朱陸異同探源

AN EVALUATION OF THE SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES BETWEEN CHU HSI (朱熹) AND LU HSIANG-SHAN'S (陸象山) THOUGHT, AS SEEN FROM THEIR ORIGINS

唐君毅(T'ang Chun-i)

《新亞學報》 8卷1期 (1967/02) Pp. 1-100+ap4

並列摘要

This paper is divided into two parts and discusses the similarities and differences between Chu Hsi and Lu Hsiang-shan's thought. The first part attempts to find out, from a historical point of view, the origins of the similarities and differences between Chu and Lu's thought (this has been traced back to the similarities and differences of the thought of the Ch'eng brothers (二程); the second part points out that the main differences between these two philosophers' thought are principally based on their practical theories. There is one aspect of the Ch'eng brothers' thought, emphasized mainly by their disciple Yang Kuei-shan (楊龜山) and developed by Hu Wu-feng (胡五峯), a famous Neo-Confucian of the Southern Sung Dynasty, which is different from the other aspects of their thought which were mainly developed by Chu Hsi. Here lies the main origin of the difference between Chu Hsi and Lu Hsiang-shan's thought, for Lu, in one sense, is the successor to that aspect developed by Hu Wu-feng. The following two sections concentrate on the discussion of this problem. 1. Analysis of the tradition which goes from the Ch'eng brothers to Lu Hsiang-shan. II. Hu Wu-feng's self-examination of the "moral mind" is the fore-runner of the idea of self-awakening of the "original mind" of Lu Hsiang-shan. Since the tradition which goes from the Ch'eng brothers to Chu Hsi is different from that adopted by Lu Hsiang-shan, Chu Hsi put in doubt the theory of the Ch'eng brothers which was followed by Yang Kuei-shan and developed by Hu Wu-feng, and he questioned more strongly Lu's practical theory of the self-awakening of the original mind. This was partly because Chu Hsi, being the main successor of the theory of li (理) and ch'i (氣), established a practical theory which paid more attention to the heterogeneous nature of ch'i (氣), emphasizing the cultivation theory, and partly because he thought that Lu's theory of the self-awakening of the original mind was too similar to the Ch'an (禪) teachings. So he could not understand adequately the theory asserted by Lu Hsiang-shan and his predecessors. Many other questions arise in relation with this problem. They are analyzed in the following sections: III. The nature of Chu Hsi's practical theory. IV. Chu Hsi's doubt about Yang Kuei-shan and Hsieh Shang-ts'ai (謝上蔡) theory of jen (仁). V. The practical theory of the Ch'eng brothers' school and Li Yen-p'ing (李延平) concept of the unexpressed mind. VI. Hu Wu-feng's emphasis on self-examination of the expressed side of the mind and the difficulties Chu Hsi met with in establishing the idea of the reflection of the unexpressed side of mind. VII. Chu Hsi's theory of the unexpressed side of the mind and his relevant practical theory. VIII. Hu Wu-feng's concept of self-examination and Chu Hsi's criticism on the acceptations given by Hu Wu-feng to the concepts of mind, nature, emotion, heavenly principle and human desire. IX. Hu Wu-feng's misuse of concepts and the problem of the practical theory of cultivation of the heterogeneous nature of ch'i (氣). X. Chu Hsi's discussion on the shortcomings arising from mere emphasis on self-examination. XI. The theory of self-examination of the moral mind and the heterogeneous nature of ch'i (氣) and physical desire. Part two shows how Chu Hsi's misunderstood the thought of Lu Hsiang-shan. It points out that Chu Hsi's practical theory has its own shortcomings, and that whoever wants to eliminate the shortcomings of practical theory, should rely on the original mind as it was asserted by Lu Hsiang-shan. These questions are mainly dealt with in the following sections: XII. The shortcomings of self-examination pointed out by Chu Hsi are not necessary outcomes. XIII. Analysis of the independent nature of the practical theory of self-examination. XIV. Chu Hsi's practical theory of maintaining earnestness and of attainment of knowledge, has its own defects; any practical theory has necessarily its shortcomings. XV. Analysis of the practical theory of sincerity and honesty and the two senses of the original mind. After the above discussion, part two also points out that Chu Hsi's concept of the nature of the mind is quite different from that of Ch'eng Yi (程頤). It is, in one sense, similar to that of Lu Hsiang-shan. Moreover it shows that if one furthers the line of Chu Hsi's thought one will reach Lu Hsiang-shan's position. These problems are presented in the last four sections of this paper. XVI. The wrong orientation of Chu Hsi's practical theory. XVII. The meaning of the essence and function of Chu Hsi's original mind as seen from his theory of mind and nature. XVIII. Analysis of the meaning of self-nourishment based on self-awakening of the original mind and its consistence with the activity and quiescence of mind. XIX. The natural synthesis of Chu Hsi and Lu Hsiang-shan's thought.