和魂、漢才與漢意之間：本居宣長的漢學觀

本居宣長作為日本國學一脈的集大成者，同時也是重要的日本思想家，其探究日本古道與建構國學對後來日本認知自己文化的面向上佔有關鍵地位。其中，宣長對於漢學的觀點也相當微妙而複雜。其一生中對漢學顯著之論述在於他批判「漢意」、並強調要堅定「大和魂」的立場，但這背後卻也隱含了「漢意」其實不完全等於整體的「漢學」，宣長所批判的「漢意」之外也另有其他肯定漢學價值之「漢才」的意義。由此可以發現，本居宣長對於「漢學」的觀點與態度，圍繞著「大和魂」、「漢才」與「漢意」的三個概念組成一個複雜的認知，充滿「和」、「漢」脈絡交錯的漢學觀。本論文旨要在以「大和魂」、「漢才」與「漢意」為切入點去探究宣長的漢學觀。首先，梳理宣長論述中「大和魂」、「漢意」與「漢才」各自的定義與內涵，再進一步釐清三者之間的關係，由此清楚宣長對於漢學觀的基礎觀點在於立足「大和魂」的主體意識而防衛「漢意」的薰染，但在若不衝突到「大和魂」的立場之下能對漢學之「漢才」展現充分善用之態度。再者，透過宣長一生中極為重視的「道」之論述，也理解到「大和魂」與「漢意」兩個文化之中，於根本上的「道」之實踐便有鮮明差異，其中前者以「神」為依歸、後者以「人」為本，達到進一步理解宣長觀點裡對「和」、「漢」的強烈分別，以及他透過何種方式來篩選、分別「和」、「漢」兩道。接著，更深入宣長對於神道的觀點去理解宣長的世界觀，以嘗試剖析宣長對於「大和魂」、「漢意」之間深層的理解與緣由，並且整理出他對「大和魂」、「漢意」兩者的定位與詮釋，其中展現出了宣長批判「漢意」卻仍將其包容、詮釋於自己的世界觀當中，予以一個地位，而不是展現「排斥」、「消滅」的態度。然後，聚焦在宣長論述「和」、「漢」不一樣方向的生命實踐，也能嘗試理解到他對於神道及「大和魂」的信念如何不同於「漢意」所追求之道德理念，從此明白兩個方向不同的生命論調。最後，透過以上宣長對「和」、「漢」的各方面論述整理出他漢學觀的內涵以及特徵。總體而言，宣長的漢學觀與其皇國古道論之建立有緊密的關聯，而且宣長對於整體漢學的態度其實呈現的是一種複雜、多元而包容的性質，其中明顯的是多層「主次」（層次）的分別意識，也因此能呈現出表面上雖有批判形象但實際上卻有順從、接受、包容的寬容態度。

關鍵字

本居宣長；漢學；國學；大和魂；漢才；漢意；和漢；道；古道論

並列摘要

Motoori Norinaga, being a valued Japanese thinker, was a mastermind who reached a comprehensive grasp of Japanese Kokugaku. His researches on Japanese Kodo and constructions of Kokugaku were later crucial to the country’s perceptions of its own culture. Looking into Norinaga’s view on Sinology, it appeared to be rather intricate. The most distinct discourse he presented in life included a firm hold to “Yamato-damashii” and criticisms on “Karagokoro.” The message behind this discourse indicated that “Karagokoro” was but a part of Sinology to Norinaga; whilst criticizing “Karagokoro,” he gave recognition to the “Karazae” part of Sinology. From the message, it could be perceived that Motoori Norinaga’s understanding of Sinology was a complicated idea consisted of three concepts: “Yamato-damashii,” “Karazae” and “Karagokoro.” In order to explore his thoughts regarding Sinology, a system based on intertwining “Yamato” and “Kara” ideologies, this thesis takes studying “Yamato-damashii,” “Karazae” and “Karagokoro” as method of research. In the first part of the thesis, the definitions and contents of the three concepts mentioned would be sorted out. The connections between the three would later be clarified, so that Norinaga’s stance on Sinology would be distinctly shown: he considered the subject consciousness of “Yamato-damashii” as the base of everything and guarded it against the influence of “Karagokoro.” However, he was ready to put “Karazae” into good use as long as it did not contradict “Yamato-damashii.” The second part of the thesis discusses Norinaga’s discourse on “Tao,” which he valued all his life. From the discourse, readers may see that the two cultures of “Yamato-damashii” and “Karagokoro” differed from each other distinctly in their practices of Tao: while the former functioned in the benefits of gods, the latter treated human beings as its root. The difference would help readers to better understand Norinaga’s strong and insistent distinguishing of “Yamato” and “Karae,” as well as the ways he differentiated the Tao of the two. In the third part of this thesis, Norinaga’s perspective on Shinto would be further explored in aim of comprehending his world view. Here, I attempt to analyze Norinaga’s deeper understanding on “Yamato-damashii” and “Karazae,” hence make clear his interpretations and orientations of the two concepts. This part of research reveals that Norinaga, despite criticizing “Karagokoro,” interpreted and included the concept into his world view. Instead of rejecting or eliminating it, he granted it a role in his system of thoughts. The fourth part focuses on Norinaga’s discourses on the different ways “Yamato” and “Karae” ideologies achieved life fulfillments. Also, it attempts to understand how Norinaga’s beliefs on Shinto and “Yamato-damashii” varied from the moral values that “Karazae” pursued. The research here explains two life arguments of disparate orientations. The last part of this thesis concludes the contents and characteristics of Norinaga’s Sinology from the varied discourses on “Yamato” and “Kara” discussed above. Overall, Norinaga’s view on Sinology was closely connected to the establishment of his imperial Kodoron. Norinaga’s attitude toward Sinology in general was complicated, diversified and tolerant. Its multileveled differentiation was especially distinct. Such characteristic explained the reason why, despite its seemingly criticizing image, Norinaga’s Sinology was in fact accepting and tolerant.