先秦喪、葬禮儀爭辯的省思與啟示

The Reflection and Inspiration about the Argument over the Burial Rites of the Pre-Qin Period

10.7065/MRPC.200810.0087

曾漢塘(Hamm-Tong Tzeng)

喪禮 ； 葬禮 ； 厚葬久喪 ； 節葬 ； 薄葬短喪 ； Funeral ； Honorable Burial ； Bury Economically

哲學與文化

35卷10期（2008 / 10 / 01）

87 - 108

繁體中文

自從墨子指斥儒家「厚葬久喪」而提出「節葬」主張後，孟、荀便極力反駁墨家指責，儒、墨間也常對此議題展開激烈爭辯。然細審其論辯，表面上針鋒相對，其實並非焦點論辯。儒家所堅持者為喪、葬禮儀背後主體道德意識的保存，墨家則著眼於儀實踐面向上之合理性與其實際社會效應。故荀子以後之儒者大多採折衷立場，既堅持維護傳統喪、葬禮儀，實務面卻悄然朝薄葬、短喪方向調整。本文同時亦論及當時所持的不同形上預設對喪、葬禮儀的可能衝擊。

Since pre-Chin period, different assertions on the funeral customs have been a controversial issue in Chinese culture. Confucians insisted to bury their dead family members ceremoniously and to keep on in deeply sorrow for them for a long time. They kept their insistence on this kind of funeral because of their special ethical ideas. On the contrary, Mohists asked for frugality on funeral. They thought that the Confucians' funeral was a kind of waste. Performing this kind of rites would affect people's ordinary doing and reduce the production of living goods. This essay tries to analysis their debates on ethical and metaphysical concern.

1. 尹仲容(1979)。呂氏春秋。台北市:國立編譯館。
2. 朱熹注(1957)。四書集註。台北市:台灣商務印書館。
3. 孫詒讓(1958)。墨子閒詁。台北市:藝文印書館。
4. 高誘註(1959)。淮南子。台北市:藝文印書館。
5. 莊周著、郭象注(1989)。莊子十卷。上海市:上海古籍出版社。
6. 黃暉(1965)。論衡校釋。台北市:台灣商務印書館。
7. 楊倞注、王先謙集解(1958)。荀子集解。台北市:藝文印書館。
8. 鄭玄注(1981)。禮記。台北市:臺灣中華書局。