「克己復禮」詮解之省察－以朱子、王陽明、羅近溪為研究對象

經典的詮釋具有豐富的意涵，值得我們反覆咀嚼品嚐，以之轉化、擴充自我精神生命。多年前，何炳棣、杜維明、劉述先等學者有關「克己復禮」詮解的一場爭論，引發我們對此議題的關注與省思。本文即以朱熹、王陽明、羅近溪之「克己復禮」說為研究對象，探討三人詮解之內容，期能藉此反思「克己復禮」在不同時代所顯現的不同精神，也從中了解經典詮釋實與個體生命、時代背景有密不可分的關係。朱子承程伊川之思想，據「天理人欲」的觀念詮解「克己復禮」，認為克己之「己」即負面之私欲，其認識到私欲對道德實踐之危害，主張應予大力克除。不過私欲的克除必須在事上落實，透過踐履依次提升道德層次，下學而上達，不可忽略功夫次第。朱子鑑於程門後學一意高妙，忽視實踐工夫，致儒釋之辨不明，特別重視「禮」的教化功能與實踐，同時也反映朱子之經世理想。陽明受朱子學說之影響，也依「天理人欲」詮解「克己復禮」，並認同朱子「禮即是理也」之命題，然二人對禮之態度卻不一致。朱子重視具體的禮儀規範，強調不可「以理易禮」；陽明則認為內在若無私欲、純是天理，外在之表現必合乎禮。依此觀念，「禮」為本心之具體呈現而無固定形式。近溪接受陽明「良知」之說，肯定心體具有主動去蔽的力量。又據「生生之仁」主張克己的意涵為「能己」，視「己」為完整的個體，批評朱子將「己」解作私欲。近溪進而以《易》「復以自知」解釋復禮之「復」，說明只要自為主宰，即能感受天地與我為一，皆在大化流行中，生生不息。綜觀三家「克己復禮」說，各有其哲學立場與特色，豐富經典之義蘊。今日「克己復禮」不論對個人修養或是國家社會，均能有所啟發。

關鍵字

朱子；王陽明；羅近溪；克己；禮；克己復禮

並列摘要

The explanation of scripture has many distinct meanings, it is worth to expand it to self-spiritual life. Many years ago, Bing-Di He, Wei-Ming Du, and Shu-Xian Liu argued on interpretation of “Ke Ji Fu Li”, this incident caused us to pay more attention and reflection on this topic. This article is going to study on the interpretation of “ Ke Ji Fu Li ” by Zhu-Xi, Yang-Ming Wang and Jin-Xi Luo. We are going to discuss the contents of the three interpretations, and we hope that we can figure out the spiritual of “ Ke Ji Fu Li “ in different ages. The most important is, we have to know that the explanation of scripture has close relationship between individual life and world’s background. Zhu-Zi studied from Yi-Chuan Cheng’s theory, He applied the interpretation of “ Tian Li Ren Yu ” on “ Ke Ji Fu Li “. Zhu thought that “ Ji “ has negative desires which might be corrupted the moral practice, that’s why he suggested that it should be abolished. But, the abolishment must be implemented in the things through the fulfillment in turn enhance the moral value. Zhu-Zi ignored the practice works and caused the confusion of Confucianism and Buddhism. He focused on the practice of “ Li “ and reflected the ideal of Zhu-Zi. The ideal of Zhu-Zi had affected Yang-Ming ‘s theory, he applied “ Tian Li Ren Yu “ to interpret “ Ke Ji Fu Li “. He agreed with Zhu-Zi’s “ Li Ji Shi Li Ye “ , nevertheless, they had different points on “ Li “. Zhu-Xi emphasized on specific etiquette, and there’s no way to “ Yi Li Yi Li “. Yang-Ming thought that the if inherent absence of desires, the external performance must be in line with the “ Li “. According to this concept, “Li” based on heart unfolded without a fixed form. Jin-Xi accepted Yang-Ming’s “intuitive knowledge”, he confirmed that the heart had the power of the initiative to cover. According to the “ Sheng Sheng Zhi Ren “, he advocated self-denial on the meaning of “ Neng Ji “, as “ Ji “is a complete individual. He criticized that Zhu-Xi interpreted the “ Ji “ as desires. As long as the self-dominated, Jin-xi thought that the human can feel the world and I. Looking at the three “ Ke Ji Fu Li “ have their own philosophical positions and features classic meaning. Today, the “ Ke Ji Fu Li” can be claimed as an inspiration of personal integrity or development of country.