摘要
王弼通过“得意忘象”的方法展示出一个“内容真理”的领域。牟宗三认为,魏晋玄学对这一领域的形上思考属于主体境界心灵下的“内容体会”,而非对本体的抽象观想。在这一诠释脉络中,王弼《周易注》被认为只能揭示儒家道德形上学的“形式义”,无法触及儒家心性义理的宗骨,并且其《易》注蕴涵的儒道会通模式,以儒道两家共享的“无”的境界作为会通基础,无法彰显儒道义理的本质差异。牟宗三在批判王弼易学的过程中构建出一套“纵贯两态”的儒道会通模式,在这一模式下,儒道义理分别属于同一“纵贯”关系的两种不同讲法。然而,其儒家“纵贯纵讲”的基本界定不能成立,并且其儒家本位的立场使得这一会通模式沦为了主观性的会通。
Wang Bi(226-249) exhibited a field of “content truth” through the method of “forgetting images once one obtains ideas”. Mu Zongsan(1909-1995) averred that the metaphysical thinking in this field in the Wei(220-265) and Jin(265-420) dynasties belongs to the “content experience” in the mind-to the subjective realm rather than the abstract imagination of the conceptual body. In this context of interpretation, Wang Bi’s Zhouyi zhu(Annotations to the Zhou Changes) could only reveal the “formal meaning” of Confucian moral metaphysics but not touch the essence of Confucian innate nature and principle;and Wang’s mode of fusing Confucianism and Daoism by taking as the basis wu(non-existence), shared by Confucianism and Daoism, cannot reveal the essential differences between Confucianism and Daoism. In the course of criticizing Wang Bi’s scholarship, Mu Zongsan constructed a mode named “two dispositions of vertical structure” to fuse Confucianism and Daoism. In this mode, the meanings and principles of Confucianism and Daoism were respectively divided into two different ways of expression. However, the basic definition of Confucian’s “vertical line of transmission” cannot stand, and because of his Confucian standpoint, this mode of fusion lapsed into a kind of far-fetched subjective fusion.
出处
《周易研究》
CSSCI
北大核心
2022年第2期78-86,共9页
Studies of Zhouyi
基金
山东大学基本科研业务费资助项目:“判教视域下牟宗三的三教观研究”(2020GN076)。
关键词
王弼
牟宗三
儒道会通
内容真理
道体儒用
纵贯两态
Wang Bi
Mu Zongsan
fusion of Confucianism and Daoism
content truth
Daoism as conceptual body and Confucianism as function
two manifestations of vertical structure
