牟宗三論儒學之宗教性：以「即道德即宗教」說為例

Mou Zongsan on the Religiousness of Confucianism: Focusing on "the Twofoldness of Being Moral and Religious"

張子立(Tzuli CHANG)

宗教性 ； 即道德即宗教 ； 既超越又內在 ； 宗教情懷模式 ； 宗教基點模式 ； 人之有限性 ； Religiousness ； The Twofoldness of Being Moral and Religious ； Transcendent and Immanent ； The Religious Sentiment Model ； The Religious Postulate Model ； Human Finitude

哲學與文化

50卷12期（2023 / 12 / 01）

113 - 127

繁體中文;英文

牟宗三視儒家為道德的宗教，並對儒家宗教性發展出兩種解釋模式：宗教情懷模式與宗教基點模式。宗教情懷模式藉由宗教情感將踐仁盡性之道德實踐無限擴大，以貫通內在與超越，道德與存在；宗教基點模式則是將理論預設予以宗教化，賦予內在道德心性一種超越性，成為道德兼存在之理論基點，導出道德行為與物自身雙重創造成果。兩種模式皆欲兼顧儒家之宗教性與人的有限性。就宗教基點模式而言，道德與存在之創造皆為理論前提之邏輯結論，在理論推導上更為順適。但強意義之人性預設，與人現實狀態之有限性呈現巨大落差而論證困難。宗教情懷模式則為人之有限性保留較大空間，爭議也較小。如何對人之有限性給予適當定位，乃推進牟宗三哲學研究之重要關鍵。

Mou Zongsan portrays Confucianism as a type of moral religion, which is characterized by regarding a person as both transcendent and immanent. He has developed two models for interpreting the Confucian twofoldness of being moral and religious: the religious sentiment model, and the religious postulate model. The religious sentiment model bases its religiousness upon the mediating role of the religious sentiment that connects the immanent with the transcendent, and morality with creativity. On the other hand, the religious postulate model is predicated on a religious postulate acting as the Archimedean point of its theory. This model takes our moral agency to be transcendent, serving as the ground for both morality and creativity, as it motivates our moral behaviors and realizes the thing-in-itself. Both models share the common aim of conveying the religiousness of Confucianism. They are intended to exhibit the homogeneity of tian and ren while taking into consideration human finitude. The advantage of the religious postulate model lies in that all beings and moral behaviors are the logical conclusion derived from its religious premise. However, the intellectual intuition of humanity implicit in this model is a postulate in the strong sense and is extremely discordant with the fact of human finitude. In contrast, the religious sentiment model allows more room for human finitude and is thus less controversial. It is safe to say that finding an appropriate position for human finitude is the key to advancing the study of Mou Zongsan.

1. 李明輝(1994).當代儒學之自我轉化.臺北:中央研究院國文哲研究所.
   連結：
2. 李明輝(1994).當代儒學之自我轉化.臺北:中央研究院國文哲研究所.
   連結：
3. 李明輝(1994).當代儒學之自我轉化.臺北:中央研究院國文哲研究所.
   連結：
4. 黃信二(2017)。論牟宗三先生理論中的道德情感與儒學之宗教性。哲學與文化，44(3)，119-137。
   連結：
5. Hick, John(1989).An Interpretation of Religion: Human Responses to the Transcendent.Houndmills:The Macmillan Press.
6. Paloutzian, Raymond F.(Ed.),Park, Crystal L.(Ed.)(2005).Handbook of the Psychology of Religion and Spirituality.New York:The Guilford Press.
7. Tu, Wei-ming(1989).Centrality and Commonality: An Essay on Confucian Religiousness.New York:State University of New York Press.
8. 牟宗三(1974).智的直覺與中國哲學.臺北:商務印書館.
9. 牟宗三(1979).從陸象山到劉蕺山.臺北:臺灣學生書局.
10. 牟宗三(1985).圓善論.臺北:臺灣學生書局.
11. 牟宗三(1968).心體與性體（一）.臺北:正中書局.
12. 牟宗三(1975).現象與物自身.臺北:臺灣學生書局.
13. 牟宗三(1990).中國哲學的特質.臺北:臺灣學生書局.
14. 李明輝(2018).儒家與康德.臺北:聯經出版事業公司.
15. 張子立(2021).儒學之現代解讀：詮釋,對比與開展.臺北:臺灣學生書局.
16. 黃俊傑(2004)。試論儒學的宗教性內涵。中國經典詮釋傳統（二）：儒學篇，臺北:
17. 黃勇(2002)。儒家仁愛觀與全球倫理：兼論基督教對儒家的批評。傳統中華文化與現代價值的激盪與調融（1），臺北:
18. 楊澤波(2016).心體與性體解讀.上海:上海人民出版社.
19. 董平(2020)。儒學的信仰建構及其「類宗教性」。中國儒學（第十五輯），北京:
20. 劉述先(1995)。由當代西方宗教思想如何面對現代化問題的角度論儒學傳統的宗教意涵。當代儒學論集：傳統與創新，臺北:
21. 劉述先(1993).理想與現實的糾結.臺北:臺灣學生書局.
22. 鄭家棟(1995).當代新儒學論衡.臺北:桂冠出版社.