王植對《注解正蒙》神化觀之批判──以「太虛」三層義為進路

A Study of Wang Zhi's Criticisms of the Deification in the 'Commentary of the Zhengmeng' by an Analysis of the Three Aspects in the Idea of 'Ultimate Voidness (Taixu太虛)'

設若研讀哲學家的代表著作，是吾人探究其思想的必要條件之一，則逐句解析張載思想論述的明清《正蒙》注，顯然是研究橫渠思想在明清哲學之發展時，所無可忽視的一環。尤其歷來注解《正蒙》者，不乏高攀龍，王夫之等望重士林，或在哲學史上具有獨創見解者。然而在當代張載學研究中，相關議題似乎仍較少引起學者間的討論興趣。基於此，本文以清代《正蒙》學研究為論述起點，旨在澄清李光地在《注解正蒙》中對張載神化觀的詮釋，以及王植在《正蒙初義》中如何由釐清「太虛」概念，批判李《注》之非。全文共分為四項研究環節：首先，由於王植以澄清「太虛」概念為解讀《正蒙》與衡定諸注之關鍵，本文先扼要說明「太虛」之三層義。其次，本文將指出李《注》對「太虛」之詮釋，以及王植對李《注》太虛義之批判。再者，由於李《注》不僅嘗試解消「太虛」之本體義，而且以理氣二分的理論架構，詮釋橫渠虛氣一體之神化觀。本文將指出李《注》對橫渠神化觀之新詮。最後，本文將藉太虛三層義，指出《正蒙初義》的洞見以及李《注》神化觀的侷限。 In order to understand the content and significance of Zhan Zai' thought, commentarial works on the ”Zhengmeng” during the Ming and Qing period are indispensable because these works present detailed explications on every conceptual terms. Compared to those commentarial works on the Zhang Zai's thought by Gao Panlong and Wang Fuzhi who have been regarded as rather creative thinkers, other commentarial works during the Qing period have not drawn sufficient scholarly attention. Bearing this in mind, this article aims to explore the two topics: Firstly, it analyzes Li Guangdi's interpretation on Zhang Zai's idea of ”deification” through Li's ”Commentary of the Zhengmeng”. And secondly, it also traces Wang Zhi's elucidation of the concept of ”Ultimate Voidness” (Taixu) in his commentarial work, the ”Basic Meanings of the Zhengmeng”, as well as Wang's correction of initial mistakes in aforementioned Li Guangdi's commentary.The discussion of this article consists of the following four sub-topics: (1) Wang Zhi's exposition of three aspects in the concept of ”Ultimate Voidness”; (2) Li Guangdi's interpretation of the term ”Ultimate Voidness” and Wang Zhi's repudiation against it; (3) Li's argument that the ontological significance of the concept of ”Ulitmate Voidmenss” should be dissolved, and that Zhang Zai's idea of deification of continuity between vital breath and voidness should be understood by the dualistic framework between principle and vital breath; and (4) Highlighting of Wang's insight and Li's limitation of his conception of deification by means of our analysis of the three aspects in the concept of ”Ultimate Voidness.”