聖人之書與天理的恆常性:朱子的經典詮釋之前提假設

Book of Sage and the Constancy of Tian Li(Cosmic Texture/Vein): Basic Premises of Zhu Xi’s Interpretation of the Classics

本文仔細分析了朱子視經典為「聖人之書」，讀經典是為了學聖人並認識恆常的天理這兩個概念；並將朱子的思路與當代的存有詮譯學做一比較，指出兩者間的一些基本差異。對於朱子而言，經典的核心價值，在於它們是聖人之書；而聖人之所以為聖人，則在於他們徹底體現了大公無私的天理。在朱子看來，讀者有可能瞭解經典的「本意」，其原因在於作者與讀者分享了共同的宇宙與人生道理。相較於存有詮釋學從此有出發，強調人類知識與理解不可避免的有限性與主觀性，朱子則一方面強調人的有限性，一方面卻提出大公無私的聖人境界，以為道理與做人的極則。他認為聖人從一種無執無我，亦即無私的心境所自然流出或照見的道理，極其深刻、平實、精密、普遍、周延，而能夠成為人們所共同分享與認知的最高道理。這種以心性修養為基礎的聖人之學，並不在存有詮釋學的視域之中。二者的基本差異，應在於對無我之境與有我之境的看法。朱子以無我之境界為最高的追求，所以更重視那具有「恆常性」意義的天理人性；而存有詮釋學則特別強調並探討人類存有與知見的主觀性及限制性。

This article carefully analyzes Zhu Xi's view of the classics by evaluating two of the philosopher's basic premises；that classics are ”books of the sages”and that reading the canon not only enables one to understand the constancy of Tiam Li （cosmic texture / order ) but itself aims at learning the sages ' wisdom. In addition, the author compares Zhu Xi's mode of thought with ontological hermeneutics and points to a number of fundamental differences between the two. Zhu Xi believes that the central value of the classics lies in their status as works of the sages, ancients who perfectly embodied the Tian Li of selfless good. In Zhu Xi's opinion, it is possible for readers to grasp the original meaning of the classics because they and the authors share common human nature and ”universalistic” truth. Yet ontological hermeneutics has departed from that stance, emphasizing the inherent limitations, historicality and subjectivity of human understanding. On one hand, Zhu Xi acknowledges these limitations, but on the other he discusses the enlightened and selfless state achieved by the sages as a witness of the possible unity of Tian Li and human beings. It is only through a mindset of true selflessness that Tian Li can be fully, naturally, and freely expressed and thus receives proper recognition from the people as the highest ideal. This kind of sagely learning does not appear on the analytical ”horizon” of ontological hermeneutics; the difference lies in the latter approach's belief in the indispensable and unsurpassable self, The ancients view a state of ”selflessness” as the most worthy of pursuits and thus underscore the ”universalistic” significance of Tian Li and the good of human nature, In contrast, ontological hermeneutics stresses the subjectivity and shortcomings of individual perception and human existence.