由「信順成命」至「同會大通」－－阮侃、嵇康「宅有無吉凶攝生四論」之激通抉微

A Study on the Contestation between Ruan Kan and Ji Kang within the“Four Discourses on Whether Dwellings with or without Fortune and Misfortune Nourish Life”

阮侃、嵇康「宅有無吉凶攝生四論」因篇幅巨大，論難間往返雜沓，難以豁顯，故深入詮解者鮮矣。四論以攝生為錨，拓延諸題。阮侃受王充影響甚深，以性命自然不可求，故言宅無吉凶，然阮侃本儒學大族，故嵇康以儒理論難，何以《易經》云「履信思順」？阮侃遂援「成性存存」，試圖彌合命定論下之破綻，是以命雖定仍須修身以俟命，而有信順成命之論。嵇康主相須之理，故言「幽明並濟」，使人而徵宅，宅亦成人，進而廣求異端，執「不甚有」之言、「不甚無」之，得合而一，兩不俱失，乃出有入無而超有無得兩可，兼周而上之，終湊泊於大通之理境。臻於此，吾人對嵇康養生觀不再止於〈養生論〉之立場，而有更全幅地照察，從養生到攝生，由攝生至助生。

In large part due to the sheer length of the contestation, the“four discourses on whether dwellings with or without fortune and misfortune nourish life”宅有無吉凶攝生四論, which comprises four texts authored by Ruan Kan阮侃(?-?) and Ji Kang嵇康(223-263) anchored in the concept of“nourishing life,”have received few in-depth analyses. Deeply influenced by Wang Chong王充(27-97), Ruan claimed that dwellings lack fortune and misfortune because one cannot alter destiny, or nature, by seeking to change it. However, Ruan Kan had been born in a prestigious Confucian family, which gave Ji Kang a good reason to retort with questions such as why does the Book of Changes state:“treading the path of honesty and being observant of letting nature take its own course”履信思順? In response to Ji’s challenge, Ruan took the example of“fulfilling one’s nature through continuous cultivation”成性存存, thereby attempting to amend problems left from the theory of fixed destiny, as well as proposing that one should engage in self-cultivation and“fulfill one’s destiny through honesty and observance”信順成命despite the fact that it cannot be altered. On the other hand, advocating for the idea of interdependence, Ji Kang proposed that there should be an“equal emphasis on the hidden and the visible”幽明並濟; hence, just as a dwelling can be proven to be auspicious, it assists in the realization of the self. Based on this, Ji provided an explanation that embraces both sides of the argument—a house is neither with nor without good or bad fortune, rather simultaneously being both. Accordingly, our understanding of Ji Kang’s view on nourishing life is no longer restricted to what was proposed in his“Discourse on Nourishing Life”養生論.