論荀子「聖人生禮義」所含藏的問題

關於「聖人生禮義」，荀學中存有諸多問題，如：聖人生禮義的能力那裏來、是什麼？是否出自「生而有」的「才能」（如牟宗三教授主張）？由之，聖凡是「性同偽異」（如荀子主張的）或不是？為何一般人不能「生禮義」既其「性」與聖人同？依荀子，聖人是因「積思慮、習偽故」而能生禮義的。因此本文由「積思慮、習偽故」之所本與荀子對「生於性」與「生於偽」之區別來作探討。結論是：荀子並沒有聖凡「性同」或「性異」之問題。聖人之所以能「生禮義」是生於「偽」，而此「偽」最終所本的「能力」來自「性」。聖人是憑於「性」上行「偽」的功夫所培養出來的「能力」編制出禮義法度的。「是否行此『偽』的工夫？」涉及個人的意願，而能否制定出禮義來也涉及到功夫的深度。故對荀子而言，「唯聖人能生禮義」，但並非如學者所認為的，最終訴之於聖人「生而有」的「特殊才能」。

關鍵字

荀子；生禮義；積思慮；習偽故；生於性；生於偽

並列摘要

There are several problems in Hsün Tzu's view ＂The sage produces Li-Yi.＂ Such as: Where does the ability come from? Does it come from inborn special ability (as Professor Mou Tsung-san has suggested)? Hereby, is the difference between sage and common people ＂Hsing-I＂ or ＂Wei-I＂? Why could not people produce it? For Hsün Tzu, the sage produces Li-Yi in terms of Chi-shi-lü and Hsi-wei-ku. In this paper, I inquiry onto the above problems by analyzing what he means by Chi-shi-lü and Hsi-wei-ku and deeply getting into his distinction between that which derives from Hsing and that which derives from Wei. And the conclusions are: (i) There is no such a conflict beween Hsing-I and Wei-I in the difference between sage and common people in Hsün Tzu. (ii) The ability in terms of which the sage can produce Li-Yi comes from Wei, but it does not mean that it has nothing to do with Hsing: it is the ability originally coming from Hsing but cultivated by Wei; without the caltivation of Wei, it cannot make the sage produce Li-Yi. (iii) Principly speaking, everyone has the ability to produce Li-Yi, but it refers to one's will to make the practice of Wei and how deep the practice of Wei he reaches. So, as Hsün Tzu claims, only the sage can produce Li-Yi, but (iv) it is not as the scholars maintain, from the sage's inborn special ability.