拔理於向郭之外－魏晉逍遙義辯及其意義

向、郭《莊子注》的逍遙義和支遁對其內在矛盾的質疑引發了學術界的持久興趣。本文從考察郭象經世致用的思想定位與合神人聖王為一的政治理想入手，以《莊子》為參照，指出適性逍遙之「性」局限於個體的經驗有限性，並虛化了價值來源的「道」、「天」等本體，存在理論架構上的先天缺陷，導致了無待逍遙的虛化和有待逍遙的經驗性封閉。但其問題意識仍有重要價值。支遁以至足解逍遙，關注於精神境界的超拔，應該是得到了般若義理的支持，但佛教經典中有關社會生活、政教關係的觀念並沒有成為他思想的有機構成，這導致他無法真正回應郭象提出的問題，是其盲點所在。

關鍵字

逍遙；適性；至足；無待；有待；佛教

並列摘要

The explanations of Xiaoyao by XiangXiu and GuoXiang in Commentary to Zhuangzi and the revelation of the inner contradictions in it by Zhi Dun has aroused the academic community's lasting interest in this issue. In this paper, beginning with the investigation of Guo Xiang's ideological positioning and his political ideal of integrating the God-man with the Holy-king, and taking Zhuang Zi as a reference, it is pointed out that the ＂nature＂ of Comfortable by nature is limited to the limitation of individual experience, and the noumenon such as ＂Tao＂ and ＂Heaven＂, which are the sources of value, have been blurred. There is a congenital defect in the theoretical framework, leading to the vanity of unconditional freedom and the empirical closure of conditional freedom. But awareness of its problems still has an important value. Focusing on the transcendence of the spiritual realm, Zhi Dun explained Xiaoyao with the highest state of mind, which should be supported by Prajna's philosophy. However, the concepts related to social life and the relationship between religion and politics in Buddhist classics did not become an organic component of his thoughts, which led to his inability to truly respond to the questions raised by Guo Xiang, which was his blind spot.