差异与互补：童能灵与唐君毅对朱熹“生生之理”的论证

Abstract

清代学者童能灵以朱熹《太极图解》所言“阴静者,太极之体所以立;阳动者,太极之用所以行”为依据,提出“理有体用”的观点,由此出发,通过程颐所谓“体用一源”,论证“理有动静”,并进一步解说朱熹的“生生之理”。现代学者唐君毅则通过对朱熹所言“太极者,本然之妙也;动静者,所乘之机”的分析,讲“太极乘动静”,并在此基础上,由“生生之气”而讲“生生之理”,讨论“生生之气”与“生生之理”的关系。他们的解说和论证虽有差异,但互为补充,对于今天理解朱熹的太极与理气动静乃至“生生之理”,思考牟宗三所谓“只存有而不活动”,应有所启发。

The Qing scholar Tong Neng -ling came up with the point of ＂principle having body and func- tion＂ according to Taiji Diagram by Zhu Xi, from which he used ＂same source of body and function＂ by Cheng Yi to demonstrate ＂principle having motion and motionlessness＂ to interpret ＂principle of endless life＂ by Zhu Xi in a further way. The modem scholar Tang Jun - yi used Zh Xi＇ s theory to discuss the relationship of ＂qi of endless life＂ and ＂principle of endless life＂. Their interpretations and demonstra- tion are not different, but they can be of mutual complementation. It has some enlightenment in under- standing Zhu Xi＇ s Taiji, principle, qi, motion, motionlessness and ＂principle of endless life＂ as well as Mu Zong- san＇s ＂existence without activity＂.