《群書治要》摭錄《淮南子》之治道思想抉微

The Selective Adaptation of Huainanzi in Qun Shu Zhi Yao: An Analytical Examination of Governance Philosophies

本文主要討論《群書治要》對於《淮南子》的刪選，藉由《淮南子》與《群書治要‧淮南子》的對讀，以「天道」、「君道」為論述主體，分析二者思想的異同。《群書治要》編選《淮南子》時，將書中龐雜的知識及理論推衍，以簡馭繁的濃縮其文字精華，簡化形上思考的論述、刪除陰陽精氣的修養論，將選取重點置於「治術」之上。《群書治要‧淮南子》依憑著《淮南子》的思想，為唐太宗建構一套以「君臣民」為核心之國家論述，結合道家、儒家、法家的政治視野，融合「性」、「道德」、「仁義」、「禮」與「法」為一爐；期望太宗發揮聖主「無形無迹而無不為」的政治手法，用臣化民，達致上下同心，父慈子孝的社會情態。在繼承《淮南子》思想的同時，《群書治要‧淮南子》明顯刪除關於「君勢」及「眾勢」的文字，可見《淮南子》的政治思想經過魏徵等人的編選摭取，進一步地協調、弱化戰國以來黃老思想中的「法」、「術」、「勢」等概念，並強化君臣之間的合作關係及立法因循民心之通變性，顯現出貞觀政治中雜家思想的文本接受與實踐理論。

This article principally examines the selective adaptation and condensation of Huainanzi within Qun Shu Zhi Yao, implementing a comparative analysis of the original text alongside the version presented in Qun Shu Zhi Yao’s Huainanzi sections. During its compilation, Qun Shu Zhi Yao effectively condensed the intricate knowledge and theoretical extrapolations present in Huainanzi, refining its textual core and reducing complex metaphysical discussions. Notably, it excluded sections pertaining to the self-cultivation in terms of Yin Yang. Drawing on the philosophies of Huainanzi, Qun Shu Zhi Yao articulates a political theory that revolves around the dynamics among the ruler, ministers, and populace, specifically tailored for Emperor Taizong of Tang. This framework seeks to elucidate the complex interdependencies, defining governance within this historical context. The theory extracted in Huainanzi are the combination of the political perspectives of Daoism, Confucianism, and the School of Fa, merging concepts of nature, morality, benevolence and righteousness, rituals, and law into a unified doctrine. It aims to enable Taizong to utilize the invisible, traceless political techniques of a sage ruler, thereby transforming his subjects and promoting unity and filial piety within society. While drawing from the ideas of Huainanzi, Qun Shu Zhi Yao notably excludes discussions concerning the power of the ruler and ministers. The political thoughts of Huainanzi, through editorial deletions by Wei Zheng, were further moderated and attenuated from their original Legalist and Daoist (Huang-Lao) conceptions of 'law,' 'techniques,' and 'power' since the Warring States period. This adjustment emphasizes the cooperative relationship between the sovereign and his ministers, adapting legislation to align with the public sentiment, illustrating the textual acceptance and practical application of the“Zajia”in the politics of the Zhenguan era.