朱子對《論語•顏淵》“克己復禮”章的詮釋及其爭議

Zhu Zi's Interpretation of "Master Oneself and Return to Propriety" in the Analects and It's Controversies

10.6253/ntuhistory.2001.27.04

張崑將(Kun-Chiang Chang)

克己復禮 ； 語言脈絡 ； 解經原則 ； 戴震 ； 中井履軒 ； 荻生徂徠 ； Zhu Zi ； Master Oneself ； Return to Propriety ； Hermeneutical Principles ； language context ； Dai Zhen ； Ogyū Sorai ； Naikai Liken

臺大歷史學報

27期（2001 / 06 / 01）

83 - 124

繁體中文

本文主旨在於論証：朱子詮釋《論語》「克己復禮」章的整體涵義，以及後儒批判朱子學時所提出的解經原則，並分析他們按照各自提出的解經方法，此然誤解朱子對此章的解釋，故皆無法進入朱子學的詮釋之環，而且在他們企圖瓦解朱子學詮釋典範所提出的解經原則後，仍然無法解決經典解釋的歧異性。因此，本文第二節首先闡釋朱子「克己」、「復禮」、「為仁」的三個關鍵思想內涵，認為除了從《論語集注》了解此章意涵外，尚須從朱子相關解釋此章之著作來掌握朱子對此章的整體思想，方不致誤解朱子的關鍵思想。本文第三節舉出中日三位儒者作為批判朱子思想的代表人物，如清儒戴震，以及日本德川時代古學派儒者荻生祖徠、懷德堂的考證學者中井履軒等三位儒者對朱子的批判與誤解。三位後儒均認為朱子解經時，違背了使用「語言」的原則，一是以戴震為代表，認為朱子解經違背「援佛老之言而為儒家之言的忌諱」，曉致讓儒與釋老不可分別。其二是認為朱子解經違背「歷史語言的脈絡性」之解經原則，此又可分違背「孔子時代的語言脈絡」與違背「六經時代的語言脈絡」。履軒代表前者，後者以但徠為代表。本文結論，認為批判者此須能進入解經者的詮釋之環，而不只是提出解經原則來侷限解經者的自由，反而易流於「以其所知而害其所不知也」之病。

The twofold purpose of this article is (1) to illustrate how Zhu Zi interpreted the general meaning of ”master oneself and return to propriety” of the Analects, and (2) to explain the hermeneutical principles advanced by later Confucianists to criticize Zhu. In the analysis of the article, they are shown to have misunderstood Zhu's interpretation of the issue because of their faulty hermeneutical approaches. Furthermore, having made attempts to discredit the hermeneutical principles brought forth by Zhu's interpretative pattern, they still failed to solve the complex controversy over the classic interpretation. Hence, the second section of the article starts with the definition of the very meaning of three critical parts of Zhu's thought, ”master oneself”, ”return to propriety”, and ”humanity”. To avoid misunderstanding Zhu's critical thought, I think we must also grasp Zhu's general thought as expounded in other works related to the interpretation of the issue, when forming our understanding of it from the Collected Commentaries on the Analects (Lun-yü ji-zhu). In the third section of the article, three Confucianists, Dai Zhen (1723~4777) of Qing Dynasty, Tokugawa Japan's Ogyū Sorai (l666~1728) of the Ancient-Learning School, and textual scholar, Naikai Liken (1732~1817) of Kaidokudo Academy, all three typical critics of Zhu Zi, are treated as representative of mistaken criticism of Zhu. They all held that Zhu violated the principle of the 'linguistic' use in interpreting the Confucian Classics. The first view is best represented by the interpretation of Dai Zhen. He argued that Zhu misconstrued the Six Classics by applying both Buddhist and Taoist linguistic usages to Confucianism, which led to an obscure mixture of Confucianism, Buddhism, and Taoism. The second view was that Zhu's interpretation of the Classics contradicted the context of historical language. It was subdivided into the violation of the language context of the Confucius' age and that of the language context of the age of the Six Classics. Liken favored the former; Sorai, the latter. Lastly, the article concludes that in addition to the confinement of Zhu's freedom of interpretation within these hermeneutical principles, the critics must have been able to enter the nucleus of Zhu's interpretation, otherwise, their faculty of understanding of what was beyond their knowledge would be obstructed by the limitation of their narrow-minded knowledge.

1. 辨道。
2. 朱子語類。
3. 宋周密(1983)。齊東野語。
4. 宋張載(1979)。經學理窟。
5. 明羅欽順(1975)。困知記。
6. 南宋朱熹(1996)。朱熹集（七）。
7. 南宋朱熹(1998)。四書或問。
8. 清方東樹(1977)。漢學商兌。
9. 清毛奇齡(1996)。四書改錯。
10. 清孫希旦(1989)。禮記集解。
11. 清戴震。原善。
12. 清戴震(1995)。戴震全書（第6冊）。
13. 清戴震。緒言。
14. 清戴震(1995)。孟子字義疏證。
15. 清顏元(1965)。顏李叢書。
16. 中井履軒。論語逢源。
17. 白川靜(1982)。論戰與譯述。
18. 東條一堂(1973)。論語知言。
19. 荻生徂徠(1973)。論語徵。
20. 荻生徂徠(1978)。蘐園隨筆。
21. 荻生徂徠(1973)。荻生徂徠全集（第一卷）。
22. 陳榮捷(1983)。王陽明傳習錄集註集評。
23. 程樹德(1990)。論語集釋。
24. 黃俊傑。東亞儒學的新視野。
25. 溝口雄三(1994)。中國前近代思想的演變。

1. 蔡至哲(2019)。朝鮮天主教儒者對《七克》思想的再詮釋－以星湖左派為中心的探討。政大中文學報，31，173-217。
2. 林保全(2017)。錯本滿天下－中井履軒的《易》學及其對朱子學的攻駁與訂正。漢學研究，35(4)，267-299。
3. 林保全(2021)。中井履軒《大學雜議》對朱子的評議視角及其經學意義的衡定。中國文哲研究集刊，59，71-105。
4. 林保全(2022)。中井履軒《中庸逢原》對朱子經解的理解、攻駁與重建。臺大中文學報，77，99-101+103。
5. 林遠澤(2012)。克己復禮為仁─論儒家實踐理性類型學的後習俗責任倫理學重構。清華學報，42(3)，401-442。
6. 劉滄龍(2014)。荻生徂徠與戴震的語文學方法。師大學報：語言與文學類，59(1)，25-42。
7. (2016)。袁黃《四書刪正》的思想特色及思想史意蘊。新亞學報，33，357-375。