秦漢之際以「本／末」對比論述儒道關係之考察－兼論徐復觀先生《兩漢思想史》論點

A Comparative Study of the Relationship between Confucianism and Taoism in the Qin and Han Dynasties Based on the Framework of ＂Root/Branch＂ - Comments on Xu Fuguan's Theses of ＂History of Thoughts in Han Dynasty＂

李宗定(Lee, Tsung-Ting)

本末 ； 《呂氏春秋》 ； 《淮南子》 ； 《春秋繁露》 ； 徐復觀 ； ＂Root/Branch＂(本/末) ； LuShi Chunqiu(呂氏春秋) ； Huainanzi (淮南子) ； Chunqiu Fanlu(春秋繁露) ； Xu Fuguan (徐復觀)

東吳中文學報

43期（2022 / 05 / 01）

23 - 58

繁體中文

從戰國晚期至秦漢之際，諸子思想在歷經論辯，逐漸相互吸收，產生融合趨勢，融合的方式與程度各有不同。由於政治社會亦走向大一統，如何安排與論述各家思想關係，以為治國治身之用，是秦漢之際思想史的問題所在。為呈現此時的思想史發展脈絡，本文以「本／末」與「本末」詞組為中心，考察先秦至兩漢的文獻中使用的情形，並針對《呂氏春秋》、《淮南子》與《春秋繁露》三書進行詳細分析，並將論題集中於儒道關係的思考。秦漢之際以「本／末」論述儒道關係，此一模型不同於魏晉玄學，魏晉玄學運用「本／末」安排儒道，具有本體論意味；在漢初所見，則傾向宇宙生成論，運用氣與陰陽的基礎，論述儒道關係，視儒道可以為混同會通。徐復觀先生之《兩漢思想史》為論述秦漢之際與兩漢思想的重要著作，書中分論《呂氏春秋》、《淮南子》與《春秋繁露》，從儒道之「綜合」與「分野」，說明三書皆有融合之勢，相互承繼，又各有所重。本文在徐先生的基礎上，從文獻分析，考察秦漢之際以「本／末」論述儒道的情形。本文認為《呂氏春秋》融合諸子，以「務本後末」為治國之法；《淮南子》呈現以道通儒，儒道為「本末一體」的思想內容；《春秋繁露》發揮陰陽理論，以儒為宗。三書雖有相承關係，但各有所重，可從「本／末」詞組的使用辨析其別。而《淮南子》試圖以道通儒，為儒道關係建立一個融通兩者的架構，在這個目標下，「本／末」詞組之使用已有概念化傾向，甚至可說是魏晉玄學使用「本／末」的起源。

From the era of late Warring States to Qin and Han dynasties, thoughts of the pre-Qin philosophers had been gradually assimilated and integrated with each other through debates, albeit with diverse methods and varied degrees of adaptation. As the politics and societies evolved into unification, a prominent argument of ideologies prevailed in the Qin and Han Dynasties raised concerning the depiction and interpretation of various schools of thought for their applications to the state governance and self-cultivation. In order to present the context in which intellectual thoughts developed and elaborated in Qin-Han era, this article focuses on the terminologies of ＂Root/Branch＂(本/末) and ＂Benmo＂ (本末) to examine their applications in the literature during the pre-Qin and Han Dynasties. A thorough analysis of three books entitled Lushi Chunqiu(呂氏春秋), Huainanzi (淮南子) and Chunqiu Fanlu(春秋繁露) was conducted tackling the thinking on relationship between Confucianism and Taoism. Discourses on the relationship between Confucianism and Taoism from the perspective of ＂Root/Branch＂ prevailed during the Qin and Han dynasties. This model is different from the Wei and Jin's metaphysics approach in which Confucianism and Taoism were embedded with an ontological meaning of ＂Root/Branch＂. Thoughts in the early Han Dynasty were more inclined towards the theory of cosmogony, that is, the concepts of Qi(氣) and Yin-Yang(陰陽) were employed for the better reasoning of Confucianism and Taoism relationship, claiming that both Confucianism and Taoism were interchangeably blended and conveyed. Mr. Xu Fuguan's History of Thoughts in the Han Dynasty is a signature work which depicts the ＂comprehensiveness＂ and ＂differentiation＂ of Confucianism and Taoism in their own entity. Three volumes of Lushi Chunqiu, Huainanzi and Chunqiu Fanlu evidently show there was a tendency to integrate, inherit each other and each one has its own disciplines. From Mr. Xu's perspective, this paper analyzes the application of ＂Root/Branch＂ and ＂benmo＂ terminologies in Lushi Chunqiu, Huainanzi and Chunqiu Fanlu to determine the situation in which Confucianism and Taoism were discussed in terms of ＂Root/Branch＂ during the Qin and Han dynasties. A critical analysis of literature indicates that Lushi Chunqiu integrates various scholarly approaches, and perpetuates that the governance is required to focus on the fundamentals first and then deal with the lesser issues. Huainanzi presents an ideological content of a combination of Taoism and Confucianism, positioning Confucianism and Taoism as the integration of origin and end. Chunqiu Fanlu elaborates on the theories of Yin-Yang and takes Confucianism as its pillar. Results clearly illustrate that despite three publications are ideologically interrelated, each embodies its individual significance as the use of ＂Root/Branch＂ terminologies can be distinguished contextually. Huainanzi attempts to connect Confucianism with Taoism and establishes a framework for the relationship between Confucianism and Taoism. The use of ＂Root/Branch＂ has been conceptualized with this aim. Moreover, this facilitates the emergence of ＂Root/Branch＂ terminologies in Wei and Jin's metaphysics.

1. 佐藤將之(2007)。荀子哲學研究之解構與建構:以中日學者之嘗試與「誠」概念之探討為線索。國立臺灣大學哲學論評，34，87-128。
   連結：
2. （西漢）司馬遷,（劉宋）裴駰（集解）,（唐）司馬貞（索隱）,（唐）張守節（正義）(2014).史記.北京:中華書局.
3. （西漢）董仲舒,（清）蘇輿（義證）,鍾哲（點校）(2015).春秋繁露義證.北京:中華書局.
4. （西漢）劉安（編）,何寧（集釋）(1988).淮南子集釋.北京:中華書局.
5. （周）孔丘,程樹德,程俊英（點校）,蔣見元（點校）(1990).論語集釋.北京:中華書局.
6. （周）左丘明,徐元誥（集解）,玉樹民（點校）,沈長雲（點校）(2002).國語集解.北京:中華書局.
7. （周）呂不韋（編）,陳奇猷（校釋）(2002).呂氏春秋新校釋.上海:上海古籍出版社.
8. （周）荀況,（清）王先謙,沈嘯寰（點校）,王星賢（點校）(1988).荀子集解.北京:中華書局.
9. （周）莊周,（清）郭慶藩,沈嘯寰（點校）(1987).莊子集釋.北京:中華書局.
10. （明）玉夫之(1972).莊子解.臺北:藝文印書館.
11. （明）陸西星(2010).南華真經副墨.北京:中華書局.
12. （東漢）王逸（編）,（宋）洪興祖（注）(2015).楚辭補注.北京:中華書局.
13. （東漢）班固,（唐）顏師古（注）(2008).漢書補注.上海:上海古籍出版社.
14. （東漢）班固,（清）陳立（疏證）,吳則虞（點校）(2012).白虎通疏證.北京:中華書局.
15. （東漢）許慎,（清）段玉裁（注）(2002).圈點說文解字.臺北:萬卷樓圖書公司.
16. （東漢）鄭玄（箋）,（唐）陸德明（音義）,孔穎達（疏）(1979).毛詩正義.臺北:藝文印書館.
17. （清）焦循,沈文倬（點校）(1987).孟子正義.北京:中華書局.
18. Schwartz, Benjamin I.(1959).Some Polarities in Conftest Thought.Confucianism in Action,Stanford, Calif:
19. Wang, Yueqing(2020).History of Chinese Philosophy Through Its Key Terms.Singapore:Springer.
20. 牟鐘鑒(2013).呂氏春秋與淮南子思想研究.北京:人民出版社.
21. 余英時(1995).歷史與思想.臺北:聯經出版事業公司.
22. 李增(1992).淮南子.臺北:東大圖書公司.
23. 林麗真(1988).王弼.臺北:東大圖書公司.
24. 胡適(1988).中國中古思想史長編.臺北:遠流出版公司.
25. 韋政通(1986).董仲舒.臺北:東大圖書公司.
26. 徐復觀(1976).兩漢思想史.臺北:臺灣學生書局.
27. 徐復觀(1993).中國思想史論集.臺北:臺灣學生書局.
28. 陳來(2009).古代宗教與倫理.北京:三聯書店.
29. 陸志韋(1957).漢語的構詞法.北京:北京科學出版社.
30. 傅武光(1993).呂氏春秋與諸子之關係.臺北:東吳大學.
31. 勞思光(1991).新編中國哲學史.臺北:三民書局.
32. 馮友蘭(1998).中國哲學史新編.北京:人民出版社.
33. 馮樹勳(2015).揚雄的範式研究:西漢末年學術範式衝突的折中之例.臺北:臺大出版中心.
34. 馮樹勳(2011).陰陽五行的階位秩序:董仲舒的儒學思想.新竹:清華大學.
35. 楊漢民(2015).(呂氏春秋)的政治哲學研究─以天人關係為中心.昆明:雲南大學出版社.
36. 趙元任(1994).中國話的文法.臺北:臺灣學生書局.
37. 黎翔鳳,梁連華（整理）(2012).管子校注.北京:中華書局.
38. 龐慧(2009).(呂氏春秋)對社會秩序的理解與構建.北京:中國社會科學出版社.