論牟宗三先生對於別教與圓教之詮釋──兼論王陽明的工夫論的別教與圓教意義

On Mou Tsung san's Interpretation of Separate Teaching (bie jiao) and Perfect Teaching (yuan jiao)–with a Discussion on the Significance of Separate Teaching and Perfect Teaching

由於牟宗三先生將圓教義理提升為一哲學系統的判教模式，但在儒家哲學中，牟先生似只以胡五峰（和程明道）作為儒家的圓教系統的代表，不免使人疑惑其他儒者的義理思想是否無法具有圓教之意義，即無法達到此一最究竟的哲學系統，如牟先生即指出王陽明的四句教只具有別教意義，似指王陽明的工夫義理達不到圓教意義，但本文認為王陽明的工夫義理亦具有圓教意義。因此，本文將主要梳理牟先生對於別教與圓教之詮釋，即如何區分別教與圓教之意義，進而嘗試兼論王陽明的工夫論中的別教與圓教之意義。

Mou Tsung-san, who took the theory of perfect teaching (yuan jiao) as a philosophical system for classifying Buddhist texts and doctrines (pan jiao), primarily uses the philosophical systems of Hu Wufeng and Cheng Mingdao as representatives of the Confucian perfect teaching model. Mou’s classification raises questions as to the implications of perfect teaching within the philosophical systems of other Confucian thinkers. For example, Mou indicates that Wang Yangming’s“the Four Dicta (si ju jiao)”should be classified as separate teaching (bie jiao), implying that his theory of moral self-cultivation does not align with perfect teaching. However, the author argues that Wang’s theory of moral self-cultivation still contains significant elements of perfect teaching. To support this argument, the author firstly examines Mou’s interpretation and differentiation between separate teaching and perfect teaching, and follows this with a discussion on the significance of these concepts in Wang Yangming’s theory.