「《易傳》是道家《易》學」駁議

A Refutation of the View that the Commentaries on the Book of Changes Are a Taoist Theory of Change

傳統觀點皆視《易傳》為儒家《易》學，但近期卻有學者提出「《易傳》是道家《易》學」說，本文旨在考察《易傳》究是道家《易》學，抑是儒家《易》學；是「道家主幹說」，還是以儒家思想為主軸，並融合他家思想的安身立命之學，並探討是否果真《易傳》「與儒家的關係可說是微乎其微」！全文分四個脈絡進行：一、檢證道家的《易》學譜系，這些所謂的「道家《易》學家」，他們學說思想內涵為何？如果是「儒、道兼綜」，那麼可以為他們貼上「道家《易》學家」的專利標籤嗎？二、檢證辯證法或辯證思維是否必然專屬於《老子》，《易經》卦爻的組成是否涵有一套辯證思維，這套由《易傳》所承繼開展的辯證法，其與《老子》中所涵的辯證法是否為同一類型。「推天道以明人事」的思維方式是否必然地也是道家的專利品。三、考察道家《易》學的系統性，《易》學之所以成為「學」，係因其有學說體系的系統性與嚴謹性，如果從系統性思維的視角切入，則老、莊與黃、老道家的「道家《易》學」，是確有其實，抑或僅是一個「虛擬貧境」(simulating)。四、再檢證其論點的若干方法論問題，「《易傳》是道家《易》學」論點的提出，是否尚建構在其他有問題的方法論之上。

The Commentaries on the I Ching (Book of Changes) have been traditionally viewed as a Confucian theory of i (change), but recently some scholars maintain that it is a Taoist theory of change. This essay aims to determine whether the Commentaries on I Ching is Confucian or is Taoist. Were they based primarily upon Taoist ideas? Or were they made up through the confusion of Confucian and some non-Confucian thoughts, taking the Confucian component of thought as the mainstream? We need to investigate whether or not it is true that 'the connection between the Commentaries on the I Ching and Confucianism is very meager.' This essay is divided into five parts. The first part examines the transmission of Taoist teaching on change; I try to find out if the so-called Taoist theory of change is quoting the Book of Changes or if it is interpreting it, and what are the entailments in the teaching in either case. If Taoist and Confucian thoughts are equally synthesized in this text, can it be labeled as the Taoist I? In the second part, I inquire into questions such as: Does the dialectical method of thought belong to Lao-tzu alone? Does the construction and arrangement of hexagrams of the I Ching include some kind of dialectical thinking? If yes, do this dialectical tradition inherited by the Commentaries on the I Ching and that of Lao-tzu belong to the s ame type? And, does inferring human affairs from t'ien-tao (the way of heaven) also belong to the Taoist tradition alone? Then, I move on to examine the systematicity of the i-theory. There must be some system and coherence in the ideas of i, otherwise they cannot become a theory or school of thought. A systematic inquiry into the problem shows us that a recognizable Lao-tzu, Chuang-tzu and Huang-Lao orientation towards a Taoist theory of change existed, but perhaps only as a virtual world. Lastly, A Refutation of the View that the Commentaries on the Book of Changes Are a Taoist Theory of Change YEN Kuo-ming from several methodological standpoints, I question the appropriateness of taking the Commentaries on the I as a Taoist theory, the presuppositions on which such an approach is based, and the processes of inference involved.