【作者】 李训昌；

【导师】 乔清举；

【作者基本信息】 南开大学 ， 中国哲学， 2013， 博士

【摘要】 本文以黄宗羲的“心即气”命题为核心,从本体论、工夫论、境界论的角度对黄宗羲的哲学思想进行了重新解读。在本体论上,黄宗羲以“一物两名”为原则,以“心即气”为枢纽,完成了气本论到心本论的转变,是理气心性合一论。黄宗羲的理气心性合一论实导源于湛若水,属于湛若水一系的心学。在本体与工夫的关系问题上,黄宗羲延续其师刘宗周的观点,主张本体工夫合一论：一方面从本体上讲工夫,实质是以本体保证工夫的工夫论；另一方面从工夫上讲本体,实质是以工夫保证本体的境界论。职是之故,本文只论述了黄宗羲的本体工夫合一论,而未对其工夫论、境界论分别展开探讨。第一章“承蕺山余绪,开一代新风：黄宗羲思想的源与流”。本章从黄宗羲的从学经历、对师说的发挥、师门宗旨的三次论辩三个方面,探讨了他的哲学思想与其师刘宗周的关系。总的来说,黄宗羲基本延续了其师刘宗周的哲学思想与学术精神,但他以师说为标准对阳明哲学作了新的解读,有折中调和师说和阳明心学的倾向和特点,致使后人误以刘宗周、黄宗羲为阳明心学之嫡传。第二章“盈天地间皆气：气本论”。本章以“盈天地间皆气”命题为核心,分别对黄宗羲的理气合一论、性气合一论进行了探讨。在黄宗羲看来,气与道为体,兼有形上形下,既是天地间的唯一实体,也是世界万物的本体；理不离气,气必有理,理气是“一物两名”的关系,因此只能以气兼理而不能以理兼气。据此,黄宗羲又从气之“一本万殊”的角度对性气关系展开了探讨,提出了气质之性即义理之性的观点。在黄宗羲看来,性作为气质的形上之性,不能离开气质而独存,所以气质之外无性,气质即性；同时,性作为气的中正之体,主宰着气质的流行,所以也不能混气质于性。从黄宗羲的理气合一论、性气合一论来看,他的“盈天地间皆气”命题是一个本体论命题。第三章“盈天地间皆心：心本论”。本章以“盈天地间皆心”命题为核心,分别对黄宗羲的心性合一论、心理合一论展一了探讨。黄宗羲虽然推崇陆王的“心即理”,但是他对“心即理”的理解实与陆王不同,并不以心性合一直接等同于心理合一。黄宗羲对心性、心理关系的区分,使“心与理一”的工夫涵盖了心性修养的心性合一论与读书穷理的心理合一论。因此,就他对“心即理”的理解而言,他实质上坚持的是湛若水的“在心为理”和格物造道论,即：在心学的立场上,实现了修养论与认识论的统一。因此,与其“盈天地间皆气”命题相同,黄宗羲的“盈天地间皆心”命题也是一个本体论命题。第四章“心即气：气本论到心本论的转化”。本章以“心即气”命题为核心,分别对黄宗羲的心气合一论、理气心性合一论进行了探讨。与王阳明以心释气的路线不同,黄宗羲的心气合一论坚持的是湛若水以气释心的路线。同时,以“心即气”命题为枢纽,黄宗羲从一气一理讲到一心一性,完成了气本论到心本论的转化,是理气心性合一论。黄宗羲的理气心性合一论实导源于湛若水,贯彻了湛若水从气本论到心本论的思维逻辑转化。因此,本文认为黄宗羲的哲学思想不属于王阳明一系的心学,而属于湛若水一系的心学。第五章“心无本体,工夫所至,即其本体：本体工夫合一论”。黄宗羲的本体工夫合一论,在心性合一的前提下,分殊心性的概念,区分心性是一、不一两种情况,坚持了湛若水、刘宗周以性规定心的思想。因此,黄宗羲的本体工夫合一论又表现为三个“合一”：以收敛统摄发散,实现了收敛与发散的合一：以主宰统摄流行,实现了主宰与流行的合一：以心上工夫统摄事上工夫,实现了心上工夫与事上工夫的合一。这三个“合一”实现了本体呈现的过程性与践履工夫的历时性的统一。因此,如果以黄宗羲“心无本体,工夫所至,即其本体”的命题来论定他重工夫而轻本体,或以他为工夫派,都是不对的。第六章“华山老叟还多事,犹有骑驴笑堕时：黄宗羲思想的是与非”。与其师刘宗周着力于哲学建构不同,黄宗羲主要是发挥师说来评介宋明诸儒,因此,对宋元明三代理学的总结是刘、黄二人共同完成的：刘宗周的哲学思想是对宋元明三代理学的总结,而黄宗羲则以师说为标准编著了《宋元学案》、《明儒学案》,对宋元明三代理学的发展脉络作了全面系统地梳理。同时,黄宗羲“心无本体,工夫所至,即其本体”的命题和以“行良知”解释王阳明的“致良知”,又为浙东经史之学的兴起奠定了理论基础。但浙东经史之学只侧重工夫对本体的保证,而不甚注重本体对工夫的保证,这又是黄宗羲明确反对的。不过,黄宗羲的《今水经》、《易学象数论》等侧重辨伪考证,有开启清代实学、考据学的贡献。因此,黄宗羲既不脱宋明理学家的面目,又有清代实学家、考据学家的精神,是一位过渡性的人物。更多还原

【Abstract】 With the core proposition of "Heart namely Gas", the theoretical purpose of this thesis is a new interpretation of the philosophy of Huang Zongxi in the fundamental structure of noumenon-effort-realm. Through the adjustment of the relationship, Huang’s philosophical thought has realized the unity of form, gas, heart, nature, feeling, noumenon and effort. In the issue of ontology, the philosophy of Huang is a system of the unity of form, gas, heart and nature in order to the principle of "Substance namely Noumenon", from the transformation of ontology from gas to heart. It is rooted in Zhan Ruoshui that the theoretical origin of Huang’s unity of form, gas, heart and nature, so Huang is one member of Zhan’s school. In the relationship of noumenon and effort, Huang has realized the unity of noumenon and effort. Huang’s unity of noumenon and effort consists of the theory of effort and realm, so the explaining and discussing in the form of the unity of noumenon and effort is not including the theory of realm.Chapter One:It is the source and course of philosophical thought of Huang Zongxi. It is an investigation of Huang’s inheritance and development of Liu’s philosophy that consists of three aspects from learning experience to developing and debating Liu’s thought. In general, Huang has inherited the philosophical creed and academic spirit of his teacher Liu. Nevertheless, Huang has been unable to distinguish the difference of Wang Yangming’s and Liu’s philosophy, when given a new interpretation of Wang’s philosophy as the standard of Liu’s. So, Huang’s philosophical thought tends to Wang, and rejects Liu’s thought of Neo-Confucianism. Not only Ming Confucianism case compiled by Huang exerts great influence, but misdirects the later studies at the same time. Up to now, it is a misunderstanding that Liu and Huang belong to the Yangming’s school.Chapter Two:It is a theory of gas that "the world full of gas". Huang’s unity of form and gas, and nature and gas have being discussed in this part as the core proposition of "the world full of gas". In view of form and gas, Huang’s philosophy is that form is not from the gas and gas has the rational form, so gas is the thing with two names called gas and form. In the form of gas not in the form of form that form and gas has being united, gas has the capability of self-organization or self-methodization consequently. Not only Huang’s unity of form and gas has changed the fundamental structure of Cheng-Zhu’s system, but also changed the fundamental way of Cheng-Zhu’s system. As the principle of gas one thing with two names, Huang has reached a conclusion of which the basic attribute of temperament is the nature. In the view of Huang Zongxi, temperament is the thing and nature is the form as the relationship of form and gas. So the point view of Huang that the difference of gas or temperament decides the difference of nature has criticized of Zhu Xi’s point of view that the difference of form decides the difference of nature. Integrated view of Huang’s unity of form and gas, nature and gas, his statement of "the world full of gas" is a ontological proposition.Chapter Three:It is a theory of heart that "the world full of heart". Huang’s unity of heart and nature, and heart and form have being discussed in this part as the core proposition of "the world full of heart". Although Huang have a high regard for "the mind is principle" of Lu-Wang’s system, the understanding of "the mind is principle" is different between Huang and Lu-Wang of which is that the unity of heart and nature directly equated the the unity of heart and nature. Huang has made a distinction of the relationships between heart and nature and heart and form. Therefore in the form of heart that form and gas has being united, Huang has realized the unity of heart and nature and heart and form. So in position of the philosophy of the mind, Hang’s philosophical proposition of "the world full of heart" has a dual meaning of cultivation of the mind and epistemology of the knowledge which not included in the system of Lu-Wang’s philosophy. With the same position of his statement of "the world full of gas", Huang’s statement of "the world full of heart"is also a ontological proposition too.Chapter Four:It is a transformation of ontology from gas to heart in the statement of "Heart namely Gas". Huang’s unity of heart and gas, and unity of form, gas, heart and nature have being discussed in this part as the core proposition of "Heart namely Gas". On the relationship between heart and gas, Huang’s standpoint which explains heart with gas instead of explaining gas with heart, belongs to Zhan Ruoshui school not to Yangming school that explains heart with gas. Huang’s unity of form, gas, heart and nature is a transformation of ontology from gas to heart in the statement of "Heart namely Gas" which rooted in Zhan Ruoshui. Therefore, we summarize that Huang’s philosophic thinking belongs to Zhan Ruoshui school not to Yangming school. Meanwhile, there is no controversy or argument with the nature of Huang Zongxi’s philosophy that is recognized as the materialism or idealism, or as the generative theory or ontology.Chapter Five:It is a theory of the unity of noumenon and effort in the statement of "Effort is the Noumenon". The discussion of the relationship between the noumenon and the effort of Huang Zongxi concerns the division and judgement of Yangming school, so this chapter is divided into two parts to discuss. In the first section, that Huang defends Yangming school has been discussed. At the same time that Huang corrects Yangming school has been discussed in the second section. The unity of noumenon and effort of Huang has insisted Zhan Ruoshui and Liu Zongzhou’s thought that includes conceptual distinction in nature and heart, point of view of the unity or not of nature and heart, as well as providing heart with nature. So, it is the theory of effort that the noumenon ensures the effort, and it is the theory of realm that the effort ensures the noumenon. Based on the criticism and adjustment of Yangming school, Huang’s the unity of noumenon and effort has realized the the unity of constringency and scatter, dominant and streaming, effort in heart and in affair.Chapter Six:It is the achievement and fault of philosophical thought of Huang Zongxi. Liu Zongzhou as the teacher of Huang in the way of construction of philosophy and Huang in the way of compilation of the Ming Confucianism case and the Song-Yuang Confucianism case have completed the summary of Neo-Confucianism. Consequently only Huang but also Liu is the rearguard of Neo-Confucianism. Moreover the statement of "Effort is the Noumenon" of Huang has laid a philosophical foundation for the eastern Zhejiang School, but it is merely a hand of his theory of the unity of noumenon and effort that is the succession of his teacher Liu’s opinion. So don’t neglect his teacher’s contribution on the one hand, don’t ignore the misunderstanding by eastern Zhejiang School on the other hand. Generally speaking, Liu as the teacher of Huang marks the end of the Neo-Confucianism of the Song and Ming Dynasties, and Huang marks the beginning of textual research and sound scholarship in Qing Dynasty. Huang Zongxi is a transitional figure who does not deviate the appearance of the scholars of the Ming Dynasty and holds the academic spirit of the scholars of Qing Dynasty all in all.更多还原