晚明虞山書院的生死輪迴之辨──兼論耿橘、張鼐的思想立場

Late Ming Debates on Life, Death and Samsara at Yushan Academy —— On the Philosophical Positions of Geng Ju and Zhang Nai

十七世紀初，常熟縣令耿橘修復虞山書院，召集四方同道討論理學，使之成為晚明江南地區儒者講學的重要據點，在耿氏的學友張鼐所領導編纂的〔萬曆〕《虞山書院志》中，大量收錄了耿氏與當時學者的論學文字，為晚明思想史的研究提供了重要的文獻。其中第十四卷載錄的是耿橘、張鼐為首的虞山書院學者凡二十人，對生死輪迴議題的討論，以及他們對《論語》「朝聞道，夕可死」與「未知生，焉知死」的思想，所進行的創造性詮釋。學者們的發言，或有篤守程朱立場者、或有兼參禪學者、或有融通三教者，這些基於不同背景與思考脈絡的生死輪迴觀，在這場講論中交相激盪，並且完整地保存下來，無疑是觀察晚明儒學相關論述的極佳材料。過去學界對虞山書院的研究十分有限，耿橘、張鼐等人在晚明思想史上也近乎隱形。本文通過文獻的梳理和義理的分析，詳盡闡述了這場學術討論的問題意識與來龍去脈；並對耿橘、張鼐的思想型態和虞山書院的講學風格，進行了較為清楚的定位，期能充實明代思想史的研究成果，並引發對此課題的關注與討論。

 

In the beginning of the seventeenth century, Geng Ju, the magistrate of Changshu county, restored Yushan Academy. Scholars gathered from every quarter to discuss Neo-Confucian philosophy at the academy, which swiftly became an important intellectual hub in the Jiangnan region. The Wanli edition of Yushan Academy Gazetteer, compiled under the leadership of Geng’s colleague, Zhang Nai, recorded many scholarly debates between Geng and other contemporary scholars associated with the Academy. Hence, this gazetteer remains an important resource for our understanding of late Ming intellectual history. Chapter 14 of the gazetteer includes an anthology of philosophical debates about life, death and samsara between 20 scholars at the academy, led by Geng and Zhang. They also creatively reinterpreted concepts from the Analects, including the passages, “One who hears the Dao in the morning may gladly die in the evening,"" and ""How can one know death when life is not yet known?"" The scholars took varying stances on life, death and samsara from different types of backgrounds and intellectual lineages, with positions ranging from the orthodoxies of the Cheng brothers and Zhu Xi, to Confucian ideas tinged with Zen Buddhism, to a syncretic blending of the Three Teachings. Comprehensively preserved in the gazetteer, these debates certainly provide a major contribution to our understanding of late Ming Confucianism. Previous scholarship on Yushan Academy is very limited, with Geng Ju, Zhang Nai, and their peers barely making an appearance. The analysis in this essay focuses on the background and concerns of this debate and how it proceeded, defining and positioning the philosophical standpoints of Geng and Zhang, as well as the general intellectual atmosphere at Yushan Academy, locating it within the wider context of Ming intellectual history, in hope of sparking attention and discussion on the subject.