陽明後學胡直與張元忭「萬物一體為宗」的思想內涵與比較

The Connotations and Comparative Analysis of Hu Zhi and Zhang Yuanbian’s “Oneness of All Things” Ideology in Post-Yangming Scholarship

「萬物一體」作為王陽明晚年的重要論述，不過後學中僅有江右王門胡直與浙中王門張元忭標舉「一體為宗」。然而他們所開出的路向卻迥然有別：胡直標舉「心造萬物」，張元忭則力陳「心普萬物」；胡直極端地主張「理在心不在物」，元忭則仍持守「心外無物」的立場；胡直在工夫上傾向「悟於心」，張元忭則認為應「修悟並進」；胡直偏向從體上「通物我」；元忭致力從用上「貫物我」；胡直的「一體」是內外無二、與物相通的心體本然狀態，本體論意涵濃厚；元忭的「一體」則是我與萬物同為一體，倫理學意涵鮮明；胡直著重「識仁」，從保任本體的主宰性來止息物欲，張元忭則認為「識仁」後還要從用上去私才能「體仁」。對比陽明，胡、張詮釋「一體」時是圍繞著「去欲」為中心，著重從工夫層面思考合內外、通物我的方法。「仁」所呈顯的也不是陽明所重的感通義，而是以「無欲」、「無內外」的超越無滯義為首出。為了處理空談虛行的問題，他們在陽明本體論的基礎上取源程顥「須先識仁」的主張，偏重從工夫指向闡釋「仁」的境界論意義。由於他們提揭「萬物一體」的問題意識與義理路向與陽明已截然有別，所以不可定位為陽明「萬物一體」義理的進一步發展。

The concept of ''oneness of all things'' was an important discourse in Wang Yangming’s later years. Among later scholars influenced by Wang Yangming, only Hu Zhi from the Jiangyou Wang School and Zhang Yuanbian from the Zhezhong Wang School explicitly adopted the principle of ''oneness as the central tenet.'' However, their respective approaches diverged considerably. Hu Zhi emphasized that ''the mind creates all things,'' whereas Zhang Yuanbian argued that ''the mind universalizes all things.'' Hu Zhi took an extreme stance, asserting that ''reason is in the mind and not in things,'' while Zhang Yuanbian adhered to the position that ''there is nothing outside the mind.”
In terms of practice, Hu Zhi favored ''enlightenment in the mind,'' whereas Zhang Yuanbian argued for the integration of ''cultivation and enlightenment.'' Hu Zhi favored the ''through-ness'' of things from the body, while Zhang Yuanbian approached the ''through-ness'' of things from the function. For Hu Zhi, ''oneness'' described a natural state of the mind’s unity with external objects, characterized by an ontological focus. In contrast, Zhang Yuanbian's ''oneness'' emphasized the ethical implications of a shared existence between the self and all things. While Hu Zhi emphasized the ''knowledge of benevolence,'' asserting that cessation of material desires could be achieved through safeguarding the sovereignty of the essence, Zhang Yuanbian argued that ''knowledge of benevolence'' must be followed by eliminating selfishness through practical application to fully ''realize benevolence.''
Compared to Wang Yangming, Hu Zhi 's and Zhang Yuanbian's interpretations of ''oneness'' centered on the “removal of desire” and focused on methods for integrating the internal and external as well as uniting self and objects in practice. Their interpretation of ''benevolence'' diverged from Wang's emphasis on the sense of sensibility; instead, it highlighted a transcendent, non-stagnant ideal of ''no desire'' and ''no distinction between internal and external.''
To address concerns of theoretical detachment from practice, both scholars drew on Cheng Hao's assertion that ''benevolence must first be understood'' and reframed Wang Yangming's ontological foundation into a practical, realm-oriented interpretation of ''benevolence.'' Given their distinct concerns and doctrinal directions, Hu Zhi’s and Zhang Yuanbian’s ''oneness of all things'' cannot be considered a direct extension of Wang Yangming's philosophy.