宋代「莊子尊孔論」的多元風貌——對莊子儒道歸屬的再省察

The Diverse Discussion of “Respecting Confucius by Zhuangzi” Theory in the Song Dynasty: Revisiting the Scholastic Attribution of Zhuangzi

「莊子尊孔」為莊學史上的重要議題，古今皆有倡議者。此論主要關注如何緩解儒道衝突、會通儒道，以及莊子的學派歸屬，故又常被「儒學化」、「以儒解莊」、「援莊入儒」（莊子儒門）等名稱概括。對於此議題，本文立基於目前學界多數傾向宏觀式的「共性」研究，再由諸家各自之立場出發，進行微觀式的「殊性」研究。時代範圍先以宋代莊學為限，擇取著有大量莊學文獻（以注疏專書為主）之思想家，深入其詮釋的孔老莊關係，以凸顯注家自身之特殊性。經由分析，可見北宋諸家中，雖皆言「莊子尊孔」，但真正認同王安石，以儒家思想為本然至道，視莊子為儒門後學者，計有蘇軾、林疑獨、劉槩；以儒道平等並列，皆不過是大道之一曲，唯獨孔子「兼容儒道」者，則為王雱；以早於三代以前的「古之道術」為本然至道，視孔老莊皆源於此，有呂惠卿。南宋部分，又在繼承北宋諸家論點上，進行更複雜的論述。理學家林希逸的「尊孔宗老」，區分莊子之言與意二者，前者宗本老子，後者宗本孔子；道士褚伯秀認為莊子雖推崇孔子，但仍劃分儒道界線，視莊子出於道門。而其尊孔之說，最終是為反駁當時人們對莊子的批評，並利用後世對孔孟之盛名，將莊子抬高至平等地位。

The idea of “Zhuangzi’s respect for Confucius”(Zhuangzi zun Kong) has long been an important topic in the history of Zhuangzi scholarship and has been advocated by scholars in both antiquity and the present day. Central to this discussion are themes such as “the mitigation of conflict between Confucianism and Daoism,” “the harmonization of the two traditions,” and “the scholastic attribution of Zhuangzi.” These perspectives are often summarized as “Confucianization,” the interpretation of Zhuangzi through a Confucian lens, or the adoption of Zhuangzi into the Confucian canon.
On this topic, most current academic discussions tend to adopt a macroscopic and generalized perspective. This article, by contrast, builds upon existing research and introduces a micro-level analysis of individual philosophers. Focusing on the Song Dynasty, it examines selected philosophers who produced dedicated commentaries on Zhuangzi. By exploring how commentators interpret the relationship among Confucius, Laozi, and Zhuangzi, this study emphasizes the distinctive features of each philosopher’s thought.
According to the analysis, several Northern Song scholars, including Su Shi, Lin Yidu, and Liu Gai, regarded Confucianism as the ultimate truth and classified Zhuangzi as aligned with the Confucian tradition. Wang Pang believed that Confucius alone truly embodied a synthesis of Confucianism and Daoism, even as he advocated for the equal standing of the two as partial expressions of the Great Dao. Lu Huiqing asserted that the “Ancient Dao” preceded both Confucianism and Daoism, serving as the common origin of Confucius, Laozi, and Zhuangzi.
The Neo-Confucian philosopher Lin Xiyi distinguished between Zhuangzi’s rhetorical style, which he attributed to Laozi, and his underlying meaning, which he saw as aligned with Confucian values. Slightly later, the Daoist priest Chu Boxiu argued that although Zhuangzi expressed reverence for Confucius, the essential differences between Confucianism and Daoism remained. He thus classified Zhuangzi within Daoism, while strategically invoking the authority of Confucius and Mencius to elevate Zhuangzi’s status in response to contemporary criticisms.