拔理於向郭之外－魏晉逍遙義辯及其意義

Make Thought Surmount Xiang and Guo-The Controversy and Its Significance about Xiaoyao in Wei and Jin Dynasties

劉朝霞(Zhaoxia LIU)

逍遙 ； 適性 ； 至足 ； 無待 ； 有待 ； 佛教 ； Xiaoyao ； Comfortable by Nature ； The Highest State of Mind ； Unconditional ； Conditional ； Buddhism

哲學與文化

49卷4期（2022 / 04 / 01）

157 - 170

繁體中文

向、郭《莊子注》的逍遙義和支遁對其內在矛盾的質疑引發了學術界的持久興趣。本文從考察郭象經世致用的思想定位與合神人聖王為一的政治理想入手，以《莊子》為參照，指出適性逍遙之「性」局限於個體的經驗有限性，並虛化了價值來源的「道」、「天」等本體，存在理論架構上的先天缺陷，導致了無待逍遙的虛化和有待逍遙的經驗性封閉。但其問題意識仍有重要價值。支遁以至足解逍遙，關注於精神境界的超拔，應該是得到了般若義理的支持，但佛教經典中有關社會生活、政教關係的觀念並沒有成為他思想的有機構成，這導致他無法真正回應郭象提出的問題，是其盲點所在。

The explanations of Xiaoyao by XiangXiu and GuoXiang in Commentary to Zhuangzi and the revelation of the inner contradictions in it by Zhi Dun has aroused the academic community's lasting interest in this issue. In this paper, beginning with the investigation of Guo Xiang's ideological positioning and his political ideal of integrating the God-man with the Holy-king, and taking Zhuang Zi as a reference, it is pointed out that the ＂nature＂ of Comfortable by nature is limited to the limitation of individual experience, and the noumenon such as ＂Tao＂ and ＂Heaven＂, which are the sources of value, have been blurred. There is a congenital defect in the theoretical framework, leading to the vanity of unconditional freedom and the empirical closure of conditional freedom. But awareness of its problems still has an important value. Focusing on the transcendence of the spiritual realm, Zhi Dun explained Xiaoyao with the highest state of mind, which should be supported by Prajna's philosophy. However, the concepts related to social life and the relationship between religion and politics in Buddhist classics did not become an organic component of his thoughts, which led to his inability to truly respond to the questions raised by Guo Xiang, which was his blind spot.

1. （南朝梁）劉孝標（註）,余嘉錫（箋疏）(2007).世說新語箋疏.北京:中華書局.
2. （唐）房玄齡(1974).晉書.北京:中華書局.
3. （唐）房玄齡(1974).晉書.北京:中華書局.
4. 太虛(2005).太虛大師全書.北京:宗教文化出版社.
5. 王曉毅(1991).中國文化的清流.北京:中國社會科學出版社.
6. 牟宗三(2006).才性與玄理.南寧:廣西師範大學出版社.
7. 高楠順次郎(1988).大正新修大藏經.臺北:白精舍印經会.
8. 郭慶藩(1961).莊子集釋.北京:中華書局.
9. 陳寅恪(2009).金明館叢稿二編.北京:三聯書店.
10. 湯用彤(2005).魏晉玄學論稿.上海:上海世紀出版集團.
11. 湯用彤（校注）(1992).高僧傳.北京:中華書局.
12. 葉蓓卿(2010)。惟無乃能大．惟大乃能逍遙———孫嘉淦釋莊子逍遙義。蘇州科技學院學報，27(4)，32-35。
13. 葉蓓卿(2018)。「適性逍遙」：歷代闡釋莊子逍遙義的重要指向。古籍整理研究學刊，195(5)，76-80。
14. 賈占新(1999)。論支遁。河北大學學報，24(3)，46-51。
15. 劉梁劍(2010)。《逍遙游》向郭義與支遁義勘會。華東師範大學學報（哲學社會科學版），42(3)，26-31。
16. 暴慶剛(2007)。境界形態與實然形態的雙重涵攝。人文雜誌，167(3)，31-35。
17. 鄧聯合(2018)。郭象《逍遙遊注》疏義。商丘師範學院學報，34(5)，27-38。
18. 盧國龍(1994)。從兩種「逍遙義」看兩晉玄學的轉折。孔子研究，35(3)，27-29。