論唐君毅對王陽明心學的詮釋與評價

The Interpretation and Evaluation by Tang Jun-yi on Wang Yang-ming

10.7065/MRPC.201005.0085

陳復(Fu Chen)陳正凡(Cheng-Fan Chen)

唐君毅 ； 王陽明 ； 陽明學 ； 致良知 ； 知行合一 ； Tang Jun-yi ； Wang Yang-ming ； Yang-ming School ； The Skill to Hold Innate Good ； Knowing and Doing in the One

哲學與文化

37卷5期（2010 / 05 / 01）

85 - 106

繁體中文

本文有兩個討論角度：其一，釐清唐君毅對王陽明心學的詮釋與評價；其二，作者不同於唐君毅的觀點並做出補充的相關看法，由這兩個討論角度來交會認識王陽明本人的思想。唐君毅認為王陽明的思想受朱子的深刻影響，雖然最後自然歸宗於象山，其學問實為朱陸學的綜合，他順著前人對王陽明思想有三變的說法，認為其不論是第一變提倡靜坐的工夫來澄清心靈；或第二變提出「致良知」來自然按著宇宙的律則；或第三變主張時時見得本體萬古常發常不發，這都是希望落實「存天理，去人欲」，意即來自對朱子思想的繼承與創新，他並看出朱王在知行問題的差異，端在王陽明重視「知行合一」，朱子則重視「知先行後」。 唐君毅認為王陽明把《大學》的致知解釋為致良知，其說法與朱子相較更能解釋《大學》的真意，而且，致良知更進於《大學》的教旨，成為涵蓋全部涵養工夫的歷程，比《大學》本來講「明明德於天下」更顯得簡潔扼要。有關於「四句教」的問題，唐君毅認為王陽明只有教人知善知惡，且做著為善去惡的致知格物工夫，因此其根本要旨，與禪宗教人「不思善，不思惡」，其實是不同的路數。唐君毅認為陽明學的致良知的論點，最容易被人假借而引發的事端，就在致良知教人自己看見對錯，使得我自己認知的對錯，即使他人不承認都沒有關係，這會釀就出佛家所謂的「大我慢」。 筆者對唐君毅這些論點有著歧異或補充的意見，最重要的問題如唐君毅並未詳察錢緒山、王龍溪與黃宗羲三人對王陽明教法各有著不同的認識，王陽明是否教法只有三變同樣值得再思索。並且，我們不宜模糊掉王陽明在不同時間裡的體會與認知，更不宜過度解釋朱子對其思想的影響，反而應該看見朱子思想的影響降低，就是王陽明自身獨立思想的拔高，其自身思想獲得樹立的源頭，並不是靠知識系統的完善化，而是對本體領悟的深化。再者，有關陽明學末流的弊病，筆者認為重點在心學家對「自性」與「自我」這兩端的認識都共生在良知的名目裡，使得「個體自覺」與「本體自覺」產生混淆。

The article focuses on how Tang Jun-yi interprets and evaluates Wang Yang-ming. Yang-ming School aims at clarification thoughts of Wang Yang-ming. Mr. Tang believes that Wang's thoughts were highly affected by Zhu Xi, although the thoughts eventually turned to Lu Xiang-shan. Wang's learning is fact the integration of Zhu's and Lu's. Under the belief of three changes by Qian Xu-Shan, Wang Long-Xi and Huang Li-zhou on Wang, Tang holds that the goal is existence of justice of nature and removal of human desires in the first change of promotion of sitting still to clarify mind, the second change of realization of innate good from the laws of universe or the third change of frequent encounter of the Entity. These inherit and innovate the thoughts of Zhu Xi. He distinguishes the difference in knowing and doing is that Wang focused on knowing and doing in the One while Zhu Xi emphasized knowing before doing. Mr. Tang believes that Wang interpreted the realization of knowing in the Great Learning as realization of innate good. Compared with Zhu Xi, Wang better explained the true meaning in the Great Learning and was closer to the purpose of the Great Learning to cover the entire virtue of patience process. Realization of innate good is more concise than realization of virtue in the world in the Great Learning. Regarding the issue of teaching by four sentences, Mr. Tang holds that Wang only taught people to tell right from wrong and do good instead of bad things for realization of innate good. Thus, the fundamental thought is different from think no good; think no bad in Zen. According to Mr. Tang, the most common disturbance from thoughts of realization of innate good in Yang-ming School that may be borrowed by people is it teaches people to tell right from wrong. The right and wrong I believe has nothing to do with other people, resulting in the greater Ego in Buddhism. The author has different or supplementary comments to Tang Jun-yi's arguments. The most important issue such as Mr. Tang mixed Qian Xu-Shan, Wang Long-Xi and Huang Li-zhou's claims about Wang's teaching are different. Qian Xu-Shan believed Wang's thoughts have three changes is still to be discussed. One shall pay attention not to obscure Wang's understanding and realization in different time. Over-explanation of Zhu Xi's influence on Wang's thoughts is not appropriate. Instead, we shall notice that Zhu's influence is degrading and Wang's thoughts are becoming more independent. The origin of his thoughts is not perfection of knowledge system but profound understanding of the Entity. Also, the author believes the defects of Yang-ming School in late stage are understanding of philosophers of nouslogy of the Self and the Ego is coexisted in the name of innate good, confusing awareness of the individual and awareness of the Entity.

1. 劉述先(2008)。朱子在宋明儒學的地位重探。台灣東亞文明研究學刊，5(2)
   連結：
2. 王陽明(1997)。傳習錄。台北:黎明文化事業公司。
3. 王陽明(1992)。王陽明全集。上海:古籍出版社。
4. 王龍溪(2007)。王龍溪集。南京:鳳凰出版社。
5. 朱熹(1970)。朱子語類。台北:正中書局。
6. 牟宗三(1979)。由陸象山到劉蕺山。台北:學生書局。
7. 李瑞全(2009)。龍溪四無句與儒家之圓教義之證成：兼論牟宗三先生對龍溪評價之發展。當代儒學研究，6
8. 狄百瑞(1982)。晚明思想中的個人主義和人道主義。中國哲學，7
9. 狄百瑞、李弘祺譯(1983)。中國的自由傳統。台北:聯經出版公司。
10. 唐君毅(1989)。中國哲學原論：導論篇。台北:台灣學生書局。
11. 唐君毅(2004)。中國哲學原論：原教篇。台北:台灣學生書局。
12. 唐君毅(1989)。中國哲學原論：原性篇。台北:台灣學生書局。
13. 陳來(2006)。有無之境：王陽明哲學的精神。北京:北京大學出版社。
14. 陳復(2005)。心學工夫論。台北:洪葉文化公司。
15. 陳復(2007)。評牟宗三先生論王學：推演王學的本體與工夫。中國思想與社會研究，第1輯
16. 黃仁宇(2003)。萬曆十五年。台北:食貨出版社。
17. 黃宗羲(2008)。明儒學案。北京:中華書局。
18. 劉述先(1984)。朱子哲學思想的發展與完成。台北:學生書局。
19. 錢緒山(2007)。徐愛·錢緒山·董澐集。南京:鳳凰出版社。
20. 羅汝芳(2007)。羅汝芳集。南京:鳳凰出版社。

1. 游騰達(2018)。論唐君毅對陽明學的定位－「朱陸之通郵」說的理路探析。鵝湖學誌，60，139-184。
2. (2024)。當前生命教育核心素養之檢討：對「哲學思考」的考察。教育研究集刊，70(2)，117-154。