- 學位論文
融道入儒：唐宋思想轉型期間的士人與道家傳統
Absorbing Taoism into Confucianism：Literati and Taoism in the Tang-Song Intellectual Transition
若您是本文的作者，可授權文章由華藝線上圖書館中協助推廣。
摘要
本論文旨在勾勒九世紀至十一世紀末，儒、道傳統之間曲折而複雜的思想關係，並藉此提出一個理解理學興起之背景與意義的新視角。 在中古的思想傳統中，士人一般更認同儒、道之間的融通性，而表現出兼容兩者的思想傾向。道家傳統對於唐代士人的世界觀、政治理念和文化生活，皆曾發揮極大的影響力。但自中唐以降，儒家復興思潮逐漸形成一股主體意識，批判並排拒其他的思想因子，儒、道關係於是發生了改變。晚唐皮日休主張政教秩序的完善，只能以儒家為依歸，道家僅屬於私人的追求，形成公、私二分的價值區別。但這項呼聲並未得到立即的迴響，反而是晚唐道家所建立的儒、道融合的政教理論，成為此一時期的主流觀點。 五代宋初士人的政治理念，主要延續晚唐的道家論述，而非皮日休等人的主張。政治場域依舊瀰漫道家的思想氛圍，士人私下也有道家方外的追求，公、私領域皆同時接受儒、道的價值。包括古文家王禹偁，也有儒、道匯合的政教言論。當時的在野知識界，無論是身分認同，還是學術傳授，儒、道間的界線也十分模糊。不過，宋初的儒學運動也源起自這樣的環境。如果說陳摶是唐宋之際在野知識人的一種典型，种放則開啟了此下的新頁。种放學兼儒、道，同時提倡經術、古文，他的弟子更在下一代的政治、思想界扮演要角。种放師門的學術活動，提供了兩項重要的訊息，其一是宋初儒學運動和道家傳統仍有緊密的連結，而相對的把佛教視為大敵；其二是關中的儒學社群更早於山東地區，它一開始也不是以「純儒」作為訴求。同樣的，五代蜀地和南唐的士人文化中，也表現出濃厚的道家風氣。他們與北方最大的不同是，振興儒道的呼聲不強烈，經常在文學性的活動中，展現對道家超俗的嚮往。宋初蜀地儒學的傳衍，則提供了另一個宋代學術思想實脫胎於儒、道兼融之環境的例子。 當然，並非所有士人都崇尚儒、道融合。活躍於宋初儒學運動中的柳開，就曾極力主張切斷儒、道的連繫。然而，士人對於儒、道關係看法的真正轉變，還是要到仁宗朝之後才發生。隨著儒學復興運動逐漸蔚為風潮，此時的士人隱然呼應晚唐皮日休的看法，視儒家之教為建立政治、文化秩序唯一合理的基礎。范仲淹是其中最為顯著的例子，他批評道家不宜作為治道的原則，要求根據儒家理念對政治進行改革，傾向「政教上的儒家一元化」。然而，此時士人仍未將道家因素完全排除在生活之外，范仲淹本人的私人生活中就仍保有濃厚的道家色彩。與他同時期的多數士人，仍沿著「公—私」的分際區分儒、道，而並未在宇宙觀和心性論等議題上，進一步析判儒、道的分野。 到了十一世紀後半葉，雖然王安石在政治場域並不排拒道家思想，但道家的政治影響力已逐漸消失，儒家政治成為士人群體的共同追求。相對於儒家在政治理念上的勝利，關於宇宙性命問題的探索，當時士人卻莫不受到道家思想的影響。王安石是北宋最早對宇宙性命理論提出系統性看法的士人，他的「道德性命」之學便有濃厚的道家色彩。王安石的學術雖一度成為批評的對象，但也引發圍繞宇宙性命之說的論辯風潮，儒、道思想關係自然也成為其中探索的焦點。本文嘗試就其中的不同觀點和立場，區分為三種型態：第一種型態以蘇軾、蘇轍為代表，相信儒、道同源，不強調儒家的主體性。第二種以邵雍、周敦頤為首，延續兼容儒、道的學術立場，但因較少偏離儒家的基本立場，在後世被納入理學的譜系之中。司馬光、張載及二程等人則代表了第三種型態，雖然也吸取道家資源，但更表現出一種辨明異端的立場，並相信自己正在尋回失傳己久的純粹儒學精神。在這三種對於儒、道關係的看法之中，第三種類型不但最具突破性，也直接促成了理學的發生。 總言之，以儒、道思想之糾葛為線索，本文希冀能對唐宋轉型時期的思想變遷和理學興起的背景，提出一個更為立體與複雜的思想史圖像。因而，本文一方面可以被視為唐宋之際思想的一個側寫，另一方面也可以視為對於「前理學」之思想史的一種補足。
並列摘要
This dissertation attempts to delineate a more dynamic and convoluted history of the relation between Confucian and Taoist traditions in the transitional period from late Tang to early Song Dynasty. Intellectuals of medieval China generally recognized and appreciated the fusion of Confucian and Taoist traditions. In fact, Taoism wielded profound influence on their worldviews, political perspectives, and cultural lives. From mid-Tang Dynasty onwards, however, the relation between these two traditions was ready to shift. With the consciousness of subjectivity developed in the Confucianism Revival Movement, intellectuals such as Pi Rixiu began to advocate a stronger Confucianism oriented position, trying to establish it as the guiding principle of public affairs and delegate Taoism to private life. Nonetheless, his voice was of minority. The intellectual atmosphere in general stayed with a more tolerant one. From Five Dynasties to early Song period, intellectuals continued to accept the fusion of these two traditions. Taoism was prevalent in both public and private domains. Not only political discourses were under its guidance. Intellectuals embraced Taoist practices and ideals in their private lives. For those who are away from politics, the line between Confucianism and Taoism were even more thin and blurred. They didn’t identify themselves with, or confine their cultural upbringing within either side. On the opposite, the intellectual genealogies descending from those paramount figures—such as Chen Tuan, Chong Fang, and Ren Fenggu—in this period, whether they were located in south or north China, have all included Taoism in their pedagogy as a major part. Contrary to the popular impression that the intellectual history of Song Dynasty began with the request to recover the “pure and authentic Confucian spirit” it was in fact breed in the soil fertilized by both Taoist and Confucian traditions. When it came to the Emperor Renzong of Song’s reign, a significant shift took place. With Confucianism Revival Movement reaching its culmination, intellectuals of this period echoed Pi Rixiu’s position, requesting again the establishment of Confucian doctrines as the only proper principles under which the public world should be ordered. Fan Zhongyan was a prominent example. Arguing that Taoism should not be the guidance of social-political order, he demanded a political reformation based on only and solely Confucian ground. However, these endeavors do not mean that Taoism was ever since eradicated from the life of intellectuals. In fact, including Fan himself, many intellectuals continued to perform Taoist practices and aspired for Taoist ideals. Rather, the line between Confucianism and Taoism was drawn along that of “public” and “private.” Unlike their attack on it in political sphere, intellectuals of this period did not distinguish further Taoism from Confucianism on issues related to worldview and human nature. When Wang Anshi came to power in the second half of eleventh century, he did not exclude Taoism from politics. However, Taoist influence on politics eventually faded away. But, again, the triumph of Confucianism in public domain did not prevent intellectuals from drawing Taoist resources to explore other philosophical issues. For example, in Song Dynasty, Wang Anshi was the first person that offered a systematic theory about worldview and human nature, and his vision was still loaded with Taoist elements. Wang’s position later invited intensive and widespread debates on these philosophical issues, in which the relation between Confucianism and Taoism was once again focused. There were three major positions regarding this issue. Su Shi and Su Zhe brothers presented the first one. They held that these two traditions shared the same foundation, and had no intention to emphasize the subjectivity of Confucianism. The second position includes Shao Yong and Zhou Dunyi. Although they also inherited the long developed synthetic understanding of these two traditions, they diverted from Confucianism less than the first position. It is why they were later included in the genealogy of Neo-Confucianism. While Sima Guang, Zhang Zai, Cheng Hao, and Cheng Yi also drew intellectual resources from Taoism, they came to be much more critical towards it and believe that they are recovering the authentic spirit of Confucianism that has long lost. They represent the third position, which was most original and directly fostered the rise of Neo-Confucianism. In short, outlining the dynamic relation between Confucianism and Taoism, this dissertation expects to offer a more complicated picture of the intellectual history during the Tang-Song transitional period. In this regard, this dissertation also expects to make contribution to the current understanding of the prehistory of Neo-Confucianism.
參考文獻
〔清〕嚴可均校輯，《全上古三代秦漢三國六朝文》（北京：中華書局，1958）。
牟鐘鑒、胡孚琛、王葆玹撰，《道教通論──兼論道家學說》（濟南：齊魯書社，1991）。
林慶彰、蔣秋華主編，張穩蘋編輯，《啖助新春秋學派研究論集》（臺北：中央研究院中國文哲研究所，2002）。
陳弱水，《公共意識與中國文化》（臺北：聯經出版公司，2005）。
傅璇琮，《李德裕年譜》（北京：中華書局，2013）。