, modern researchers should understand more about Cheng and Chu's theories and sort out the similarities and differences between Cheng and Chu's theories and Mou's interpretations.

並列關鍵字

Mou Tsung-san ； Ta Hsueh ； Cheng Yi ； Chu His ； The Investigation of Things and the Extension of Knowledge ； Doctrine of Cultivation

參考文獻

牟宗三(1981)。心體與性體·第三冊。台北:正中書局。

杜保瑞(2005)。北宋儒學。台北:台灣商務印書館。

東吳大學人文社會學院主編(2007)。二十世紀人文大師的風範與思想－後半葉。台北:台灣學生書局。