當代學者對劉勰〈原道〉之道的詮釋分歧與評論──從儒家「心性－形上」學的角度來論「道」

An Interpretational Difference and Commentary of Contemporary Wen Hsin Tiao Lung Scholars on 'Tao' of Liu Hsieh's 'Yuan Tao' and A Discussion on 'Tao' from a Confucian 'Hsin Hsing-Hsing Shang' Point of View

劉勰〈原道〉之「道」的義理性格，一直以來是學界爭議不斷的課題。本文透過「詮釋的一致性與融貫性」與「中國哲學基本性格的境界性與實踐性」這兩項詮釋預設，來逐一評論當代學者所提出之：「大自然之道」、「佛家之道」、「儒、道兼具之道」、「儒釋道三教融合之道」與「儒家之道」這五種較具代表性的〈原道〉之「道」的詮釋觀點。經評判後，本文認為「儒家之道」中所提出之「儒家心性之道」與「儒家本體宇宙論之道」的說法較之他說更具優勢，值得繼承。透過「儒家心性－形上之道」的觀點，不但能夠較好地解釋〈原道〉中「道－聖－文」三者之關係，而且也能夠使得劉勰文論的重要概念，如「情」與「風骨」之深層內容得以顯露，並且也將使我們進一步地思考：是否儒家文學觀必定只有反抒情、重載道、尚教化這一種類型？是否抒情文學觀就必然排斥道德教化之作用？劉勰那種「抒情」、「載道」、「言志」與「教化」四者不分的「原道」文學觀，可否說是另一種類型的儒家文學觀或說抒情文學觀？這類的問題。

The philosophical connotation of Liu Hsieh's 'Tao' has long been a source of scholarly controversy. Based on two predetermined interpretations: i.e. 'the unity and coherence of interpretation' and 'the realm and practicality of the basic nature of Chinese philosophy.' This study comments respectively on the five representations of 'Tao' in 'Yuan Tao' brought up by contemporary scholars, namely, 'the Tao of Nature,' 'the Tao of Buddhism,' 'the Tao of both Confucianism and Taoism,' 'the Tao of the Fusion of Confucianism, Buddhism, and Taoism,' and 'the Tao of Confucianism.' Following critical reviews, this study finds that the 'the Tao of Confucian mind and nature' and 'the Tao of Confucian Onto-cosmology' from 'the Tao of Confucianism' are more convincing compared to other scholarly interpretations, and therefore worthy of preservation. With the perspective of 'Confucian mind and nature-the Tao of metaphysics' in mind. The relationships among 'Tao-Sheng-Wen' adopted from 'Yuan Tao' can be properly explained and the basic concepts of Liu Hsieh's literary theories such as the underlying meanings of 'emotions' and 'spirit and structure' can be greatly elaborated. Thus we can bring the idea a step further and contemplate on whether Confucian literary view can merely be classified as anti-lyricism, prone to conveying of Tao and moral education? Does lyrical argument necessarily exclude moral education? Can Liu Hsieh's indistinguishable 'Yuan Tao' argument that 'lyricism,' 'conveying of Tao,' 'expressing ambition' and 'moral education' combined be regarded as different kinds of Confucian or lyrical literature perspectives?