勞思光論儒佛之異：以肯定世界與否定世界的主體性理論為核心

Lao Sze-kwang on the Distinction between Confucianism and Buddhism

沈享民(Hsiang-Min Shen)

勞思光 ； 心性論中心之哲學 ； 主體最高自由 ； 肯定世界 ； 否定世界 ； Lao Sze-kwang ； Psycho-centric Philosophy ； Pro-attitude toward the world ； Con-attitude toward the world ； The Highest Freedom of the Subject

哲學與文化

40卷8期（2013 / 08 / 01）

71 - 95

繁體中文

勞思光對儒佛之異的總論斷，一言以蔽之，儒家以化成的精神肯定世界，佛教則以捨離的精神否定世界。整個論證的要義可以簡述如下：一、就哲學理論型態而言，「宇宙論中心之哲學」與「形上學理論」（及兩者的混合系統）的理論效力，均低於「心性論中心之哲學」。二、在德性與價值方面，宇宙論中心哲學與形上學理論及其混合系統，對價值做一「存有論解釋」有兩型態，或為天道觀，或為本性觀，皆有不可解的難題，而心性論純就「主體性」觀念立論。三、原始儒家孔孟與宋明新儒家陸王的哲學皆以心性論為中心，整個佛教教義亦是一心性論系統，故緊扣主體性建立其各自價值論。四、儒佛異同可由清理哲學問題的四個設準逐一看出：價值根源之設準、自我境界之劃分、價值自覺之兩型、世界意義之設準。五、儒家哲學的主體性及其活動方向在肯定世界，表現化成精神；佛教的主體性觀念則否定世界，顯示捨離精神。本文依中國哲學史進程，闡釋上述五點，結語部分則嘗試舉出幾個疑義，以反省勞思光此一理論。

Concerning the distinction between Confucianism and Buddhism, the late Philosopher Lao Sze-kwang asserted that the former manifests a pro-attitude toward the reality of the world in terms of its cultural consciousness; by contrast, the latter adopts a con-attitude toward the world on the basis of its Śūnyatā consciousness. This paper reconstructs his argument as follows: On the questions of morality and values, Lao Sze-kwang argued that Cosmo-centric philosophy and metaphysical theory (and their mixed system) are inferior to Psycho-centric philosophy. In justifying values, both Cosmo-centric Philosophy and metaphysical theory appeal to ontological interpretation and, then, run into their respective predicaments; Psycho-centric philosophy is founded on subjectivistic theory and can avoid some serious difficulties instead. Confucianism and Buddhism are categorized under Psycho-centric Philosophy. Aiming at contrasting Confucianism with Buddhism, furthermore, Lao Sze-kwang set forth four postulates which indicate the sources of value, the levels of selfhood, the kinds of self-awareness of value, and the significance of the world. According to these theoretical considerations, Lao Sze-kwang attempted to justify his assertion about the similarities and dissimilarities between Confucianism and Buddhism. This paper explicates his argument by referring to the historical course of Chinese philosophy that he interpreted. In concluding remark some reflections are offered.

1. 勞思光(1981)。中國哲學史。臺北:三民書局。
2. 勞思光(2001)。哲學問題源流論。香港:香港中文大學出版社。
3. 勞思光(1981)。中國哲學史。臺北:三民書局。
4. 勞思光(1981)。中國哲學史。臺北:三民書局。
5. 勞思光(1981)。中國哲學史。臺北:三民書局。
6. 勞思光(1986)。儒學精神與世界文化路向─思光少作集（一）。臺北:時報文化出版公司。

1. (2024)。《高僧傳》「亡身」書寫意蘊初探－兼與列維納斯「絕對他者」的對話。東海中文學報，47，35-86。