論王弼《周易注》

On Wang Bi's “Commentaries to the Book of Changes”

本文析論王弼《周易註》，主要順著牟宗三先生的觀點。牟先生在《才性與玄理》中評論王弼易學「大抵凡泛言體用處，皆極精透。一涉天道性命之貫通處，則皆浮泛不切。」故首先闡述王弼的易學造詣，以見王弼之精透，再剖析《周易》與《周易注》在天道理論上的差異，以見王弼如何不切儒家天道性命之理。關於王弼的易學造詣又分兩項討論，其一是廓清易學之功，其二是奠立義理易學的論述架構。前者主要討論「言意之辯」的方法，王弼透過嚴分言、意、象的功能，以制約象、數的詮釋功能，以免流於滋漫。其二則論王弼之「主爻論述」與「卦爻變通條例」的完成，此為確立「義理易學」論述的主要綱領。至於有關王弼何以不切儒家「天道性命」之理方面，本文簡略的摘錄了周敦頤、程頤、朱子以及王船山等宋、明儒相關的論述，與王弼易學的天道性命觀作比較，其中的歧異是顯而易見的。王弼的易學中有關天道性命的主張，基本上是循道家的形上學架構而成。故《周易》揭櫫「大哉乾元」以說明天道「開物成務」的開創性意涵，可說全然隱沒不見。從這點看，王弼《周易注》與儒家的易學傳統，的確有最大的隔閡。最後肯定王弼之易學，扭轉漢魏之際的易學流風，確立了義理易學的規模，在易學史上其功不小。

This article analyzes Wang Bi's “Commentaries to the Book of Changes”. Mainly, I follow the viewpoint of Mou Chung-shan's. Mr. Mou in his book “The Talent Character and the Abstract Theory” criticizes Wang Bi's study of The Book of Changes. Wang is superb, when discusses the general application of The Book of Changes, but when Wang tried to link to the way of heaven and the human nature, destiny, he was shallow and impractical. Therefore, I first elaborate on Wang Bi's outstanding research on The Book of Changes, which placed him in such high regard among the scholars of this book. Then, I analyze the differences of the way of Heaven between the text and Wang's Commentary of “The Book of Changes” with this study I try to demonstrate that Wang Bi's theory was not congruent with the Confucian theory of the way of heaven and the theory of human nature and destiny. To the Wang Bi's achievement in studying The Book of Changes. The first is to clarify the advantage of The Book of Changes, and the second is to establish a foundation for discussion of the theory of The Book of Changes. The assistance from the debate of Words and meaning, Wang Bi's via the strict division of words, meaning, and symbols avoided a broad explanation of the symbols and numbers (hsiang su). This was the main reason for changing the direction of study of The Book of Changes during the Han and Wei Dynasties. Regarding Wang Bi's “Theory of the Key Line (yao)” and “The Rules of Change in Hexagrams (qua) and Lines (yao),” these even more assured the establishment of the discussion of the theory of The Book of Changes. However, why did Wang Bi's theory not in tune with the theory of Confucian way of heaven and the human nature, destiny? My article has briefly quoted the statements from Sung and Ming scholars such as Chou Tun-yi, Chen Yi, Chu Hsi, and Wang Chuan-shan to compare their ideas with Wang Bi's theory of the Way of Heaven and human nature, destiny, which basically followed the metaphysics of Taoism. Hence, The Book of Changes proposed, “the great Qian (the very first one) Hexagram started the beginning”, which explained origins, but Wang Bi's entirely neglected this point. This is the main problem of Wang Bi's “Commentaries to The Book of Changes” and “The Book of Changes”.