保住瑞氣 ] 杜保瑞資料 ] 教學課程 ] 學術論文 ] 專書著作 ] 學術資源 ]

當代新儒家哲學在台灣的影響與理論反省 
 

向上 ]

功夫境界世界觀釋義 ] 功夫理論與境界哲學 ] 現代中國哲學在台灣的創造與發展 ] 中國哲學的基本哲學問題意識反省 ] 當代老學道論研究的基本哲學問題解析 ] [ 當代新儒家哲學在台灣的影響與理論反省 ] 從當代儒佛辯諍談中國哲學研究視野 ] 當代儒佛辯爭的一趟誤解之旅 ] 對梁漱溟東西文化與哲學比較觀點之反省 ] 熊十力新唯識論的問題意識與思想立場 ] 對傅偉勳談中國哲學工作方法及方法論觀點之評析 ] 馮友蘭對中國形上學論辯的方法論解析 ] 馮友蘭新理學建構的理論反省 ] 馮友蘭此在世界道德精神重建儒學的理論建構 ] 馮友蘭《貞元六書》中的工夫理論與境界哲學 ] 馮友蘭《貞元六書》對中國人生哲學精神的比較觀點 ] 對牟宗三佛學詮釋的方法論反省 ] 對牟宗三佛學詮釋基本立場的反思 ] 對牟宗三佛教般若學詮釋之方法論反思 ] 對牟宗三詮釋佛性概念之方法論反思 ] 對牟宗三詮釋楞伽經與起信論的方法論反思 ] 牟宗三對華嚴宗詮釋的方法論反思 ] 論牟宗三談法華經之性格與天台宗原初之洞見 ] 對牟宗三詮釋天臺宗五時八教觀對比華嚴宗的反思 ] 對牟宗三道家詮釋的方法論反省 ] 對牟宗三由道家詮釋而建構儒學的方法論反思 ] 從《四因說演講錄》和《圓善論》論牟宗三先生的道家詮釋 ] 對牟宗三談宋明儒學之所以為新儒學意見的方法論反省 ] 對牟宗三談宋明儒學之課題與分系的方法論反省 ] 對牟宗三詮釋周濂溪的方法論反省 ] 對牟宗三談張載道體性體心體義的方法論反省 ] 牟宗三對程顥哲學詮釋的方法論反省 ] 試論牟宗三哲學的儒佛會通 ] 從牟宗三哲學談儒佛會通的方法論探究 ] 對牟宗三在《圓善論》中建構儒家「德福一致」說的方法論反思 ] 對牟宗三宋明儒學詮釋體系的方法論反省 ] 對牟宗三詮釋程頤理氣篇的方法論反思 ] <對牟宗三透過胡宏詮釋建立的境界形上學之方法論反思> ] 對牟宗三批評朱熹與程頤之大學詮釋的綱領性意見之反省 ] 對牟宗三詮釋朱熹以《大學》為規模的方法論反省 ] 對牟宗三詮釋朱子中和說的方法論反省 ] 對牟宗三詮釋朱子仁說的方法論反省 ] 對牟宗三朱熹詮釋的方法論反省 ] 對牟宗三談朱熹孟子詮釋的方法論平議 ] 對牟宗三詮釋朱熹心性情理氣論的方法論反思 ] 對牟宗三詮釋陸象山的方法論反省 ] 對牟宗三談朱陸之爭的方法論反思 ] 對牟宗三以「覺悟說」詮釋朱陸之爭的方法論反思 ] 對牟宗三詮釋王陽明哲學的方法論反省 ] 對牟宗三詮釋劉蕺山以心著性的方法論反思 ] 當代宋明儒學研究與中國形上學問題意識 ] 中國哲學的真理觀問題 ] The question of the view of truth in Chinese Philosophy ] 對勞思光先生宋明儒學詮釋體系的方法論反省 ] 對勞思光朱熹詮釋的方法論反思 ] 對勞思光先生道佛詮釋的方法論反省 ] 對勞思光詮釋象山陽明龍溪的方法論反思 ] 對方東美朱熹詮釋的反思 ] 對方東美陸王心學詮釋的反思 ] 對方東美道家詮釋的方法論反思 ] 對方東美論中國形上學的方法論反省 ] Some Observations on the Buddhist study of Thome H. Fang ] 方東美對中國大乘佛教亦宗教亦哲學的基本立場 ] 方東美對大乘佛學中國化的詮釋立場 ] 論方東美對西方哲學二元分立的評定 ] 對方東美論三論、唯識及起信論的方法論反思 ] 對方東美論印度哲學及大般涅槃經的方法論反思 ] 方東美對華嚴宗詮釋的方法論反省 ] 對唐君毅高舉儒學的方法論反省 ] 對唐君毅華嚴宗詮釋的反思 ] 對唐君毅詮釋朱熹太極理氣說的反思 ] 對唐君毅談朱陸異同源流之反思 ] 對唐君毅以宇宙論心性論工夫論談朱陸異同之反思 ] 對唐君毅平議朱熹與王陽明的反思 ] 對印順導師談大乘起信論的方法論反思 ] 湯一介先生概念範疇進路的方法論反思 ]

檔案下載

當代新儒家哲學在台灣的影響與理論反省

 

 

台灣大學哲學系副教授杜保瑞

 

Modern Neo-Confucianism:

 Its Influence at Taiwan and Theoretical Reflection

 

Bau-Ruei Duh

Associate professor

National Taiwan University

摘要:

 

  當代新儒家,指得是二十世紀在港台學術界發展建構的新儒學系統,代表人物眾多,但最具有創造力、且建構最龐大精微的哲學體系,以及影響最為深遠的,就屬牟宗三先生。

 

  牟宗三先的新儒學之成就是建立了新的儒學系統,佔據了二十世紀中國哲學最大創造系統的形象地位,以儒闢道佛,並說明儒學優於西方哲學。

 

  但其中有若干缺點:建立有特色的儒家動態的形上學之說意旨不清,且混淆形上學與實踐哲學;對道佛的理解因缺乏宇宙論的同情了解,以致有錯解的情形;在儒學內部強勢地分辨程朱陸王,以致對程朱之學有錯誤的了解。

 

  雖然新儒家思想已被大量地研究,但對其在中國哲學的錯誤理解與詮釋上學界卻所論不多。本文之作將主要說明其理論上的錯誤之處,並藉由一套新的研究中國哲學的解釋架構,來說明牟宗三先生的理論之所以錯誤的原因。

 

關鍵詞:當代新儒家、牟宗三、哲學基本問題、道德的形上學、圓善論、

 

 

Abstract:

 

For the concerning of its achievement in the Modern Neo Confucianism, it is undoubtedly success in constructing a new philosophical system which is the greatest one at 20th century among all the Modern Chinese philosophies. In this system, they indicate some new points to critic Taoism and Buddhism and find some new arguments to prove that Chinese Philosophy surpasses Western Philosophy. The study of Modern Neo Confucianism has shown there are at least four defects in this system. First, it is not clear on saying Confucianism Metaphysics is a kind of Motional Metaphysics. What is more, it confuses the difference between metaphysical issues and cultivation theories. Thirdly, it didn’t understand the discrepancy of Cosmology among Confucianism, Daoism and Buddhism, thus caused misconceiving to the judgment of their systems. The final, it stress too much conflict in the philosophy of Cheng Yi and Zhu Xi at one side and Lu Xian Shan, Wang Yang Ming at the other side, thus brings out seriously mistakes in the interpretations of their philosophies. In spite of those shortcomings, two effects should still be noticed. First, the number of the followers is very large, they become the most active and influential group in Taiwan. Second, attracted by possessing speculative characteristic, scholars in the mainland China are very quickly finding its excellence and going to accept this system. This tells us its influence is still growing up. Although a large number of studies have been made on the Modern Neo Confucianism, what seems to be lacking, however, is its misunderstanding and misinterpretation about the Chinese philosophy. The purpose of this paper is to tell the chief defects as illustrated above. Doing so, an interpretational framework, particularly for the study of Chinese Philosophy, will be introduced and used to analyze it.

 

Keyword: Modern Neo Confucianism; Mou Zong San; basic philosophical problems; moral metaphysics; ontology; cosmology; cultivation theory; perfect personality theory; practice philosophy; speculative philosophy;

 


 

 

一、前言

1、Foreword

 

  當代新儒家哲學指得是熊十力、唐君毅、牟宗三等人所建構的儒學系統,三人皆有大份量的儒學著作,且各有影響。但是,就其成就與影響而言,牟先生的創作還是其中最突出的。唐先生主要還是做詮釋為主,雖然筆者認為他的詮釋深具洞見,且對儒釋道各家皆有準確的理解,但是在強勢地高舉儒學的立場上,顯然牟先生的著作更具吸引力,以致影響較其廣大。至於熊十力的學說,一方面作品難讀,二方面主要的洞見已經充分表現在牟宗三的思維中,故而整體而言,當代新儒家的學說,就是以牟宗三先生的著作對台灣學術界的影響力最為廣大。然而,牟宗三先生思想形成之後,仍有很長時間在香港及台灣進行教學活動,這也是他的學說更具影響力的重要關鍵。

 

We generally consider the Modern Neo-Confucianism is the Confucian philosophical system constructed by Xion Shi Li, Mou Zong San and Tang Jun Yi in 20th century. They all create lots of theories and write numerous books, and thus affect the modern academic society. Among them, Master Mou’s influence is the most important. The academic achievement of Master Tang basically is interpretation instead of creating texts. Although Master Tang is wise in understanding and accurate in interpretation, when it comes to Confucian philosophy, obviously Master Mou’s philosophy is much more attractive and influential. As for the thinking of Xion Shi Li, since his book is too difficult to read on one hand and most of his creations are succeeded by Master Mou’s philosophy on the other hand, then master Mou’s philosophy is still more influential then Master Xion’s. Besides, Master Mou has spent much more time to teach in Taiwan after his philosophy is created, this is also the key reason why his philosophy is more influential then the other two philosophers.

 

  就其影響而言:因為繼承者頗眾,且已形成台灣中國哲學界最強大的學術團體,因此影響深遠;又因為思辨性最強,且與中國大陸傳統完全不同,故而亦對大陸學者深具吸引力,即將逐漸影響中國大陸。

 

As for his influence, first, quite a large number of scholars are Master Mou’s disciples and they have organized a strong and huge academic society of Chinese philosophy in Taiwan; the above are both the reflection of his deep influence in Taiwan. Second, the way Master Mou doing his philosophy with his strong speculative character is seriously different from that of the scholars in China and thus attracts them deeply; this result in influencing the academic society in mainland China gradually from now on.

 

  牟先生的新儒學體系,基於歷史時代因素,是為了振興民族精神而做,因此他的理論企圖中,包含了將中國哲學說為優於西方哲學,以及將儒家哲學說為優於道佛哲學的兩個基本立場。他的基本作法是,第一,以康德哲學強調實踐理性優於思辨理性的立場,申說中國哲學儒釋道三家都是實踐哲學型態的形上學,因著實踐可以證成普遍原理為真,因此中國哲學儒釋道三家,都以實踐而得證成其普遍原理,而優於整個西方思辨哲學傳統的所有哲學系統。第二,以整個西方哲學都是為實有而奮戰的理論建構系統,亦即以哲學建構就是要說實有為真實的思想活動,因此以此為標準,檢視中國儒釋道三家,而說只有儒家堅持實有的立場,道佛不是,以致儒家又高於道佛,因此儒學是暨高於道佛又優於西方哲學。

 

Given the historical background, the purpose of Neo-Confucian philosophy is to invigorate the nation’s spirit, which was thought to be able to save the country’s fate. That's why there appear two theoretical attempts and basic philosophical positions in his philosophy. First, Chinese philosophy is better than western philosophy; second, Confucianism is superior to Taoism and Buddhism. To support the two statements, he, at first, accepts the theory proposed by Kant that practical rationality is better than speculative rationality, then announces that the metaphysics of the three main Chinese philosophies (Confucianism, Taoism, Buddhism) are all the practical style, and by the reason of the practice could prove the universal principle to be true, therefore the three main Chinese philosophies can prove that their universal principle is true and thus is excellent than all the western philosophies, based on the speculative tradition. Second, He thinks that the whole western philosophy is the quest for the reality, and this means that the construction of a philosophical system is only a thinking activity for showing the reality is true. Based on the above position, to exam the three main Chinese philosophy, Master Mou points out that only Confucianism persist in the position of reality but not the same as Taoism and Buddhism, therefore  Confucianism is better than Taoism and Buddhism and also better than the whole western philosophy spontaneously.

 

  為了捍衛這樣的立場以及深化這樣的思路,牟宗三先生有許多的哲學創見,且建構了許多特殊的理論模式,從而形成了談論中國哲學的方法論系統。其理論上的結果就是在儒學內部派系的比較問題上,及儒釋道三家的學派比較上,以及中西哲學的比較上,使得儒學中的陸王一系是最理想的哲學體系。這些特殊的理論模型包括:分別說與非分別說、執的存有論與無執的存有論、橫攝系統與縱貫縱講、本體論的存有系統與本體宇宙論的創生系統、靜態的形上學與動態的形上學、道德的形上學、圓教論等等。

 

To defend this position and to go deep into its thought, there are lots of creations suggested by Master Mou and thus he constructs many special theoretical patterns; those are all becoming the methodology of Chinese philosophy. And it comes out the theoretical effects that Lu Xiang Shan and Wang Yang Ming School become the most excellent one among the Confucian philosophical tradition and the Three Main Schools and even all Western and Eastern philosophy. These creative philosophical systems are Discrimination and the Non-discrimination System, Attached and Non-attached Ontology, Vertical and Horizontal Expressing System, Ontological Being and Onto-Cosmological Creation System, Motionless and Motional Metaphysics, Moral Metaphysics, and Comprehensive System.

 

    這些術語無疑地是使得牟先生的新儒學得以優於道佛,及辨證西哲的工具,同時也是牟先生得以在儒學內部批判程朱,高舉陸王的武器。但是,這些術語卻造成中國哲學理論的詮釋系統混淆不清,且成了只能為某些特定系統服務,而不能作為所有系統的有效詮釋工具。可以說這一套系統固然推高了陸王儒學,卻犧牲了程朱儒學以及道佛哲學,一方面是這套系統可以作為分判各系統的標準,卻不能作為詮釋各系統的工具,因為它能夠討論的理論模型過於單一,二方面是這一套系統所設定的理想模型程朱、道佛亦未必不具備,但牟先生在討論道佛時的取材與詮釋時卻有偏差與誤解的現象。

 

All the above terminological system undoubtedly offers Master Mou the tool to uphold the Confucian philosophy instead of Taoism and Buddhism, to discriminate Western and Eastern philosophy, and also as a weapon to oppose the Cheng Yi and Zhu Xi and by the same time to approve of Lu Xiang Shan and Wang Yang Ming. But its defects are confusing the interpretational system of Chinese philosophy, and could only give service to some particular philosophical systems but not play as the effective and universal interpretational system of all Chinese philosophy. We can say that although these methodological theories admire Lu Xiang Shan and Wang Yang Ming philosophy but they do sacrifice the accurate understanding of Cheng Yi and Zhu Xi philosophy. That’s because firstly this system is a narrow pattern, and secondly Master Mou can not precisely find out some ideal theories in his methodological system, which actually exist in the Cheng Yi and Zhu Xi philosophical system.

 

目前,當代新儒家思想已被大量地研究,且被眾多的學者所接受,但對其在中國哲學各家系統中不能準確理解與正確詮釋的現象上,學界卻所論不多。本文之做,將主要說明其理論上的混淆不清之處,並藉由一套新的研究中國哲學的解釋架構,來修正牟宗三的理論。

 

At present, the theory of Modern Neo-Confucianism has been studied widely and accepted by a great many of Chinese scholars, but few concern about its misunderstanding and misinterpretation of all Chinese philosophical systems. The purpose of this article is mainly to reveal his theoretical confusion and to suggest a new explanation structure of Chinese philosophy to correct Master Mou’s theory.

 

 

二、談論中國哲學的解釋架構

 

2The Interpretational System of Chinese Philosophy

 

    中國哲學確實是有不同於西方哲學的整個問題意識、概念系統,與思考模式,但是並不表示中國哲學不能與西方哲學溝通,或者不能參與西方哲學問題的討論。所謂與西方哲學溝通就是把握哲學是理論活動的特質,將中國哲學的特殊性問題與思維模式以理論系統的方式予以呈現,而這就需要深入中國哲學各家系統內部理論的思考模式之中,找出它們的思考模式,建立解釋架構,予以一一呈顯,從而使得各家哲學理論在有明確問題意識的思維系統中被重新表述出來,表述清楚之後就可以溝通討論辯論與再發展。至於參與西方哲學的問題討論則是以中國哲學的內涵為素材,以西方哲學的基本哲學問題為議題,所進行的比較研究。過去,當代中國哲學的研究,多是走得第二條路。但是由於對中國哲學的特質本身的掌握不清楚,結果出現種種難以相合的解釋觀點,這就使得二十世紀的中國哲學家,無論如何必須重新尋找談論中國哲學的特殊方法,例如馮友蘭、牟宗三、勞思光等人之工作即是此義。他們都以能掌握中國哲學的特質,以及能了解哲學活動的系統性思維模式,而建立了各自的談論中國哲學的解釋系統。當然,他們各自的系統也有種種的需要改進之處,本節不及對馮友蘭及勞思光先生的系統進行改進的討論,而是要針對牟宗三先生的系統做討論。討論之前,則是要先提出一套筆者自己所提出的談論中國哲學的解釋架構,以此為基本立場,來反省及改進牟先生的思考模式。

 

Chinese philosophy does have different consciousness of the philosophical problems, as well as the different concepts and the way of thinking, from Western Philosophy. But this does not means that Chinese philosophy can not communicate with Western philosophy or it could not join the discussion of western philosophical problem. Regarding communicating with Western philosophy, this means to catch the character of philosophy is the theoretical activity therefore the study of Chinese philosophy should display their particular questions and way of thinking by a theoretical system. For the success of this work, it needs to go deep into the way of thinking in Chinese philosophy systems to find out its thinking pattern, and based on it, to build an interpretational structure, thus could make all Chinese philosophy systems be illustrated clearly. After it is explained clearly, then, the discussion and debate could be started and the issue could be developed. Regarding joining the discussion of Western philosophy is a kind of comparative study which is the attempt to answer Western philosophical problem with the materials of Chinese philosophy. In the past, the study of Modern Chinese philosophy is mostly on this approach. Because the characteristic of Chinese philosophy can not be grasped exactly, this approach results in some inconsistent explanation opinion, this causes that Chinese philosophers at the 20th century can not but try to find a new way to do the study of Chinese philosophy, such as Master Feng You Lan, Lao Si Guang, and Mou Zong San. They can all grasp the characteristic of Chinese philosophy and the systematical thinking of philosophical works in order to construct their Chinese philosophical interpretational systems respectively. Beyond question, each of their system has some shortcomings needed to be corrected. In this article, the systems of Feng You Lan and Lao Si Guang will not be talked about and the focus is on that of Mou Zong San. At the beginning of our discussion, the author will at first propose an interpretational system of Chinese philosophy as the framework to reflect on and to correct Mou Zong San system.

 

 

(一)實踐哲學的解釋架構

 

(1) Interpretational framework of Practical Philosophy

 

牟先生說中國哲學的特質是實踐,這句話是對的,說是實踐指得是中國儒釋道三家都是人生哲學。馮友蘭也說中國哲學都是人生哲學,亦即三家都是為理想的人生建立理論,並且說明追求的方法。但是,三家的理想圖象不同,理想的人格景象不同,對世界的看法不同,追求的方法也不同,因此需要建立說明的架構來呈現三家的理論內涵,這就是本節要討論解釋架構的原因。

 

Master Mou says that the characteristic of the Chinese philosophy is practice. This is correct. And it means Chinese Philosophies are all the philosophy of life. Feng You Lan also has the same saying. The philosophy of life is the theory talking about the ideal style of the human life and telling the way to run for it. On account of the images of their ideal are not the same, their perfect personality differs from each other, their viewpoint about the world are diversity, and the way to pursuit it differs respectively; therefore, there need an explanation framework to illustrate the matter of the three main schools philosophies. That’s the reason why we discuss the interpretational structure here at this paragraph.

 

在三家哲學史的發展中,各學派各系統內的理論建構,其實是環繞在幾個哲學基本問題之間的理論創作史。因此,要說明追求理想人生的儒釋道三家哲學體系,就是要說出它們各自在這幾個哲學基本問題中的觀點,從而形成理論系統。這些哲學基本問題就包括:宇宙論、本體論、工夫論、境界論四項,四方合構而成為儒釋道三家哲學體系的哲學基本問題,從研究的角度來說,這也就是中國哲學的解釋架構。並且,這個系統是以實踐哲學的工夫論與境界論為中心,意即儒釋道三家哲學以提出工夫論及境界論為其理論目的。它們的觀念的合理性來源在宇宙論及本體論,而當主體依其實踐而達成理想之後也就同時證成了宇宙論與本體論之為真,其中前者是形上學問題的討論,後者是知識論問題的討論。

組成

 

The theoretical construction in the historical development of the three main Chinese philosophical schools is actually around several basic philosophical problems. Thus, the method of explaining how to pursuit the ideal life in the three main schools philosophical systems is to express their opinions about these basic philosophical problems so as to formulate their theoretical systems. They are Cosmology, Ontology, Cultivation Theory (Gong Fu Lun), Perfect Personality Theory (Jing Jie Lun); these four items compose the basic philosophical problems of the three schools philosophical systems. For the purpose of studying, this is the interpretational framework of Chinese Philosophy. What is more, this system takes the Gong Fu Lun and Jing Jie Lun as the center part of the practical philosophy. It is because that the theoretical attempt of Chinese Philosophy is to propose their ideas of Gong Fu Lun and Jing Jie Lun. Meanwhile, the legitimacy of their ideas comes from Cosmology and Ontology, furthermore, when people follow the theory to practice and actualize the ideal personality it also verifies the Cosmology and Ontology statements, the former legitimacy issue is the discussion of metaphysics and the latter verification issue is epistemology. Both in the discussion of metaphysics and epistemology Gong Fu Lun and Jing Jie Lun play the core role.

 

此外,這四方架構的哲學基本問題彼此之間形成了理論推演的互動關係,宇宙論的知識作為本體論的價值意識的理由,而本體論的價值意識又做為本體工夫的依據,至於身體工夫的依據則又回到宇宙論的知識上,境界是由工夫的實踐而達致,說明境界論的理由一樣是回到宇宙論及本體論。因此這四項哲學基本問題同時又是一套互為推演的解釋架構。

 

Besides, this four items framework of the basic philosophical problems formulates a mutual deductive relation between each others. The knowledge of Cosmology is the basis of the idea of the value in Ontology. Besides, Cosmology and Ontology both play the role of theoretical basis of two different styles Cultivation theories respectively. The concept of value in Ontology is the basis of the Onto-Cultivation Theory (Ben Ti Gong Fu) which suggests the practical activity through the approach of purifying one’s mind and will. The knowledge of Cosmology is the basis of Body-Cultivation Theory (Shen Ti Gong Fu) which suggests the practical activity through the approach of body training. To attain the perfect personality (Jing Jie) should do the practice through the theory of cultivation, and its theoretical basis is back to Cosmology and Ontology, thus comes to the result that the practice of the cultivation theory could verify the universal principles in Metaphysics. Consequently, this four items basic philosophical problems as a whole is a mutual deductive interpretational framework.

 

(二)思辨哲學的哲學基本問題

 

(2) The basic philosophical problems of Speculative Philosophy

 

  中國哲學的特質在實踐,西方哲學的特質在思辨,並不是說中國哲學中沒有思辨也不是說西方哲學中不談實踐,而是兩大傳統的理論貢獻的重心一為談實踐的理論、一為追求智慧的深度思辨。

 

The characteristic of Chinese Philosophy is practice while Western Philosophy is speculation. It doesn’t mean that Chinese Philosophy will not speculate and Western won’t talk about the practice, but only to emphasize for the most part of their theoretical contribution in the two main traditions is the practical theory at one side and the other running for wisdom by deepest speculation.

 

  傳統上西方哲學的基本問題為形上學、知識論及倫理學,以此來談中國哲學時,中國哲學的儒釋道三家可以說都是倫理學中的學說系統,而儒釋道三家也都有各自的形上學內涵,至於知識論的討論並不明顯,以三家普遍原理的知識成立的可能性為知識論的課題而言,應該說幾乎是都沒有被討論過的。

 

Traditionally, the basic philosophical problems in Western philosophy are Metaphysics, Epistemology and Ethics. From this point of view to discuss Chinese Philosophy, we can say that, the three main schools are all the particular systems of Ethics and all have their own Metaphysics respectively, but Epistemology is hardly discussed.

 

  結合上述實踐哲學的解釋架構來討論時,就倫理學研究而言,可以說應該是以上述解釋架構作為呈現中國三大倫理學理論的內部次級問題,因此中國哲學的解釋架構將有深化倫理學議題的學術貢獻。

 

Together with the discussion of the interpretational framework of Practical Philosophy, it may say that the above four items basic philosophical problems should be regarded as the subordinate system of Ethics, thus the interpretational framework of Chinese Philosophy will have the scholastic contribution to deepen the ethical issue in the western tradition.

 

  就形上學研究而言,則可以挑出三家各自的宇宙論及本體論以作為中國哲學的形上學研究的材料。這其中,本體論的哲學問題應分為兩類,其一為談價值意識本身的本體論,以及談存有範疇的概念定義及概念關係的本體論,在本文中,前者仍以本體論稱之,後者即以存有論稱之。中國哲學史上有若干的哲學討論即是存有論的傳統,這是類似西方哲學的形上學的問題意識,但在中國哲學傳統中卻並不多見,甚至會遭致誤解及批評,關鍵在它們不直接涉及實踐,不與實踐哲學的四項哲學基本問題形成直接推理的關係,而是討論它們所使用的概念的後設語言系統。

 

Chinese Cosmology and Ontology could be taken as the materials for the metaphysical study. In there, Chinese Ontology should be separate into two theories; one is Theory of Value, the other is Theory of Being. Theory of Value decides the value concept of each school and is distinguished different from each other in the three main schools. Theory of Being talks about the definition of those concepts what are all the categories of being such as Tian (Universe), Dao (logos), Li (principle), Gi (fundamental matter), Xin (mind), Xing (nature). In Chinese, the former Ontology is named Ben Ti Lun as Theory of Value whiles the latter Cun You Lun as Theory of Being. In the history of Chinese Philosophy, there exist some philosophical issues as Cun You Lun, they are familiar with the western metaphysical problem, but not appear very often, and even meet misunderstanding and criticism. That’s because Theory of Being doesn’t directly involve with the discussion in the deductive system of the four items basic philosophical problems but only play as their linguistic presupposition system. For the convenience of discussion, the author suggests Ontology in the sense of Theory of Value is better to name it in Chinese Ben Ti Lun, and Ontology in the sense of Theory of Being will be in Chinese Cun You Lun.

 

  又,在談論中國哲學的形上學理論時,由於當代中國哲學家多半強調實踐是中國哲學的特質,因此會將談實踐的命題予以強調並視為動態的形上學意旨,且以此宣稱其為優於存有論的形上學命題。筆者認為,這就是將實踐哲學的工夫理論與境界哲學置於形上學的宇宙論與本體論之中,而說是動態的形上學的做法,這樣的說法,同時也誤解並貶視了存有論型態的形上學,這正是下文談牟宗三哲學時要討論的重點之一。

 

Besides, in the discussion of Chinese Metaphysics, Modern Chinese Philosophers always emphasis the practical characteristic of the Chinese philosophy, therefore they will admire the practical statements and take them as a kind of Motional Metaphysics, and even more, announce which is better than Theory of Being what accordingly is Motionless Metaphysics. The author thinks that, this Motional Metaphysics is a mixed system of the Gong Fu Lun and Jing Jie Lun with Cosmology and Ontology in Practical Philosophy system thus results to misunderstand and look down Motionless Metaphysics (Theory of Being).

 

  至於知識論,知識論是談證成原理的,又因為中國哲學的特質在實踐,而實踐是可以證成命題為真的活動,因此談工夫論與境界論的哲學理論會被視為是已經將形上學命題證成為真的理論,因此有工夫論以及境界論的哲學型態便一方面被視為是動態的形上學,另方面被視為是可以證成形上學為真的普遍原理,因此是圓滿的形上學。這樣的說法,又是將知識論議題與形上學議題混淆的做法,這也是下文要討論的牟宗三哲學的另一項重點。

 

In respect of Epistemology, it’s about the problem of verification. We know that the characteristic of Chinese Philosophy is practice. Since the practice can prove the universal statements to be true, therefore, systems what have the Gong Fu Lun and Jing Jie Lun in there will be regarded as having proven their metaphysics to be true. By the same reason, this kind of metaphysics is considered as Moral metaphysics. This is what Modern Chinese philosophers thinking, and will be discussed later in this article. The author thinks that the mistake here is to confuse the issue of Epistemology and Metaphysics.

 

(三)宇宙論:宇宙論談論整體存在界的時間空間物質元素的問題,也包括存有者類別、死後有無生命、宇宙發生論等問題。儒家以經驗現實世界為討論範圍,宇宙論問題並不迫切;但道教有它在世界的神仙存在,也有死後的靈魂存在,因此討論宇宙論成為道教理論成立的必要項目。佛教主張輪迴的生命觀,更主張世界多重的結構,因此宇宙論更是佛教哲學成立的關鍵。一如基督教哲學建立於上帝創造世界的神話一般,宇宙論也是基督教理論成立的必要項目。

 

(3) Cosmology:

 

Now the discussion will go back to the four items basic philosophical problems in Chinese philosophy. The first issue is Cosmology. Cosmology discusses the question of time, space and material elements in the whole phenomenological world, including the kinds of beings, the life after death, and the creating event or developing procedures of the Universe. Confucian philosophy takes the experimental world as its theoretical scope thus Cosmology issue is not important instantly. Taoist philosophy holds the knowledge of the other world and claims the existence of the soul and spirit, so the discussion of Cosmology becomes its necessary element. Buddhist philosophy declares a transmigration theory and the multiple structure of the world, therefore Cosmology in Buddhism is precisely necessary. Like Christian Philosophy stresses their theory on the fairy tale of the creation of the world by God, Cosmology plays the same important role there.

 

(四)本體論:本體論談價值意識,價值意識是哲學家對整體存在界的存在意義的直觀結果,所以價值意識的命題是一種觀念性的概念,不像宇宙論的命題是一種知識性的概念。中國哲學以之為本體,本體以意義的身分而成為價值,從而成為人類生活所追求的理想。儒家以善為價值本體,老子以無為為價值本體,莊子以消遙為價值本體,原始佛教以苦為生命現象的意義並以離苦為價值理想,大乘佛學以空為現象意義,並以空性的智慧為追求的價值理想。本體的觀念在哲學家創教之時即已確立,無論哲學史如何發展,個別學派的本體價值永遠不會改變,改變了就不再是這個學派了。因此哲學史的發展其實更多的是去建構宇宙論工夫論境界論,而不是本體論,本體論多是只談繼承之準確與否而已。

 

(5) Ontology:

 

The question discussed in Ontology is the problem of value. The idea of value comes from the intuition towards the meaning of the whole world by philosophers. Therefore, unlike the characteristic of the concept in Cosmology is a kind of experimental knowledge, in Ontology, it’s a kind of opinion and idea which people grasp it via feeling, impression or intuition instead of experience. The idea acquired through the intuition of the whole world will be transformed into the ultimate value what people should conduct their behavior and follow with. In Chinese Philosophy this ultimate value is named Ben Ti what is partially like the function of Logos in Western Philosophy. Confucianism takes Goodness (Shan) as their Ben Ti, meanwhile, the Taoist LaoZi takes no selfish (Wu Wei) as their Ben Ti, and Taoist Zhuang Zi takes Free and Happy (XiaoYao) to be his Ben Ti. Hinayana Buddhism thinks the meaning of life is pain, thus to extricate the suffering is their ultimate value. Mahayana Buddhism thinks there won’t be any meaning attached on every phenomenon, thus the ideal life is to run for Freedom from all the attachment. The idea of Ben Ti in each school is established firmly when its funder creates it, no matter how the history of philosophy is developing, the idea of the Ben Ti will never changed, otherwise it will no longer belonging to the same school. Therefore, the development of the philosophical history is mostly focusing on the theoretical creation of Cosmology, Cultivation Theory (Gong Fu Lun) and Perfect Personality (Jing Jie Lun) but not Ontology in the sense of Theory of Value. The discussion of Ontology in any new system focuses on whether it succeeding accurately or not.

 

(五)工夫論:儒釋道三教都有大量命題談論工夫論問題,工夫論是針對主體如何進行自我鍛鍊的活動,而追求成為理想人格的知識。工夫論有兩型,其一為本體論進路的工夫,稱為本體工夫,這是透過心理修養來進行的,主體的心理以本體的價值意識為行為的準則。其二為宇宙論進路的工夫,稱為身體工夫,是以身體的鍛鍊來進行的,主體的身體以宇宙論的知識作為鍛鍊的依據。以上兩型,同時還有一些次級的工夫論議題,如工夫入手、工夫次第、境界工夫。工夫入手談最開始的操作方式,工夫次第談逐次進展的歷程,境界工夫談工夫達至最高階段時的主體狀態。此外,還可以談具體操作活動,如讀書、科舉、靜坐、治國等等。

 

(6) Cultivation Theory (Gong Fu Lun):

  

   Cultivation Theory is in Chinese Gong Fu Lun. In Confucianism, Taoism, and Buddhism there are lots of statements talking about Cultivation Theory, what it concerns is the knowledge about how the people cultivate themselves in order to achieve the ideal personality. There are two different kinds of Cultivation Theory separated by the source of their theory; those are Ontology and Cosmology respectively. The first is Cultivation Theory through the approach of Ontology; we may call it Onto-Cultivation Theory which is named traditionally in Chinese Ben Ti Gong Fu and what its cultivation activity is to purify one’s mind towards the ultimate value (Ben Ti). One conducts his behavior to follow the criteria’s of the ultimate value proposed in Ontology (Ben Ti Lun). The second is through the approach of Cosmology which could be named as Body-cultivation Theory, and in Chinese Shen Ti Gong Fu; its cultivation activity is to train one’s body based on the knowledge of Cosmology. Besides, there are still some subordinate Cultivation Problems needs to be discussed; those are the start of the practice, the order of the practice, and the ideal state of the practice. The start of the practice talks about the practical activity at the very beginning, concerning how to start its practice. The order of the practice explains the developing procedures of the practice, concerning how to practice step by step. The ideal state of the practice announces when one’s practice achieves its goal then how he will act after that. What is more, there are yet the specific operate activities should be noticed, such as reading, join the examination, meditation, ruling the country, and so on.

 

(六)境界論:境界論談主體所要追求的理想完美人格狀態,其理據在本體論及宇宙論,其方法在工夫論,其狀態的展現與境界工夫同義。由於境界的達至是各學派的最終目的,因此境界論有時會被當作是最圓滿完成的形上學命題,這也是當代新儒家的混淆之一。

 

(6) Perfect Personality Theory (Jing Jie Lun):

 

The perfect personality Theory talks about the ideal state a person should pursuit to be. Jing Jie Lun stresses its theoretical basis on Cosmology and Ontology too, and the Gong Fu is the way to achieve the Jing Jie (the ideal state of the personality). The knowledge of showing the ideal state of the personality is the same with it is talked in the subordinate Cultivation theory particularly the ideal state of the practice. Because the achievement of the ideal state of the personality is the final destination of all the schools, therefore, some Modern Neo Confucians suggested that Jing Jie Lun is the final ideal metaphysics. The author thinks that this is another mistake which mix the theory of Perfect Personality with Metaphysics.

 

(七)存有論:存有論是特別針對上述所有哲學基本問題討論中所使用到的存有範疇進行討論的問題,存有範疇包括天、道、理、氣、心、性、陰陽、太極等等,並討論這些概念的定義以及彼此的關係,因此存有論與上述四項基本哲學問題都有關聯,但因為它就只是思辨性的討論,因此被當代新儒家視為是靜態的形上學,因而非中國哲學的主流,而是歧出之學。筆者認為,這樣的批評也是沒有必要的,因為它反而會造成理解上的誤會。

 

(7) Theory of Being (Cun You Lun):

 

Theory of Being is the study about some particular concepts what play as categorical beings used at the above four items basic philosophical problems. The categorical beings contain Tian, Dao, Li, Gi, Xin, Xing, Yin, Yang and Tai Ji and so on. Theory of Being discusses the definition of these concepts and their relation with each other, so, Theory of Being should not be regarded without connection to the four items basic philosophical problems. However, since the discussion there concerning only the relationship between the concepts, it comes to be viewed by Modern Neo Confucianism as just a Motionless Metaphysics so as to be out of the main train of the Chinese philosophy. The author thinks it is an unnecessary criticize, and will lead to confusion and misunderstanding about Chinese Philosophy.

 

談論中國哲學的解釋架構就是上述四方架構以及存有論哲學,一般的情況下,存有論就置放在本體論項目即可,唯因當代新儒家特別批判本體論的存有之學,故而宜分開討論,以利澄清。以上述架構來談中國哲學,將可收清晰解讀之效,從而有準確理解正確詮釋之功。更能更針對當代新儒家談中國哲學的若干偏差意見進行修正。

 

The interpretational framework of Chinese Philosophy is the above four items structure adding with Theory of Being. In general, Theory of Being could be located under Ontology, only because Modern Neo Confucianism specifically criticizes Theory of Being and divides it from the other basic philosophical problems, therefore the author separates them as two different philosophical problems for the need to differentiate and comprehend. To discuss Chinese Philosophy with the above framework will help to study better in precise understanding and correct interpretation. Even more, it gives the method to clarify what has been misinterpreted by Modern Neo Confucianism.

 

三、對牟宗三術語使用的解讀與反省

 

3: Interpretation and Reflection of the Philosophical Terminology in Mou Zong San

 

當代新儒家牟宗三先生以實有的立場辯證三教,主張儒家是實有的,道佛是非實有的,這一部分的觀念表現在他所提出的「境界型態的形上學與實有型態的形上學」與「橫攝系統與縱貫縱講」的理論中。並且以實踐的立場別異東西,他以西方哲學是思辨的、分析的,中國哲學是實踐的,並以此一立場在儒學內部別異程朱、陸王,亦即程朱是思辨的、分析的,陸王是實踐的。這個立場即是表現在「執的存有論與無執的存有論」、「分別說與非分別說」、「本體論的存有系統與本體宇宙論的創生系統」、「靜態的形上學與動態的形上學」、「道德的形上學與圓教論」等理論中。

 

Modern Neo Confucian Master Mou Zong San takes the theoretical position of realism to discriminate between Confucianism, Taoism, and Buddhism, announces Confucianism is realistic however the Taoism and Buddhism are not. This is presented in his theories of “Attitude Metaphysics and Realism Metaphysics” and “Horizontal System and Vertical System”. He stands on the ground of practical philosophy to distinguish Eastern philosophy from Western. Mou Zong San emphasizes the characteristic of Western philosophy is speculation and analysis while Eastern is practice, and he is not only but also use this structure to divide Cheng Yi and Zhu Xi from Lu Xiang Shan and Wang Yang Ming in the same Confucian tradition into two different philosophical models. He regards Cheng Yi and Zhu Xi as speculative and analytical system then Lu Xiang Shan and Wang Yang Ming as practical. That is revealed in lots of his theories like “Attached and Non-attached Ontology”, “Discriminate and Non-Discrimination System”, “Ontological Being and Onto-Cosmological Creation System”, “Motionless and Motional Metaphysics”. There Mou Zong San takes his ideal Confucianism in Lu Wang tradition and suggests “Moral Metaphysics” and “Comprehensive System”.

 

    以下,即將針對上述理論進行說明,並提出方法論的反省。

 

Thereinafter, the above theories will be explained and proposed some methodological reflections.

 

(一)    境界型態的形上學與實有型態的形上學

 

(1) Attitude Metaphysics and Realism Metaphysics

 

牟先生認為,整個西方哲學史就是一部為實有而奮戰的歷史,哲學就是要證說實有的,但是在東方,儒釋道三家只有儒家是說實有的,道佛兩家並不説實有。牟先生的意思是,儒家形上學認定這個現象世界是真實的,並且在其形上學系統中建構使世界存在的創生理論,而道佛兩家雖然亦對整體存在界提出普遍原理的觀點,其形上學意見卻未能對世界的實有予以保證,而只是有面對世界的作用態度而已,亦即只有如何面對與處理整體存在界的態度,卻沒有任何保證世界必然且永恆存在的主張,故而牟先生說道佛兩家的形上學是境界型態的形上學,而儒家的形上學是實有型態的形上學。說境界型態的意思是說對世界有一作用的姿態的意見,說實有型態的意思是說對世界提出一套必然且永恆存在的理據。

 

Master Mou thinks that the history of Western philosophy is a struggle for proving the reality. Regarding to Chinese philosophy, there is only Confucianism insisting on the realistic position, but the Taoism and the Buddhism are not. What his thinking is that the Confucianism recognizes this phenomenological world as a real world, and proposes some metaphysical theories concerning the creative activity of the world to promise the existence of this world to be necessity and eternity. Although what the metaphysics in Taoism and the Buddhism suggests some universal principles about the state of the world, but there doesn’t promise the reality of the world thus giving only the attitude how one should encounter it. This means that they give the guiding rule for people to conduct their proper behavior in the world but not insist the phenomenological word being real and necessary, thus, Master Mou defines the metaphysics in Taoism and Buddhism is a kind of Attitude Metaphysics while Confucianism Realism one. Whereas Attitude Metaphysics provides theories about what the world is and how people should do to run for their perfect personality, what is more, Realism Metaphysics presents theories announcing the necessity and eternity of the existence of the world.

 

    對於此說,筆者有以下幾點意見:

 

The author has some opinions about the above theory.

 

  首先,認為世界是實有且永恆的這個立場,依儒家的價值觀而言確實是特別需要這個立場,但這只是種種哲學立場之一,哲學討論並沒有什麼特別的理由,非要堅持此一立場。而且,牟先生的意見是僅就現象世界的討論而發言的,但是不同的學派有不同的世界觀,現象世界並不是唯一的世界,現象世界指得是依人類的經驗而能感知的世界,主張現象世界不真實的學說,並不等於就是主張整體存在界不真實的立場。牟先生以儒學為原型,儒家確實是主張現象世界是實有的,且以天道本身的作為保證世界的實在性,因此牟先生的立場可以說本來就是為儒家量身訂做的。

 

First, taking this phenomenal world as a realistic and eternal one to be a basic philosophical position is particularly needed by Confucianism. However, it’s nothing but one of a philosophical school’s positions, there is no reason that all the philosophical systems should persist in the same position. In addition, Master Mou’s opinion is announced for only the discussion of the phenomenal world. However, there exists different view point of the world among Taoism and Buddhism. The phenomenal world is not the only world recognized by all Schools, especially when it means the experimental world and could be sensed by human beings sensory organs. A theory claims this experimental world being not realistic and eternal is not equal to take the position that the whole world being not real ether, since it suggests perhaps the existence of some other invisible worlds. What Master Mou takes into consideration is based on Confucianism only which does believe the phenomenal world is real and claim Logos (Tian Dao) will operate eternally and guarantee the world’s existence. So, the position declaims above only fits to Confucianism itself.

 

  其次,說道家老莊之學,沒有為現象世界的發生與存在提出理論,是不成立的,這是牟先生依據王弼詮釋的老子學而說的話,王弼重視老子論道的思辨性理論部份,主張道體的存在是無形的,故而道體的作用是無為的,此說雖有推理的不當跳躍,但所主張之意旨無誤,故而牟先生得以據此說道家的形上學僅在作用上有面對世界的姿態而已,故而是一境界型態的形上學。然而,王弼卻不能發展老子談道體創生的意見部份,因此牟先生也就不認為老子有創生世界的理論,牟先生不從老子文本下手找觀點,卻是從王弼著作中找老學宗旨,因而認為道家不能正面說出世界是實有且有創生的命題,實在是過度依賴王弼的老學宗旨,事實上,老子文本中仍是明顯地有說世界是如何創生而有的命題的。

 

Second, it is not true to say Taoist Lao Zi and Zhuang Zi did not present some theories to explain the occurrence and existence of the world. The opinion Master Mou proposes is based on the interpretation of the Lao Zi by Wang Bi. Wang Bi places importance on the speculative part of Logos (Dao) in Lao Zi philosophy, recognizing the existence of the Dao in invisible, thus inferring to the ultimate value of Dao is non action (Wu Wei). Although there happened some mistakes of jumping into the conclusion, but the announcement of Wu Wei is not a fault. In accordance with which, Master Mou suggests that Taoism metaphysics poses just the operative principle of the world without talking about the creative power, thus is an Attitude Metaphysics but not a Realism Metaphysics. However, Wang Bi does not develop the creative aspect in Lao Zi philosophy; therefore Master Mou does not admit there is creative metaphysical theory in Lao Zi philosophy. The author thinks that Master Mou leaves the LaoZi text but relies on Wang Bi’s interpretation in order to find the doctrine of Lao Zi, thus miss the fact that in LaoZi text there does exist obviously the statements about how the world is occurring and existing.

 

  再者,就佛教而言,佛教確實不主張這個經驗世界是真實永恆的存在,但是,佛教的世界觀超越這個經驗現實世界,而有著多重的世界觀,各自此起彼滅著。就其整體存在界而言,仍是整體體現佛性的存有,因而未必是非實有的立場。又,牟先生認為佛教哲學有面對存在界而保住其存在的主張,但卻沒有創造存在界的說法,就其保住的作用而言,可以說對存在界有一作用的姿態,故而可以說是一境界型態的形上學,但仍不能說是實有型態的形上學。此處,牟先生所說的保住之義值得商榷,牟先生依天台宗言即九法界而成佛之說主張其有保住九法界的存在之義,事實上,天台宗之義是任一主體可在任一存在狀態中成佛,而不是佛之成佛活動落實了任一存在界的存在之實在性,實言之,九法界之各個存在界都是暫時的現象世界,只有佛境界才是真實永恆圓滿完美的世界,並且任一佛教學派不可能會主張對世界存在的保住,這是有違佛教教義的。牟先生此說是依據天台宗後學與華嚴宗的辯論意見而提出的,然而天台宗後學顯然有誤解天台宗大師智頤哲學立場的現象。

 

Moreover, regarding Buddhism, it does not announce the reality and eternality of the existence of this phenomenal world, but its Universe goes beyond this phenomenal world and poses a multiple world’s viewpoint where some are just arising but the others are going to collapsing. According to this great Universe, which represents the Buddha’s mind and body, it can not easily to deny its realism position. Aside from it, Master Mou considers Buddhism holds an attitude to preserve the world but doesn’t construct a theory to promise its existence. In this preserving function, it shows a way to encourage some practice, thus its metaphysics is Attitude Metaphysics, but still not a Realism Metaphysics. Here, the theory of preserving needs to be examined. Following the Tian Tai Buddhism School’s doctrine about the way one becoming Buddha it suggests one shall stand on and go through the other nine territories around the world (Fa Jie) then could one become Buddha. Master Mou claims that when the human creature grows into Buddha, he spontaneously preserves the existence of the territory through which he comes to be Buddha. In fact, the doctrine of the Tian Tai School is to argue any one could become Buddha in any territory by himself, but this is not to preserve the existence of that territory to be reality and eternity. Actually, the nine territories in Tian Tai School are all temporal and phenomenal worlds, only the Buddha’s territory is an eternal and ideal one. Therefore, it’s impossible for any Buddhist philosophy to announce the necessary existence of the phenomenal world; it’s against the Buddhist basic doctrine. The saying is resting on the debate among the disciples of Tian Tai School with Hua Yan School. Obviously the disciples of Tian Tai misunderstand their Master Zhi Yi, and so did Master Mou.

 

(二)    橫攝系統與縱貫縱講

 

(2) Horizontal System and Vertical System

 

    牟宗三先生清楚地認知到中國哲學是就著整體存在界講宇宙論及本體論,並且包含人的實踐的問題,亦即就整體存在界的知識,說人生的意義,並且更由人的實踐,來彰顯天地存在的意義。其中談整體存在界命題與理論,就稱之為縱貫系統,意味著從天道的作用講到萬物存在與人的活動,而這一套天人之間的活動,應有一積極創生的動力來支持,因此提出創造性動力的理論者,牟先生即稱之為對於縱貫系統的縱講者,若是系統中沒有談到對整體存在界的創生系統而只是就其已然之存在而有對待的態度者,則稱為是縱者橫講,亦即是一套橫攝系統。

萬物

Master Mou recognizes what Chinese philosophy concerning is Ontology and Cosmology towards the whole world then adding the theory of the practice. It addresses the value of human life based on the meaning of the whole world, and manifests the meaning of the world through the practice of cultivation activity. Master Mou gives the name of the discussion about the whole world as a Vertical Philosophy (Zong Guan), what includes the explanations of how the Universe is created, Logos operates, the whole creation exists and human acts. All the activities in the world need a positively creative power to support, thus, what in its system brings the creative power theory is a Vertical Expression System of the Vertical Philosophy. What didn’t bring such a system is a Horizontal Expression System of the Vertical Philosophy. A Horizontal System could only suggest the attitude towards the whole world which human beings will cultivate themselves and do to the world; therefore, it’s quite alike what Attitude Metaphysics function.

 

    筆者認為,針對談論整體存在界的特質稱呼中國儒釋道三家都是縱貫系統,這是牟宗三先生個人的特殊語意約定,我們完全可以接受。但是以是否談創生而化約為縱講橫講者,則涉及理論判斷,我們應予檢討。問題的關鍵,還是在是否有天道創生的命題,而此一命題又被牟先生等同於主體實踐的命題,理由是主體實踐的價值意識與天道創生的目的是同一件事,因此是否縱講的問題又轉向為主體的實踐是否積極創造人文,還是僅僅化解問題就好,以此為立場,則牟先生便以儒家為縱講,道佛為橫講,因儒家以道德意識推動社會發展,而道佛則只不為惡而未對社會有積極作為,其結論與談論境界型態或實有型態的形上學是一樣的。

 

The author thinks that, Master Mou based on the understanding of the characteristic of Chinese philosophy being towards the whole world, claims that Confucianism, Taoism and Buddhism are all Vertical Philosophies. This is a particular usage of Master Mou’s terminology that perhaps could be accepted. But that marks to be Horizontal or Vertical System, based on whether a system containing a creative power or not, is involving with theoretical judgment, and needs to be discussed. The key point of this philosophy is the function of Logos (Tian Dao). Logos arranges the operations of the whole creatures including the human creature. Thus the operation of Logos is recognized as equal to the cultivation activity of the people, because the value consciousness of the people is the same as the purpose of the creative activity of the Logos. Thus, the question of whether a system is a Vertical Expression System is switched from metaphysics into cultivation theory which concerning whether the system claims the human beings should vigorously create a better human life or just avoiding the problems and reconcile the difficulty. Based on it, Master Mou takes Confucianism as Vertical Expression System whereas Taoism and Buddhism are Horizontal Expression System. When Confucianism set the social development into motion according to the moral sense, instead Taoism and Buddhism only prevent mistakes but without positive social activity.

 

要檢討這項說法,一方面形上學理論與工夫論思想要分開來處理,二方面對各家的形上學要有準確的理解,工夫論來自於形上學,合法性基於形上學,沒有單就工夫論就批評是否縱講橫講的合理性。牟先生以三教形上學皆是縱貫系統,就直接要求工夫論要作用於持續創生此世界,其實是把形上學問題和工夫論問題混在一起的做法。前此對三家形上學的是否縱貫縱講的立場不一定成立,理由是世界觀不同,所論並不皆在此在世界,牟先生以儒家型態為標準論辯它教是否創生、縱講及發展社會等等說法,不能成為對它教準確理解與詮釋的觀點。

 

To review this saying, Metaphysics should be discussed apart from Cultivation Theory, and the understanding of Metaphysics should suit every different Schools. Cultivation theory comes directly from Metaphysics, what the latter is the former’s legitimacy, thus there is no reason to judge whether a theory is a Creative Vertical Expressional System with Cultivation Theory alone. Master Mou regards the three main schools are all the Vertical Philosophy which leads to a criterion that their Cultivation Theory should hold a positive attitude in order to join the creative activity of the society. The above thinking is a mistake that mixes Metaphysics with Cultivation Theory. Whether a Vertical Philosophy is expressed vertically or horizontally can not be verified easily, because the viewpoints of the Universe are all different from each other in the three main schools. Not all of them think the phenomenal world as the only one and realistic. Thus whether their Cultivation Theory holds a positive attitude should not be viewed via their attitude towards the society of this phenomenal world. Master Mou sets his theory on the ground of Confucianism then argues with the other schools on whether they have creative, vertical and social developing system, all these theories are based on incorrect interpretational opinions towards the other two schools thus can not be taken to be true.

 

    以上兩個議題,是討論牟先生以實有與否,辯證三教的理論。以下幾個議題,是討論牟先生別異中西哲學,從而在儒學內部,以此思路分判程朱、陸王哲學的理論。

 

The above two sections are the debate among the three main schools based on whether there is realistic and creative. The follower sections are the discussion about the discrimination between Western and Eastern philosophy, at same time, in the Confucian tradition, is also the discrimination of the Cheng Zhu School and the Lu Wang School.

 

(三)    執的存有論與無執的存有論

 

(3) Attached and Non-Attached Ontology

 

「執的存有論與無執的存有論」是牟先生別異中西的主要理論模型,它與

「分別說與非分別說」意旨相同,此處一併討論。

 

The “Attached and Non-Attached Ontology (Master Mou uses Cun You Lun to name it)” is the primary theory Master Mou distinguishes Western and Eastern philosophy, the meaning of this saying is the same with the “Discrimination and Non-Discrimination System”, there by are discussed here too.

 

    西方亞理士多德的形上學,建立範疇,說明世界萬物,執定於物之所以為物的對象做分析,所講出來的存有論,稱為執的存有論,此處存有論一辭差不多就是形上學的一般意義。另,中國哲學的形上學卻為無執的存有論,關鍵在於,它們並不以現象分析為型態,而是談整體存在界的活動,以及人類改變世界企求美好的努力,因此表面上並不執定於現象對象做範疇解析,故而牟先生稱之為無執的存有論,牟先生並以此作為中西哲學差異的意義。此說又與牟先生另提之「分別說與非分別說」之意旨接近,分別說即是針對存有做範疇解析,故而有分別彼此的命題,這是西方哲學的特質,而中國哲學針對存有整體進行實踐活動,並不分解範疇,故而為非分別說。以上兩對命題,以執的存有論及分別說的名稱定位西方哲學,特別是亞理士多德的範疇學系統,這是牟宗三先生個人的語意約定,可以尊重,但是以此為基礎而說中國哲學相對而言是無執的存有論,以及非分別說的系統,此說即需討論。

 

Aristotle metaphysics establishes categories to explain the essence and the nature of the world and the whole creations, what he is doing is to study the beings thus his metaphysics starts from an object and should attach on it, thus is an Attached Ontology in Master Mou’s definition. On the other hand, Chinese metaphysics is a Non-Attached Ontology. The point is Chinese philosophy doesn’t study the phenomenological objects through the categories analysis but encountering the whole world to conduct oneself and move the society to be better. Since it doesn’t focus on analyzing the phenomenological objects there by Master Mou addresses it Non-Attached Ontology, however Western philosophy is Attached Ontology. The theory shares the same thinking formation with the “Discriminate and Non-Discrimination System”. A Discrimination System means the categorical analysis of the phenomenological object thus presents its statements in analytical form and is the characteristic of Western philosophy. However, Chinese philosophy concerns the practical action towards the whole world, doesn’t deal with objective categorical analysis thus is entitled Non-Discrimination System. Using Discriminate System and Attached Ontology to describe Western Philosophy could be personal opinion there by may be accepted. But addressing Chinese philosophy is a Non-Attached Ontology and Non-Discrimination system is not so much clearly thus should be taken into reexamination.

 

   筆者認為,首先,中國哲學也有牟先生定義下的執的存有論與分別說的系統,牟先生其實就是在儒學內部的程朱、陸王之分中說程朱是執的、分別的系統,而陸王是無執的、非分別的系統。筆者不反對程朱有執的及分別的系統,但是筆者主張程朱亦有無執的及非分別的系統,只是牟先生於閱讀取材時頗有偏差而致強將其定位為執的及分別的系統。因此,以此二說別異程朱、陸王是不成立的。

 

First, in Chinese philosophical tradition there develops some Attached Ontology and Discrimination System. In fact, in Master Mou’s theories, he defines Chen Zhu School as Attached Ontology and Discrimination System at one side then Lu Wang School the Non-Attached Ontology and Non-Discrimination System at the other side. The author doesn’t reject Chen Zhu School holds Attached Ontology and Discrimination System but insist it holds the Non-Attached and Non-Discrimination System too, and no less than Lu Wang School; however Master Mou has serious bias in the choice of Chen Zhu School’s materials thus results to the stubborn opinion. So, to divide the Chen Zhu and Lu Wang Schools with the two theories is not valid.

 

其次,執的及分別的系統就是存有論問題,自有其理論功能,不能小看,也不能視為是與無執的及非分別的系統有別異且對立,因為,以實踐哲學的四方架構重新解讀之後,便會了解,牟先生所謂的無執的及非分別的系統,其實就是工夫論與境界論的命題與理論,此兩者是在談主體的實踐活動,以提昇境界,故而既不停留於範疇解析,更要追求心性合一、天人合一,故而可說是無執的及非分別的,但是卻不能認為這是兩種形上學的不同立場。談存有論,就是分別的執的,談工夫論,就是無執的非分別的。但是工夫論中所使用的概念,在進行範疇解析的存有論思辨時,就必定是執的分別的。問題不同,思維的方式就不同,命題的形式也就跟著不同。並不是中西哲學有不同的形上學立場,而是有不同的形上學問題,西方有存有論義的形上學問題,中國有實踐哲學的形上學問題,而實踐哲學的形上學命題一定伴隨工夫論與境界論,故而有無執的及非分別的特質,但是實踐哲學一樣要做思辨分析,一樣要為其所使用到的存有範疇的概念進行語意界定,這就進入到了存有論義的形上學問題中了,而其理論觀點則勢必要與實踐哲學的命題系統保持一致性。所以筆者說,並沒有執的分別的以及無執的非分別的兩種形上學立場的差異,而是只有不同的哲學問題下的不同的表述形式之分別而已。因此,以此二說分判程朱、陸王高下也是不成立的。

 

The next, Master Mou poses an attitude to reduce the value of Attached Ontology and Discrimination System. The author thinks that Attached Ontology and Discrimination System is exactly the Ontology in the sense of Theory of Being. Theory of Being (Cun Yu Lun) has its own theoretical function, should not be look down, nor viewed as holding an opposite theoretical position against the Non-Attached Ontology and Non-Discrimination System. Reviewing it within the framework of the four items basic philosophical problem, Non-Attached Ontology and Discrimination System is actually Cultivation Theory (Gon Fu Lun) and Perfect Personality Theory (Jing Jie Lun). Both of the theories talk about the human creation’s activity in order to promote one’s personality. They won’t stop at the categorical analysis and what is more will run for the unification of the mind and nature, heaven and human, so could it be entitled as Non-Attached Ontology and Non-Discrimination System, in comparison with the Attached Ontology and Discrimination System. These two systems can not be seemed as two different metaphysics with opposite theoretical position. Talking about Theory of Being, the way of expression in its statements must be discriminate, while in Cultivation Theory, is indiscriminate. Nevertheless, the concepts used in Cultivation Theory, could be set into categorical analysis, doing so, the statements about these concepts should definitely be discriminate and attached. That is to say, when there is different question, the way of thinking is following to be changed, so as the expression formation of its statements. It is not Western and Eastern philosophies posses opposite positions but ask some different questions. Theory of Being is the main issue of Western metaphysics, while Eastern holds the metaphysics in the Practical Philosophy System and which must accompanies with Cultivation Theory and Perfect Personality Theory, thus carries the characteristic of Non-Attached Ontology and Non-Discrimination System. But in the tradition of Practical Philosophy, the speculative analysis is needed too, so should define the categorical concept, what leads the discussion shift to the metaphysics in the sense of Theory of Being. And what is more, the idea in Theory of Being should be in consistent with that in the four items basic philosophical problems. That’s why the author regards there is not the different position against each other in Western and Eastern metaphysics but only the diverse expressional style of the different questions. There by, to announce Lu Wang School is better than the Chen Zhu School based on the theory of Attached or Non-Attached division system is not valid either.

 

(四)    靜態的形上學與動態的形上學

 

(4) Motionless and Motional Metaphysics

 

「靜態的形上學與動態的形上學」,則是牟先生談儒家形上學內部兩種不同型態的命題,同時,這也是牟先生說中國哲學與西方哲學的差異的命題。此外,它也與「本體論的存有系統與本體宇宙論的創生系統」之區分的意旨一致。簡言之,就是以程朱為「本體論的存有系統」並且是一套「靜態的形上學」,而陸王則是「本體宇宙論的創生系統」,且是「動態的形上學」。

 

The “Motionless and Motional Metaphysics” interpretation framework is the other theory Master Mou uses to divide the two different metaphysics in Confucianism; this theory is quite the same with another interpretation framework “Ontological Being and Onto-Cosmological Creation System”. Briefly to say, Master Mou regards the Chen Zhu School as Motionless Metaphysics and Ontological Being System, while the Lu Wang School Motional Metaphysics and Onto-Cosmological Creation System. That is also the division of Western and Eastern metaphysics.

 

中國哲學的特質在實踐,而實踐是追求理想的活動,理想則是由整體存在界的存在意義所界定的,於是從整體存在界的討論出發,應該涉及宇宙創生的問題,以及主體實踐的問題,而主體的實踐與宇宙的創生又因著共同的價值理想,故而被視為即是同一件事,這就是牟先生所認定的儒家哲學的根本型態,稱之為本體宇宙論的創生系統,或是動態的形上學。在牟先生所詮解的儒學史發展中,談主體實踐的活動被視為必然預設著普遍原理的形上學命題,亦即孔孟之實踐哲學被視為必然上通於《中庸》、《易傳》的形上學,而與之共構為儒家的「本體宇宙論之創生系統」,此義在宋明儒學的傳統中亦被一路地繼承下來,從周敦頤、張載、程顥,到胡五峰、陸象山、王陽明。但是,其中的程頤與朱熹卻不是此義,程朱分析理氣心性情概念,對於這些概念只是做了存有論的解析,這些概念並不能同時成為可以實踐的概念,亦即程朱所言之理是只存有不活動的,因此他們的系統是一套靜態的形上學的系統,他們的本體論不涉及宇宙創生以及主體實踐,故而是本體論的存有系統。相對而言,陸王一系的理概念則是即存有即活動的概念。亦即,牟先生對儒學內部系統的分判問題以別異中西之實踐與否之議題來設想,程朱是分析的靜態的不涉及實踐的西方型態,陸王是非分析的動態的實踐的儒家型態。

 

The characteristic of the Chinese philosophy is practice. Practice is an activity which one cultivates by himself running for an ideal life till achieving a perfect personality. The ideal life is defined by the meaning of the whole world. The practical philosophy starts from the discussion of the whole world including the issue of the creation of the universe, and then the practice of the human being. Since the purpose of the creation and the doctrine of the practice share the same idea of value, thus these two issues are considered as one event and been the original style of Confucianism. By this reason, the practical philosophy is thus named as Motional Metaphysics and Onto-Cosmological Creation System. In the interpretational system of the historical development in Confucianism by Master Mou, he thinks that the practical activity is presupposing the metaphysical universal principle. That is saying, Cultivation Theory in Confucius and Mencius is consistent with the metaphysics in Doctrine of the Mean (Chung Yung) and Appendices of Book of Change (Yi Zhuan), and thus works together to form the Onto-Cosmological Creation Systems. And this formulation is succeeded in the Song Ming Neo Confucianism tradition from Zhou Dun Yi, Zhang Zai, Chen Hao, Hu Wu Feng, Lu Xiang San, and Wang Yang Ming. But Master Mou thinks that the Chen Yi and Zhu Xi go beyond this tradition. Their philosophy analyzes the concepts like Li, Chi, Xin, Xing, Chin based on the question of Theory of Being. Those concepts in their discussion do not join the activity of the universe and the cultivation of the human being. This means the concept of Li is existent but not operating, so, there is a Motionless Metaphysics System; and, their Ontology doesn’t involve with the issue of the creation of Universe and the activity of one’s cultivation, there by is an Ontological Being System. On the contrary, the concept of Li in Lu Wang School is not only existent but also operating, thus is a Motional Metaphysics and an Onto-Cosmological Creation System. It shows that Master Mou uses the division system of the Western and Eastern philosophy to discriminate the separate parts in the Confucian philosophy. The Chen Zhu School belongs to Motionless Non-Practical Western tradition, whereas Lu Wang School the Motional Practical Eastern one.

 

其中,對於程朱所談的實踐問題,則因程朱重視《大學》文本中的先知後行說,而致知又即是窮理,窮理即是研議理概念,因此又即是談只存有不活動的靜態形上學,因此知行分裂,並非孔孟陸王所談之本體工夫,關鍵就在對於形上實體的體認有誤,亦即將本體宇宙論的創生義理解成只有本體論的存有義。

 

What is more, Master Mou notices that there still have some cultivation Theories in Chen Zhu School, but he doesn’t admit their cultivation theories are the same with Lu Wang School. Chen Zhu respect The Great Learning, there emphasizes the subordinate Cultivation Theory, what is Order of Practice. It claims that in cultivation activity one should be aware at first, then following with the action. Since Awareness (Zhi Zhi) is equal to Investigate (Qiong Li, study the principle), and Investigate means the study of principle (Li), which leads to the study of Theory of Being, then this Cultivation Theory from the tradition of The Great Learning is considered by Master Mou as just an existent but not operating system, which is still a Motionless Metaphysics. So, Awareness is away from the Practice, thus is never the same with Lu Wang Cultivation Theory. The point is at the misunderstanding of the metaphysical Logos, Chen Zhu School recognizes only the Ontological Being System whereas in Lu Wang School the Onto-Cosmological Creation System.

 

筆者認為,這是牟先生過渡地將中西別異的問題不當地轉嫁到朱陸之爭的議題中所致。談存有概念的解析與談主體的實踐與道體的流行的不同確實是西方哲學與東方哲學的主要差異,但並非即是程朱陸王之學的差異。談存有概念的解析的程朱,並非不談主體的實踐與道體的流行,而有存有概念解析的觀點,也不妨礙主體實踐與道體流行的命題,而是可以形成一套一致性的系統。問題只在於,必須將工夫論與形上學分開來看,而牟先生就是不能分開兩者來談,以致將許多不相干的系統錯置地結構在一起,而致生的批判意見。

 

The author doesn’t agree with the above opinion, thinks that this is Master Mou emphasizes too much on the issue of the diverse system concerning the Western and Eastern philosophy and then transmits this issue into the debate between the Zhu Xi and Lu Xian San. It is not incorrect that to stress the main different in Western and Eastern philosophy as one is the analysis of the concept of being and the other is the practice of the human being and the operation of the universe, but is not true to say this difference happens between the Chen Zhu and the Lu Wang School too. Although Chen Zhu deals with the analysis of the concept of being, but they concerns the practice and operation too; and the statements in the former issue will not interfere with the latter statements but only to cooperate to form a consistent system. This confuse is caused by the mix of Cultivation Theory and Metaphysics, where Master Mou co-works these two problems together mistakenly, thus combines a couple of irrelative theories into one system, and what is more to criticize the Chen Zhu School.

  

牟先生的「本體宇宙論的創生系統」是將形上學與工夫論合構,亦即將本體宇宙論與本體工夫論合構,故而說是「動態的形上學」。而對「本體論的存有系統」,亦是將形上學與工夫論合構,且是以朱熹哲學為對象,將朱熹談理氣心性情的形上學,與朱熹談致知窮理的工夫論合構。前者牟先生認為是孔孟易庸陸王的傳承,而程朱不在此一傳承中,但筆者認為,程朱哲學中一樣主張了這樣的理論型態;後者牟先生認為是程朱特別歧出於孔孟傳統的新創作,但是筆者認為,理氣心性情的討論在其他哲學家的系統中亦有涉及,只是份量不重,不形成特色。至於理氣心性情的存有論與致知窮理的工夫論之結合,則是牟先生的誤解,是牟先生自己的不當連結,而不是程朱哲學中確實有形成這樣的一套理論系統。格物致知之學是在《大學》詮釋系統下的工夫次第之學,窮理之學是《易傳》詮釋傳統的窮理盡性至命的本體工夫之學,只因致知與窮理有語意上的相近,所以有時被放在一起討論,以致以為致知就是窮理,而窮理就只是窮存有論的理氣心性情之學,而不是從實踐上去落實仁義禮知的價值意識之理,這都是牟先生刻意為程朱張羅系統,將之推向一種西方式靜態形上學的作法。應予否定。

 

The theory of Onto-Cosmological Creation System in Master Mou is the theoretical result that he unites the Metaphysics and Cultivation Theory together, which in there are the combination of the Onto-Cosmology and the Onto-Cultivation Theory. There by, he could announce that is a kind of Motive Metaphysics. In the Ontological Being System, there is also the integration of Metaphysics and Cultivation Theory, and particularly targets to the philosophy of Zhu Xi. In there, Master Mou connects the metaphysical discussion of the concept of being such as Li, Gi, Xin, Xing with Cultivation Theory of Awareness and Investigation. Master Mou has the idea that the Onto-Cosmological Creation System is the main stream in the tradition inheritaged from Confucius, Mencius, Doctrine of the Mean, Appendices of the Book of Change to Lu Wang philosophy, whereas the Chen Zhu is not included in this main stream. But the judgment is unsound. The author considers that, the theory of the main stream is also possessed by Chen Zhu, only those materials been ignored by Master Mou. As for Ontological Being System, Master Mou believes which is a new philosophical creation out from Confucius and Mencius tradition by Chen Zhu. But this is not true. The discussion of the concept of Li, Gi, Xin, and Xing is contained in the other Confucianism at Song Dynastic, merely not as much as in the Chen Zhu School, thus not being their important and particular part, but neither the system suggested only in Chen Zhu School. Besides, the combination of Theory of Being, in the discussion of Li, Gi, Xin and Xing, with Cultivation Theory of the Awareness and the Investigation is a serious mistake made by Master Mou. There doesn’t exist such a theoretical system in Chen Zhu School but only the illegal interpretation by Mou. The Study (Ge Wu) and Awareness (Zhi Zhi) is a Subordinate Cultivation Theory concerning the issue of Order of Practice announcing one should study and be aware at first then could follow with the other practical activities; this is discussed in the interpretational traditional of The Great Learning. Whereas the Investigation (Giond Li) is an Onto-Cultivation Theory in Appendices of the Book of Change announcing investigating the doctrine (Giond Li), exhausting the essence of the human nature (Jin Xing), accomplishing the human life (Zhi Ming). Since the significant of the Awareness and the Investigation is pretty close, thus been putted together to be discussed, and the Investigation been understood as the study of the concept of Li, which is the philosophy in the Ontological Being System, and will go beyond the Onto-Cultivation Theory. The emphasize on Awareness and Investigation in Chen Zhu School is miss understood by Master Mou who regards it as the study of the concept of Li, Gi, Xin and Xing, what is just an Ontological Being System but not the Onto-Cultivation activity as to purify one’s will towards the moral value of Benevolence (Ren), Righteousness (Yi), Rites (Li), Awareness (Zhi). What is done by Master Mou is to put the theory in the Chen Zhu School painstakingly attached on the Western philosophical tradition as a kind of Motionless Metaphysics. The interpretation is utterly far-fetched.

 

(五)    道德的形上學與圓教論

 

(5) Moral Metaphysics and Comprehensive Philosophy

 

牟先生既別異中西又辯證三教,最終建立了一套稱為圓善論的圓教哲學。圓善是要落實下來成為社會事實的道德行為,而理論上完成這一套系統的就是圓教系統。而圓教系統之所以可能,則一方面是由實踐活動進路而成立的,另一方面是由道體對整體存在界的創生作用。亦即道體流行地說,是由道德意識作為創生的實體,而保證了存在界的必然且永恆,而主體實踐地說,是由主體的道德意識之實踐,而造就了理想圓滿的社會,且成就了聖人人格。於是聖人的出現代表了社會理想的達致以及談論世界的哲學體系的被證成為真,因此即是圓教論。

 

Master Mou not only distinguishes Western and Eastern philosophy but also discriminates the three main schools in Chinese philosophies thereafter he constructs Confucianism as a moral philosophy with Perfect Kindness in the name of Moral Metaphysics or Comprehensive Philosophy. Perfect Kindness asks the moral behavior should work to have the highest social effect, thus, while the system is completed, it is then a Comprehensive Philosophy. The possibility of Comprehensive Philosophy is based on the practical activity by human being and the creative activity to the whole world by Logos (Dao Ti). In other words, from the point of the operation of Logos, it is its moral will as a creative substance promising the necessity and the eternity of the whole world; and from the point of the people’s practice, it is the practice through the moral will to conduct an ideally perfect society there by accomplishes the sage’s comprehensive personality. Thus the completing of a sage’s personality represents the accomplishment of an ideal society and the verification of a philosophical system. That’s why it is named as a Comprehensive System.

 

然而,這卻是把境界論當成了知識論在談的思路,理論是否能證成為真要在實踐中確認,並不是談到了聖人就等於理論被證成為真。

 

 However, this is a mistake to mix the Theory of Perfect Personality (Jing Jie Lun) with Epistemology. Whether a practical theory could be proof to be true should be confirmed via practical activity but not relying on if there come a Perfect Personality Theory.

 

牟先生還認為,形上學需要保證現象世界的存在是必然與永遠,而這就只有道德意識才能負擔,由於儒家的形上學正是一套道德的形上學,因此是一套圓滿的形上學,而稱之為圓教。然而,這是牟先生的儒家意識本位的獨斷意見,道德意識是就經驗現實世界的社會體制的圓滿而有的價值意識,但是有它在世界的世界觀的學派的價值意識就不是以道德稱謂的;並且,形上學並不一定必要主張經驗現實世界之為真實永恆必然,這有它在世界的世界觀認識的其它學派,就不會限制在只以經驗世界為唯一真實永恆必然的世界,因此只有道德意識能創生經驗現實世界的立場其實只是一套儒家本位的哲學立場而已,以之即為圓教論是沒有什麼必然性的理由的。

 

Master Mou thinks that a metaphysical system should promise the existence of the phenomenological world to be necessity and eternity, and this could be function only by the moral will, caused by the fact that the Confucianism Metaphysics is a Moral Metaphysics, thus it is a Perfect Metaphysics so as to be named Comprehensive System. Nevertheless, it is just a dogmatic opinion from the Confucianism position by Master Mou. The moral will is based on the social structure in this experimental world; in some other philosophical systems who believe another world, they will not take the moral will as their ultimate value system. On the other hand, metaphysics needs not to insist on the position of this experimental world being necessity and eternity, in those Schools who have the idea of the other worlds will not limit their knowledge in this phenomenological world only. Thus announcing only the moral will could create this world is just the belief of the Confucianism, there by not to have necessary reason to be a Comprehensive System.

 

四、結論

 

4 Conclusions:

 

總之,牟宗三先生,以其雄辯的思維,為儒學建立起了二十世紀的新系統,他所創造的理論模型與特殊命題,固然能彰顯儒學的特色,但卻在理解與詮釋的面向上,對道佛頗為不足,且對儒學中的程朱學派更有偏差。本文之作,乃以一套新的中國哲學的解釋架構之提出,而對牟先生的理論重新解讀,並提出反省檢討的意見,筆者認為,這樣的討論,是能讓二十世紀的當代新儒家學說,重獲新生命,重新獲得世人的注意與接續其創造的精神。

 

To sum up, Master Mou, with his great speculative ability, constructs a new system at 20th century for the Confucianism. What the theoretical system and the specific statements he had brought to the Confucianism will manifest its characteristic truly, but, in the aspect of understanding and interpretation, it is not so much fit to Taoism and Buddhism, even more is departing from Chen Zhu School. This article, presenting a new interpretational framework of the Chinese philosophy, aims to reinterpret Master Mou’s philosophy and proposes some reflective opinions on it. The author thinks, the discussion above will bring some new life to the Modern Neo Confucianism, acquire the respect from people and continue its creative power.