學問之入與出：錢賓四先生與理學

無錫錢賓四先生一生篤行理學家言，而又能針對大時代的學術議題，客觀地研究理學。錢先生一方面強調研習理學必須本於學者自身的實踐，一方面也重視對於理學的歷史背景與特質之客觀分析。他認為做學問要先能入而後能出，不融入無法真正暸解，不跳出則無法知道它的特質乃至限制，然而學者首先要能深入，卻不宜急切求出。理學之於錢先生，從作為人生的教訓與昭示人生的理想境界始，亦以回歸做人與為學合一的學問終。理學的道理，是錢先生的真生命而不僅是研究的對象；理學家的詩文，則是他日常相伴，造次不離的精神資糧。然而因為時代的不同，錢先生一生的學術工作，畢竟與理學家頗為相異。面對中西文化的交會與衝突，錢先生一生致力於發明中國歷史與文化的真相與意義，以為民族文化保留其可大可久的生命。宋人闢佛而爭道統，錢先生則轉而以整個歷史文化的傳承為道統。宋人一心要完成代表最高道理的宇宙與心性論的體系，錢先生則用學術思想史的眼光重新說明理學的各個層面，並進而分析其得失。這都是錢先生不囿於理學傳統的地方。錢先生認為中國學術從明末之後，本來便應走向一個新的道路。由理學而史學，是從陽明學到浙東史學的發展。上接此傳統，下承時代的挑戰，錢先生之學所重在於認識歷史文化的傳統，而非抽象的宇宙人生之根本義理。然而他並非不講義理，只是承續浙東之學的「不離事而言理」，刻就具體的歷史文化中發掘事理與意義，因此對學者有極深的感發。錢先生的思想文化史研究及其民族與文化精神說，均與此有密切的關係。錢先生的學問，從為人之學始，深入中國學術的千門萬戶，且旁治佛學與西學，其內容早非理學所限。然而錢先生之學終究歸本於為人之學，自孔子以至於宋明儒，源遠流長，薪火相傳。

關鍵字

錢穆；理學；實踐；做人之學；史學；道統；現代學術

並列摘要

Professor Qian Mu (Binsi) practiced and studied Neo-Confucianism throughout his life. He emphasized that the study of Neo-Confucianism must be based on one's self-cultivation and real-life practice. On the other hand, he put none the less stress on the objective knowledge of the characteristics and historical background of Neo-Confucianism. He believed that to understand something cultural one has to, in the first place, immerse oneself in it. After learning it by heart, one can and should begin to analyze and criticize it from an outsider's view. To Professor Qian, the teaching of Neo-Confucianism was not just an object of study but the gist of life. The writings of Neo-Confucian masters were his dear companion on ordinary days and anchoring power in crisis. However, since the historical situations of Sung-Ming and modern China are entirely different, his scholarship also varied extensively from that of Neo-Confucians. Neo-Confucians repudiated Buddhism and contended for the definition of the highest Tao. Professor Qian, instead, spent his entire life trying to uncover the true spirit of Chinese culture, and, as a result, took the unmitigated cultural heritage as Tao. Neo-Confucians consecrated their life to form systematic interpretations of the highest principles of the world and humanity. Professor Qian, however, employed a more historical approach to reinterpret and analyze Neo-Confucianism from disparate perspectives. By doing all this, he has continued and transcended the Neo-Confucian tradition. Professor Qian recognized that Neo-Confucianism took a major turn since the late-Ming. The development from Yangming School to Zhedong School indicated an inevitable transformation from Neo-Confucianism to historical study. Continuing this tradition and confronting the challenge of his era, Professor Qian focused his scholarship not on contemplating abstract principles but on unveiling the truth and meaning of history, However, this does not mean that he was not interested in basic principles, but that he, following the example set by Zhedong School, would not separate the study of principles from concrete events. Having uncovered the meaning of crucial historical events, Professor Qian's works were highly inspiring and touching, and there were Neo-Confucian values to be found in his study of cultural-intellectual history and his theory of the spirit of Chinese culture. Professor Qian inquired deeply into numerous schools of learning in order to achieve the goal of ”learning to be an ideal person,” and absorbed Buddhism and Western learning to expand the horizon of this inquiry. The scope of his scholarship had long surpassed that of Neo-Confucianism, but it was still a scholarship that originated from ”learning to be an ideal person,” a tradition initiated by Confucius, inherited by Neo-Confucians, and followed incessantly by later Chinese.