朱熹的“理”:“生生之理”还是“只存有而不活动”——以唐君毅、牟宗三的不同诠释为中心

Abstract

唐君毅依据朱熹言理气不离不杂,认为在朱熹那里,理贯而主乎生生之气之流行中,从而从形上学的层面把朱熹的理诠释为动态的"生生之理";从这一诠释出发,他不仅认为朱熹的"生生之理"是对于程颢言"生生之理"的继承和发展,而且进一步对朱熹的理气动静作了自圆其说的阐述。与此不同,牟宗三认为,朱熹的理是"只存有而不活动"之理,是对程颢视道体性体为"即活动即存有"者的根本转向。重要的是,唐君毅、牟宗三对于朱熹的理气动静的诠释,不同于冯友兰《中国哲学史》的诠释而有所创新,在现代朱子学研究上具有重要的地位。而且,他们的诠释相互对立,展现了朱熹学术的不同面向,并给予更多的进一步思考的空间。

According to Zhu Xi's statement that Li and Qi are not separated or impure,Tang Junyi contended that,for Zhu Xi,Li is dominant in living Qi; thus,Zhu Xi's Li is interpreted as"living Li"on the metaphysical level. With this interpretation,Tang not only argued that Zhu Xi's "living Li"is the inheritance and development of Cheng Hao's,but also made further elaboration to defend Zhu Xi's Li and Qi and their activeness or inactiveness. Unlike Tang,Mou Zongsan maintained that Zhu Xi's Li is "being only but inactive",which is fundamentally different from Cheng Hao's being and activeness of Dao and Xing. Significantly,Tang's and Mou's different interpretations of Zhu Xi's Li and Qi and their activeness or inactiveness are different from Feng Yuolan's interpretation in his History of Philosophy in China. These different interpretations demonstrate the varied aspects of Zhu Xi scholarship and provide more room for further contemplation.