《列子》是「冲虛真經」嗎？──「虛欲並舉」的思想結構

Is Liezi the Chongxu zhenjing ?──The Thought Structure of Emptiness and Desire

唐代以來，《列子》即被視為《冲虛真經》，然其書要旨只是「冲虛」嗎？倘如此，又該如何詮釋〈楊朱〉？有些學者認為此書內容駁雜，兼有矛盾，似為思想不連貫的混雜之作；亦有認為此書不宜取〈楊朱〉者；又或將〈楊朱〉與《列子》分開討論。以上看法雖有合理處，卻也忽略了〈楊朱〉與《列子》其實可能同屬某種義理系統。《列子》八篇並非全然「冲虛」，正因〈楊朱〉的存在，而使《列子》形成一幅「虛欲並舉」的圖景。冲虛和任欲看似不同，但在思想根源處殊途同源。虛欲並舉的涵義既彰，《列子》有別於老莊的另一種道家型態亦明。

Since the Tang dynasty, the Liezi has been regarded as the Chongxu zhenjing. The term chongxu has traditionally been viewed as a crucial concept within the Liezi. However, is the core essence of the text truly centered around chongxu? If that is the case, how should the interpretation of the chapter titled“Yang Zhu”be approached? Some scholars believe that the content of this book is mixed and contradictory, appearing to be a jumble of incoherent thoughts. There are also those who argue that it might not be suitable to include the section on Yang Zhu, or that Yang Zhu should be discussed separately from the Liezi. While these viewpoints have their merits, they overlook the underlying philosophical system that seems to be implied by both Yang Zhu and the Liezi. This article argues that, because of the presence of the chapter on Yang Zhu, the eight chapters of the Liezi form a thought structure of“emptiness and desire.”Chongxu and renyu may seem different, but they share the same philosophical roots. The meaning of“emptiness and desire”is evident, distinguishing the approach found in the Liezi from another Daoist archetype represented by Laozi and Zhuangzi.