水月與記籍－－理學家如何詮釋經典

Moons in the Rivers and Account Books : How N eo-Confucians Interpret the Classics

本文比較朱子與陸王對儒家經典的解釋，並希望由經典詮釋的角度著手，突顯兩派思想的差異。朱子注經，號稱嚴謹，他亦自許最能客觀從事。但我們抽樣性的分析《四書》每一書的首篇的首章，發現朱子都將「理」的概念帶進詮釋的場域，《四書》所記載的所有德行、德性，全化為超越的「理」展開之世界。更進一步分析，我們發現朱子不只將《四書》的德目、德行皆解釋成「理」，他更強調它們還是「理一分殊」之展現，朱子使用「月印萬川」這個著名的隱喻解釋理的架構。他認為所有的道德都來自於同一的太極，太極也必然顯現為千殊萬差的具體之理，這是「差異中同一」的秩序，而且，「同一」只能由「差異」，亦即「上達」只能由「下學」的過程中體現出來。相對之下，陸王因為強調「明本心」，「本心」是一切價值的總根源。所以「經典」在現實的事物中，固然價值最大，但它本質上就是中介性質的東西，王陽明說：經典是良知的「記籍」，是「階梯」，所以比較上它是不好中最好的導體，不佳中最佳的工具，不真中最真的模本，但經典本身不具足內在的價值。朱子是經學大家，而陸王幾乎沒有獨立的經學可言，我們由他們詮釋經典依循的準則，即可略見一斑。

This article compares two modes of classics interpretation in Neo-Confucian intellectual history. Chu His is regarded as an excellent exegetic scholar who can interpret the classics free of prejudice. In fact, Chu Hsi 's interpretation was nevertheless an act of recreation. First, He translated the moral terms of classics into transcendental principles. Second, He rearranged the various meanings of principles in a special scheme. According to Chu His, all principles in essence were the manifestation of the same Ultimate. The principles to the Ultimate was as the moons in waters to the moon in the sky. By the arrangement of this great master, the world of Four Books and of all Confucian classics was transformed into that of the Ultimate. On the contrary, Lu Hsiang Shan and Wang Yang Ming regarded the classics as the means to the ends. Classics itself is like a bridge across the river, an account book registering the acres, a ladder to the roof. Therefore, once students have grasped the meaning of the classics, or have realized the truth, they should throw away the classics. The classics is like an awkward template of the truth. This article compares this two modes of interpretation, consequently, it reveals the philosophical differences between them.