從牟宗三與李華西對朱子「明德注」的詮釋見「心說論爭」的意義

From Comparing Mou Zongsan and Li Hwaseo's Interpretations of ZhuXi's remarks on MingDe to See the Values of “Xinseol Debate＂

本文旨在透過對比牟宗三及李華西二人對朱子「明德注」的詮釋，展示朝鮮朝末期「心說論爭」的意義。牟宗三及李華西二人皆認為應以「明德主理」理解朱子「明德」義，並強調明德應關聯著心而言，二人對朱子「明德」的理解確有很大的相似處。然而，在最後的定位上，牟先生卻認為朱子只能是儒學的「別子為宗」，這與朝鮮朝一貫地視朱子為儒學「正宗」有著迥然的差異。之所以有此不同的評價，是因為他們對於朱子言「心」有不同的理解。牟宗三認為朱子所言之「心」只能有認知的、知覺的作用，故「明德」雖是關聯著心而言之性理，此一關聯亦必是後天的、外在的關聯。而李華西則認為「心」的內涵是「理氣合」，故「明德」雖是理，卻是「心中之理」。因此李華西之言「關聯著心以言明德」，此一關聯是先天的、內在的關聯。這一對心的不同理解，是造成二人在朱子的評價上完全背道而馳之關鍵處。究竟應如何恰當地理解朱子學，學界中至今仍有許多討論，而朝鮮本文旨在透過對比牟宗三及李華西二人對朱子「明德注」的詮釋，展示朝鮮朝末期「心說論爭」的意義。牟宗三及李華西二人皆認為應以「明德主理」理解朱子「明德」義，並強調明德應關聯著心而言，二人對朱子「明德」的理解確有很大的相似處。然而，在最後的定位上，牟先生卻認為朱子只能是儒學的「別子為宗」，這與朝鮮朝一貫地視朱子為儒學「正宗」有著迥然的差異。之所以有此不同的評價，是因為他們對於朱子言「心」有不同的理解。牟宗三認為朱子所言之「心」只能有認知的、知覺的作用，故「明德」雖是關聯著心而言之性理，此一關聯亦必是後天的、外在的關聯。而李華西則認為「心」的內涵是「理氣合」，故「明德」雖是理，卻是「心中之理」。因此李華西之言「關聯著心以言明德」，此一關聯是先天的、內在的關聯。這一對心的不同理解，是造成二人在朱子的評價上完全背道而馳之關鍵處。究竟應如何恰當地理解朱子學，學界中至今仍有許多討論，而朝鮮朱子學的發展確能為當代朱子學提供一不同視角，豐富此一討論。李華西作為朝鮮末期「心說論爭」的代表之一，從他的重要主張「明德主理」對比當代儒者牟宗三先生對朱子「明德注」的詮釋，不僅能突顯二儒對朱子的不同理解，表現了朱子學的豐富內涵，亦可見「心說論爭」在當代儒學的意義。 The purpose of this paper is to show the significance of ''Xinseol Debate'' in the later part of the Joseon Dynasty by comparing the interpretations of Mou Zongsan and Li Hwaseo on ZhuXi's remarks in MingDe (明德). Both Mou and Li believe that in order to understand ZhuXi's ''MingDe'', it needs to be based on Li’s (理) approach, and should be related to Xin (心) (Ming DeJuLi,明德主理). On the surface their understandings are similar. However, in the final assessment, Mou believes that ZhuXi’s philosophy is somewhat different from the ''authentic Confucianism'', which is based from Mencius’s philosophy. (別子為宗). ''This is quite different from the scholars of the Joseon Dynasty who regarded ZhuXi as the most authentic and mainstream of Confucianism.'' The reason for these two different evaluations is because they have different understandings of ZhuXi’s concept of Xin. Mou believes the concept of the Xin prescribed by ZhuXi is only the function of cognition and perception. Although the concept of MingDe is ''Li'', and has to be related to the concept of Xin, this association must be acquired and is an external one. However, Li believes that the meaning of Xin is a ''combination of Li and Qi''. Although the content of ''MingDe'' is Li, it is included in the Xin. In light of this, although Li also said that the concept of MingDe is ''Li'', and has to be related to the concept of Xin, this association is an innate and intrinsic one. This different understanding of the Xin is the key point that causes the two to completely run counter to the evaluation of ZhuXi. How to properly understand the knowledge of ZhuXi, there are still many discussions. I think the Korean Confucianism can provide a different perspective for the contemporary school of ZhuXi, and enrich its discussion. Li, as one of the representatives of the ''Xinseol Debate'' in the late Joseon Dynasty, put forward an important proposition: ''MingDe is Li, and should be related to Xin, but is '' inside the Xin'' (Li’s MingDeJuLi華西的明德主理). By focusing on the two different interpretations of ZhuXi’s MingDe by Mou and Li, we can present the rich content of ZhuXi. In addition, we can also see how the ''Xinseol Debate'' can provide additional stimulus for the contemporary Confucianism.