牟宗三朱子「但理」之檢討

Li 理 as “Dan Li” : An Examination of MouZongsan’s Interpretation of Zhu Xi

牟宗三稱朱子之理為「但理」，意謂著「只存有而不活動」。然「但理」一詞在朱子文獻中未曾出現，而是天台用以判別教中道的特殊名相。牟先生很可能是借天台批評的別教「但理」來稱呼朱子之理。本文首先梳理「但理」一詞在天台顯題的原始意涵，及其在宋代發展出的新義；其次則分析牟先生為何要用別教「但理」稱呼朱子之理，並確定牟先生乃以唯識「凝然真如」擬配朱子之理，其中更隱藏著牟先生在儒家內判教的企圖；最後則分別從工夫論和本體論指出，牟先生的朱子「但理」說有其理論上的困難，朱子之理不會只是「但理」。

Mou Zongsan 牟宗三(1909-1995) has interpreted Zhu Xi’s li as “dan li” 但理, by which he means li is “merely being but not at the same time activity” 只存有而不活動. However, “dan li” had never appered in Zhu Xi’s works and is actually a special term used by the Tiantai 天台school to characterize the “middle Way” 中道 of separate, or distinct, teachings 別教. Mou Zongsan has most likely borrowed criticisms made by the Tiantai school to characterize Zhu Xi’s li. This article first gives an account of the original idea of “dan li” within the doctrine of Tiantai and indicates how it had been developed in the Song dynasty. Secondly, the author analyzes why Mou Zongsan regards Zhu Xi’s li as “dan li,” pointing out that he takes Mind-only, or Consciousness-only, 唯識 school’s concept of “objective and immobile tathatā” 凝然真如as a parallel to Zhu Xi’s li, which shows Mou Zongsan’s attempt of a doctrinal categorization in Confucianism. Finally, the article argues that from the perspectives of self-cultivation and ontology, theoretical problems exist in Mou Zongsan’s interpretation of Zhu Xi’s li, resulting in his li being unable to be just “dan li.”