| 尋繹牟宗三論「幾」字的啟發性意義──以「幾善惡」之觀念史為線索 |
| Exploring the Inspirational Meaning of Mou Zongsan’s Interpretation of the Term Ji (幾): A Historical Inquiry into the Concept of “Moral Tendencies (Ji Shan e)” |
 |
| 作者 |
游騰達 |
| Author |
Yu, Teng-ta |
| 關鍵詞 |
幾、
誠神幾、
周敦頤、
朱熹、
王畿
|
| Keywords |
an empirical or physical state of mind,
cheng shen ji (誠 神幾),
Zhou Dunyi,
Zhu Xi,
Wang Longxi
|
| 摘要 |
「幾」字首見於《周易‧繫辭傳》「幾者，動之微，吉之先
見者也」，此一語詞在重視內在身心體驗與修養的宋明儒學中至
關重要。然而，牟先生在他的著作中對於王龍溪所言之「幾」字
多有批駁，本文首先反省牟先生立說的觀點乃是堅持《易傳》與
周濂溪《通書》所言「幾」字之原意，即視「幾」為形而下層有
善有惡，待對治之意念。繼之說明，牟先生堅守此觀點以評議龍
溪或有未當，但是，這是宋代以來關於「幾善惡」說的主流理解
與論述觀點，這一點可從朱子之說、《近思錄》、《四書大全》
等著作中得證。又，從另外一面來看，通過牟先生提出的「寂感
真幾」一說，即指稱一融通「理、心、神」三層面之寂感一如的
天道流行不已之實體，龍溪就「良知」之即寂即感所言之「幾」
實可相當於此生機活潑之形上實體所顯現之「神」用。最後，又
嘗試挖掘「幾」字之觀念的遞嬗與轉換，意即區分「幾善惡」與
「誠、神、幾，曰聖人」兩語句中眾人之幾與聖人之幾的差別，
當詮釋觀點側重後一句，「幾」字便成為「誠」之發而為「神」
之始源、開端處，甚至可以主張「幾」本善而無惡之說。總上所述，
當可彰顯牟先生的論點於今日的學術研究工作仍深具啟發性
的價值與意義。 |
| Abstract |
The term ji (幾) first appeared in the Zhouyi, and it holds
particular importance for the Neo-Confucianism of the Song and
Ming dynasties, which placed great emphasis on inner experience.
However, in Mou Zongsan’s writings, there are numerous critiques
directed toward Wang Ji’s (王畿) understanding of ji. This paper first
argues that Mou’s perspective is based on his insistence on preserving
the original meaning of ji-namely, interpreting it as a metaphysically
subordinate state of mind that contains both good and evil tendencies.
It then points out that, while Mou’s criticism may be mistaken in some
respects, his interpretation nonetheless aligns with the mainstream
understanding of ji shan e (幾善惡) that had prevailed since the Song
dynasty. This is evident in the writings of Zhu Xi, as well as in works
such as Reflections on Things at Hand ( 近 思 錄 Jinsilu) and
Encyclopedia of the Four Books (四書大全 Sishu Daquan). On the
other hand, Mou’s proposal of the concept of “the true ji of quiescent
responsiveness” (寂感真幾 jigan zhenji) sheds light on Wang Ji’s
notion of ji in relation to innate moral knowing (良知 liangzhi)- that
it is simultaneously quiescent and responsive. This suggests that
Wang’s ji in fact corresponds to the subtle and numinous function (神 shen) manifested in Mou’s “true ji of quiescent responsiveness.”
Finally, this study examines the difference between the use of ji in the
expressions “ji shan e” and “cheng, shen, ji- thus is the sage” (誠、
神、幾，曰聖人), and explores how the interpretive emphasis of ji
shifted after the Ming dynasty. In conclusion, Mou Zongsan’s
interpretation of ji continues to offer valuable and thought-provoking
insights. |
|
|
|
