顧涇陽對王陽明「無善無惡心之體」概念的詮釋與回應

Gu Jing-yang’s interpretation and response to Wang Yang-ming’s concept of “in the original substance of the mind there is no distinction between good and evil”

顧涇陽對於王陽明「無善無惡心之體」概念的詮釋與回應，不僅反映了晚明學者對於王學流弊問題的理解與反省，同時也可以作為晚明陽明思想接受史的一個側面描寫。作為東林學派代表人物的顧涇陽，他在削籍里居後便開始對王陽明「無善無惡心之體」這一重要哲學概念展開思考與論辯，而構成了他的學術研究重點。本文指出當涇陽對於陽明以「無善無惡」四字來描述「心之本體」提出質疑時，這不僅內涵著一種關於理論效用的實踐範疇的考量，同時也有著其本身對於價值本體、以及本體與現象關係應當如何理解的一層思考。本文並透過涇陽同管東溟有關現象與本體的論辨，以指出涇陽對於陽明教法有隔斷本體與工夫的顧慮，並繼而指出涇陽並非是無法理解陽明試圖以「無善無惡」說，來處理道德實踐者的意念是否能夠純粹化的這一問題，而是將此涉及了本體論檢證的問題，滑轉為工夫論的一種理解進路，這一理解上所產生的歧義，正凸顯了兩造各自以心為宗，與以性為宗的本體、工夫的不同取徑。

Gu Jing-yang’s interpretive response to Wang Yang-ming’s concept of “in the original substance of the mind there is no distinction between good and evil” not only reflects the late Ming Dynasty scholars’ reflection on the problems arising from the development of Wang’s learning, but also how the late Ming Dynasty scholars understood Yang-ming’s thought. After Gu Jing-yang was resigned from the official position and returned to his hometown, he started his discussion of Wang Yang-ming’s important concept of “in the original substance of the mind there is no distinction between good and evil”. This article points out that his doubts about Yang-ming’s use of the words “no good and no evil” to describe “the mind” include not only contains a practical consideration of theoretical effects, but also his thinking on the understanding of value ontology and the relationship between ontology and phenomena. And also through the debate between Jing-yang and Guan Dong-ming about empirical phenomena and transcendental ontology, to point out that Jing-yang’s doubts was about Yang-ming’s theory may have a question that separates ontology from practical activities. And explain that Jing-yang is not incapable of understanding that Yang-ming uses the statement “in the original substance of the mind there is no distinction between good and evil” to try to solve the problem of whether the will is pure or not encountered by people in moral practice, more accurately, this question about which should have been about ontological verification, is understood as a problem of self-cultivation theory. This difference in understanding reflects the differences in the theoretical orientations of the two sides in their own belief in mind and in nature.