從朱子與陽明論蒯聵與衛輒比較朱王之「禮」論

A Comparison between Zhu Xi's and Wang Yang-ming's Theories of "Rites" Based on Their Discourses about Quai Qui and Wi Zhe

黃信二(Hsin-Er Huang)

禮 ； 樂 ； 朱熹 ； 陽明 ； 儒家倫理學 ； Rites ； Music ； Zhu Xi ； Wang Yang-ming ； Confucian Ethics

哲學與文化

41卷5期（2014 / 05 / 01）

47 - 76

繁體中文

「蒯聵與衛輒之爭」主要見於《春秋》，本文透過朱子與陽明對此歷史公案的評價，比較兩人論「禮」內涵的不同處。朱子嘗言「禮者，天理之節文，人事之儀則也」，其中「天理之節文」是朱子禮的發生處，而「人事之儀則」則屬其禮之應用端，從朱子的工夫論看，其禮論有偏重人事之儀則的特徵，強調守禮之際強烈的堅定意志。在陽明方面，陽明論禮亦有其理論的發生與應用兩部分；其禮之根源在求至善與天理，而其應用則在溫清奉養的儀節。但在他與鄭朝溯的對談中，明確地反對以禮之應用為為禮之本，而主張追求「使此心純乎天理之極」。在此原則下，陽明論禮時不單以禮為主，而採禮樂合論型態呈現，如其常言：「必須心中先具禮樂之本方可」、「須於禮樂本源上用功」等觀點，較重視禮樂兩者合論的關係，以及《論語》中詩禮樂三者一貫之精神，重視從禮樂合論的角度探討禮之本的必要性。陽明此種探討禮之本的論述型態，使其在禮的發生與應用兩部分中明顯地較重視前者，此亦可從陽明論禮皆要求重返良知觀念中得到證明。在結論部分，筆者將指出本文雖重視朱王兩人禮論的區分，認為朱王對禮的「發生」與「應用」的重視程度雖有不同，但仍須指出此種差異僅能視為兩人各有其獨立一貫的體用或本末；即此種差異只能言是兩人體用形態、側重要點的不同，即「如果說朱子是以節文秩序言禮，陽明則更從敬讓言禮」。換言之，朱子對禮的定義，從禮的發生或本體的角度言是天理之節文，即其禮之本的內涵，較重視天理、法則、理性、秩序等觀念；相對言，陽明以心體良知為本體，有較多情意之屬性，故在禮的應用層次，在禮制問題上便有更大的彈性。在此種差異特徵下，朱王兩人的禮即各顯其特色。朱子論禮的特色較屬從禮樂分離角度論禮，以「禮」觀念自身即可形成一完整的學問體系；即認為從禮可發展出符合理論與實踐，天理與人性、上達與下學兼具的學說。而陽明則較屬以禮樂合一的觀點論禮，認為須透過禮樂合論探求禮，方能對禮之本有較適切的把握。陽明即透過此種內含樂之禮的架構，在推廣禮時特別重視情感，故方提出「以情感為基礎落實禮精神」的方案，在本案中欲使父子兩人相讓為國，使父子兩人在互讓之中恢復良好父子關係。陽明此種模式表面上是不切實際的理想，但此作法並非陽明無法認清社會現實，而是他願意承擔徹底信賴對方的結果，以追儒家隨傳統的性善說。其中承擔對方可能的欺矇與傷害的精神，正是其性善論的基礎所在；且其中自我犧牲的環節，即成為陽明道德實踐動機的源頭。

The ＂struggle between Quai Qui and Wi Zhe＂ was mostly found in Springs and Autumns; in this article, we try to compare the differences between Zhu Xi and Wang Yang-ming with regards to their theories of ＂Rites＂ through their evaluations about this historical controversy. Zhu Xi once said, ＂Rites are the rituals of heavenly principles and rules of human affairs,＂ while in Zhu’s theory of ＂rites,＂ the ＂rituals of heavenly principles＂ were the source, and the ＂rules of human affairs＂ were the application of rites. Considering Zhu Xi’s doctrine of self-cultivation, his theory of rites stressed the attributes of the rules of human affairs, highlighting the strong and determined will of following rites. On the other hand, in Wang Yang-ming’s theory of rites, the source was the supreme good and the heavenly principles, and the application of rites lied in the rules of supporting parents thoughtfully However, in his conversation with Zheng Chao-shuo, Wang clearly opposed seeing the application of rites as their foundation, claiming that one should ＂make his mind as pure as the supremeness of heavenly principles.＂ Under this principle, Wang’s theory of rites focused on both rites and music rather than on rites alone. Wang once said that ＂it is only legitimate when one bears the foundation of rites and music in mind＂ and that ＂one should work on the origins of rites and music.＂ For him, the combined theory of rites and music, the coherent spirit of poetry, rites and music in Analects, and the necessity of inquiring the essence of rites from the perspective the combined theory of rites and music were more important. Between the source and the application of rites, Wang clearly paid more attention to the former, due to his exploration about the essence of rites, which could be confirmed by the request of returning to the conscience throughout his doctrine on rites. In the conclusion, we will point out that, although this article focuses on the differences between Zhu’s and Wang’s theories of rites, recognizing the distinctions in their emphasis on either the ＂source＂ or the ＂application＂ of rites, it must be pointed out that such distinctions only refer to their dissimilarities in terms of essence, application and priorities, that is, Zhu Xi talked about rites from the perspective of principles and order, while Wang Yang-ming discussed rites from the perspective of respect and comity. In other words, from the perspective of source or essence, Zhu’s definition of rites was the rituals of heavenly principles, that is, his discourse on the essence of rites paid more attention to heavenly principles, laws, reason and order. In contrast, Wang’s essence of rites, being mind-substance and good nature, was more affective; therefore, Wang’s definition of rites was more flexible in the application and institution of rites. All these differences highlight the respective characteristics of Zhu’s and Wang’s rites. Zhu discussed rites from the perspective of separating rites from music, seeing the idea of ＂rites＂ as a comprehensive system of knowledge, namely, seeing rites as capable of developing a doctrine suitable in terms of theory and practice, heavenly principles and human nature, low study and high penetration. And Wang discussed rites from the perspective of uniting rites and music, believing that rites could be understood better if approached from a perspective that combined rites and music. With this framework of rites that contained music as a part, Wang particularly stressed affection when he advocated rites and therefore brought up the proposal of ＂fulfilling the spirit of rites on the base of affection,＂ in which he made the father and son achieve comity with each other for the sake of the country and reconcile their relationship by means of mutual comity. Seemingly an unpractical ideal, this approach of Wang’s pointed to the fact that he was willing to deal with the result of trusting people totally in accordance with the Confucian traditional doctrine of good nature, not that he was unable to see the reality of the society. The spirit of his willingness to take the risk of being deceived and harmed was exactly the foundation of his theory of good nature, and the part of self-sacrifice within his theory was precisely the source of his motivation for moral practice.

1. 黃信二(2013)。朱子釋孟理論預設分析。哲學與文化，40(8)，115-142。
   連結：
2. (2007)。文淵閣四庫全書。香港:迪志文化。
3. (2007)。文淵閣四庫全書。香港:迪志文化。
4. (2007)。文淵閣四庫全書。香港:迪志文化。
5. (2007)。文淵閣四庫全書。香港:迪志文化。
6. (1985)。四部備要。臺北:臺灣中華書局。
7. (2007)。文淵閣四庫全書。香港:迪志文化。
8. (2007)。文淵閣四庫全書。香港:迪志文化。
9. 宋朱熹(2003)。點校四書章句集注。北京:中華書局。
10. 宋朱熹、陳俊民校編(2000)。朱子文集。臺北:德富文教基金會。
11. 宋朱熹、黎靖德編(1994)。朱子語類。北京:中華書局。
12. 晉杜預注、唐孔穎達正義、李學勤編(1999)。十三經注疏。北京:北京大學出版社。
13. 夏靜(2007)。禮樂文化與中國文論早期形態研究。北京:中華書局。
14. 黃信二(2008)。反思「禮」觀念：論儒家之「禮」從「樂中禮」向「法中禮」轉變之意義。哲學與文化，35(10)，65-85。
15. 黃信二(2008)。論儒家「禮」之形式意義與功能。當代儒學研究，3，1-23。
16. 黃信二(2013)。再論儒家倫理觀：以《孟子》「竊負而逃」為例之分析。儒學傳統與現代詮釋研討會，臺北:
17. 黃信二(2009)。論儒家倫理觀以「親親互隱」為中心的探討。鵝湖月刊，404，24-35。
18. 劉德明(2011)。父子君臣─以理學家對蒯聵與衛輒的評價為核心。東亞儒學的當代詮釋國際學術研討會，臺北:

1. 黃信二(2020)。張載哲學中「禮」與「理」間的轉換機制。哲學與文化，47(1)，97-117。
2. 劉德明(2017)。父子君臣─春秋三傳與宋代理學家對蒯聵、衛輒評論之比較。漢學研究，35(1)，135-164。