明代《论语》诠释研究

【作者】 李春强；

【导师】 柳宏；

【作者基本信息】 扬州大学 ， 中国古代文学， 2014， 博士

【摘要】 翻阅中国学术史,就可以看到在历代儒者和注家迁延不绝、蔚为大观的诠释话语之下,孔子和《论语》已然成为一个博大精深、立体多维、色彩斑斓的世界。古代学者认为“论语者,五经之錧辖,六艺之喉衿也。”“经学之要,皆在论语之中。”“论语者,六经之总义也。”从《论语》入门,既为治经之初始,亦可领悟群经之要义。对历代《论语》诠释著作的考证梳理、建构重塑已然成为中国经学史、中国学术史研究的必要课题。本论文属于《论语》论释史的断代研究,其研究范围大致界定在1368-1644年明代社会约276年的时间内,重点研究明儒以《论语》或《论语》篇目命名的《论语》诠释著作。为此,本文主要运用以下三种研究方法：一、微观考辨,既要详细研读明代《论语》研究的注家和著作,以便从其著作内容中析取、汇整出有关《论语》的论述材料,又要针对不同诠释主体的《论语》阐述进行内容意涵的分析与诠释观点的探讨；二、对照比较,结合明代社会政治、文化背景,在时空关系上纵横比较,考证源流,互参比勘,我们不仅要在对照比较中挖掘其相同点,更要发现其特殊性,这正是对照比较研究方法的真正价值之所在；三、系统建构,即《明代<论语>诠释研究》是本篇论文的主体部分,大体分为“程朱理学视野下的《论语》诠释”、“陆王心学视野下的《论语》诠释”和“整合会通视野下的《论语》诠释”这三大板块展开立论,构建出一个新的关于明代《论语》诠释著作及其诠释者的丰富的意义世界。笔者力图通过以上三大方法的灵活运用,梳理出明代《论语》学的内在脉络,揭示其规律、总结其特征,注重通过分析诠释主体的感受、体认、探寻,从而把握其内在的与外在的统一性、联系性,形成主客体相融合、多样性与和谐性相结合的《明代<论语>诠释研究》。第一章以程朱理学由“独占—修正—回归实学”的地位变迁为视角,从为程朱理学视野下诠释《论语》新时代的到来提供了理论基础与文献储备的朱熹《论语集注》说起,重点选取胡广、蔡清、吕柟、高拱、张居正作为《论语》诠释个案。无论是胡广的“集成前儒、小有增删”,还是蔡清的“毫分缕析、钩深括奥”,亦或是吕柟的“至公至仁、笃实躬行”,都可以看到程朱理学二派学者渴望自己的学说能够赞化育、参天地,为建立理想社会提供某种参照。正是他们的努力诠释,才使其学说大大接近了朱学本身的文化意义。尤其是在形成于明代中后期社会结构变化和社会转型的关键时期的经世实学思潮背景下,高拱的“问答诘辨、通达求实”与张居正的“帝师宣讲、明白务实”所体现出的实学思想,成为二人经邦济世的理论纲领,而且在实践上直接服务于他们的改革活动。第二章以陆王心学的发展流变为视角,重点选取王阳明、王艮、罗汝芳、周汝登、焦竑、李贽、林兆恩、袁宗道、张岱作为《论语》诠释个案。首先,王阳’明《传习录》在诠释《论语》时,经常以其既有的“心学”思想对《论语》内容进行通贯性、一致性的义理诠释,其诠释的可贵之处恰恰在于所显露出的当代的人文关怀与生命关怀,形成了“以心为本、传习良知”的诠释特色。其次,作为泰州学派的创始人,王艮在其《语录》中通过“口传心授”得以接续孔子之学、传承“大成之学”,不仅恢复了原始儒家鲜活的人生智慧,而且也在自身的理论建构中携带了一种时代精神,反映了新出现的资本主义萌芽和新兴市民阶层的社会诉求,代表了一种新的社会存在,其“以身为本、志孔学孔”的诠释特色也为身后的泰州学派树立了必要的学术典范。再次,作为阳明后学之泰州学派的突出代表,罗汝芳与周汝登二人继续沿着由王阳明、王艮两位心学大师开辟的学术路径深入开拓,无论是罗汝芳的“求仁于己,能己复礼”还是周汝登的“己心为准,返归自身”,都证明了二人在陆王心学视野下推崇孔门仁学、“以身为本”的诠释视域。作为泰州学派的中坚人物,焦竑与李贽二人在《论语》诠释方面特征对比鲜明,一个心学阐发最显著,一个文学阐扬最自觉。最后,在“三教合一”思潮与阳明心学风潮高涨并兴的情势下,以林兆恩的《论语正义》、袁宗道的《读论语》和张岱的《论语遇》为典型代表的晚明“新心学”《论语》学著作,著述态度上持反对朱学之立场,并以阳明心学取代程朱理学作为诠释《论语》时的思想基础；在研究方法上则自由解释大兴,充满着自由学风与解放精神；在著作内容上,最主要的特色为呈现三教融和乃至儒佛合流的倾向。可以看到,陆王心学一派学者注重解经者的主观精神体验,无论是泰州学派还是“新心学”《论语》学都在诠解经典的过程中鲜明渗入了自己的精神旨趣。第三章以整合会通为视角,重点选取顾宪成、刘宗周、陈士元、郝敬、顾梦麟、智旭、利玛窦作为《论语》诠释个案。作为东林学派的开创者和领导者,顾宪成的《语孟说略》体现为“超越王学、复兴朱学”与作为蕺山学派的创立者刘宗周的《论语学案》体现为“慎独为宗、心理攸同”,二人皆是由阳明会通程朱,试图以朱学救正王学之失,属于王学修正视角下的《论语》诠释。不论是陈士元《论语类考》的“博引旧说、详加折衷”,还是郝敬《论语详解》的“会通篇章、疏通证明”,亦或是顾梦麟《论语说约》的“会通诸家、间出己见”,三人皆是折衷会通眼光下的《论语》诠释。至于智旭的“以佛说儒、藉儒显佛”与利玛窦的“以耶释儒、援儒证耶”,都是出于本门教派的传教需要而对《论语》文本进行的诠解,皆应属于佛学西学观照下的《论语》诠释。他们或为王学修正,或为折衷会通,亦或为佛学西学之观照,无一不体现了此一时期朱学、心学、汉学、西学、佛学等参乎错杂、斑驳陆离的独特学术景观。以上三大板块之间既有共性,又有个性,交相辉映、互为参照。就其诠释路径而言,无论是程朱理学一路,还是陆王心学一路,亦或是整合会通一路,虽有六经注我、我注六经以及以经注经之不同,但其终极的目标都是为了通经致用,此其理一；其分殊只是因其侧重点、契入点及视阈范围等方面存在差别所造成。尤其有一点是共通的,即明代士人对经典文本的现场感、当下感有很强的领悟力。在他们看来,重要的是如何诠解当下的生活,而不是往世经典本身。通过对明代《论语》诠释著作的系统考察,也证明他们的经典视阈与诠释主张也确实有效地表达了他们的精神旨趣。而且明代《论语》诠释整体上表现为由程朱理学向陆王心学、由经学走向文学这两大诠释特征,其中以敏锐透彻的文学审美眼光看待经学文本最突出的代表莫过于冯梦龙的《论语指月》。最后,笔者受某些明儒诠解《论语》观点的启迪,获得三点启示：回归当下、回归生活；回归原典、回归自身；勇于建构、重塑儒学。更多还原

【Abstract】 Looking at the Chinese academic history, Confucian Analects has become a profound and multi-dimensional world under the ancient Confucian’s splendid interpretation of discourse. Ancient scholars thought that the essence of the study of Confucian classics was all in Confucian Analects, and Confucian Analects is the combination of The Six Lections.The Confucian Analects can be understood as the entry. The interpretation of works on Confucian Analects has become the necessary task in the history of Chinese academic research.This paper belongs to the Confucian Analects’study the release history by period, broadly defined in1368-1644, the Ming Dynasty about276years’ time.lt focuses on the research of the Confucian Analects’table and the interpretation of the Confucian Analects’works in the Ming Dynasty. Therefore, this paper mainly use the following three methods:firstly, micro investigation, which is used not only to read the the Confucian Analects’works compiled in this material, but also to discuss the analysis and interpretation according to different interpretations of the Confucian Analects’content-implications of view. Secondly, compared with the social, political and cultural background, the temporal and spatial relationship between vertical and horizontal comparison not only needs to tap the same point in comparison, more to find its particularity. Thirdly, systematic construction, which constructs a new interpretation of the rich world of meaning systematically about the Confucian Analects’works in the Ming Dynasty. The Discussion of Explanatory Notes on the Confucian Analects in the Ming Dynasty is the main part of this paper.It is divided into three plates of the argument, such as the Confucian Analects’interpretation from the perspective of Cheng Zhu Neo Confucianism, the Confucian Analects’interpretation from the perspective of Lu Wang Xinxue and the Confucian Analects’interpretation from the perspective of integration. Through flexible use of the above three methods, the author is ready to tease out the venation of Explanatoiy Notes on the Confucian Analects in the Ming Dynasty, reveal the law, summarizes its characteristics, pay attention to the analysis and interpretation of the feelings, in order to grasp its internal and external unity carrying diversity and harmony coming from The Discussion of Explanatory Notes on the Confucian Analects in the Ming Dynasty.The first chapter selects Hu Guang, Cai Qing, Lv Ran, Gao Gong, Zhang Juzheng as the Confucian Analects’interpretation of the case, from the angle of Cheng Zhu Neo Confucianism’s status change. Both Hu Guang’s Integration of Confucianism&Fill in the Gaps, or Cai Qing’s Analyze Minutely&Hook Deeply, or Lv Ran’s The Public&One Learned, can be seen to provide some reference for an ideal society by neo-Confucianism scholar’s theory. It makes the theory greatly close Zhu Xue’s cultural significance. Especially in the critical period of social structure formed in the late Ming Dynasty change and social transformation in the practical thought background, Gao Gong’s Ask Recognition&Access to Realistic and Zhang Juzheng’s Emperor of Preaching&Understand the Pragmatic reflect the thoughts, and serve the theory program, which provides direct services to their reform activities.The second chapter selects Wang Yangming, Wang Gen, Luo Rufang Zhou Rudeng, Jiao Hong, LiZhi, Lin Zhao en, Yuan Zongdao, Zhang Dai as the Confucian Analects’interpretation of the case, from the perspective of the development of the land of Wang Xinxue. First of all, Wang Yangming’s Chuanxi Record often has the existing characteristics as Functioning for a Mind&Chuanxi Conscience, which is coherent in the interpretation of the Confucian Analects.It has consistent interpretation revealing contemporary humanistic care. Secondly, as the founder of Taizhou school, Wang Gen not only restores the restoration of the original Confucian vivid life wisdom, but also carries a spirit of the times in the theoretical construction of its own in the Recorded Utterance, reflecting the social demands of bud of capitalism and the behalf of the existence of a new society.His annotation features also set up the academic model necessary for the Taizhou school behind. As the outstanding representative of Taizhou School, Luo Rufang and Zhou Rudeng continue along the academic path blazed by Wang Yangming and Wang Gen.Whether Luo Rufang’s Ask the Kernel to Oneself&Have the Return to Propriety or Zhou Rudeng’s Heart shall Prevail&Returning to Themselves, all that two people is from the perspective of Confucian benevolence horizon of interpretation. As the representative of the Taizhou school, Jiao Hong and Li Zhi is in sharp contrast, a psychology analysis most significantly, a literary play the most conscious. Finally, Lin Zhaoen, Yuan Zongdao and Zhang Dai are typical representatives of the Confucian Analects of the New Mind in the new situation.Their writing attitudes and characteristics are tend to integration and convergence. The above scholars focus on the solution of the subjective spirit experience and their interpretation process has their distinct spiritual purport.The third chapter selects Gu Xiancheng, Liu Zongzhou, Chen Shiyuan, Hao Jing, Gu Menglin, Matteo Ricci, Zhi Xu as the Confucian Analects’interpretation of the case. As the Donglin school pioneer and leader, Gu Xiancheng’s Beyond the Wang School&Revive the Zhu School trying to understand thoroughly Wang Yangming and Zhu Xi, and the like Liu Zongzhou. Whether Chen Shiyuan or Hao Jing or Gu Menglin, these three people is a compromise. The Zhixu and Matteo Ricci is out of the church missionary to the Confucian Analects text interpretation. The above scholars all reflect the unique and variegated academic landscape in this period.There are similarities and personalities between the above three plates of the argument. The interpretive paradigm has the same ultimate goal of learning for practice. The difference is only due to the existence of the emphasis point and threshold range. In particular, they have one thing in common, that is the scholars have the sense of feeling strong perception to the classic texts. In their view, the important thing is how to interpret the present life, and not to the classic texts. Their interpretation of Confucian Analects’ works, also proved that their spirits are really effectively expressed by the classical perspective and interpretation. The explanatory notes on the Confucian Analects in the Ming Dynasty reflect an overall feature by Cheng Zhu to Lu Wang and by the classics to literature. The most prominent representative is Feng Menglong who has a sharp aesthetic vision. Finally, the author put forward three enlightenment, such as returning to the present&returning to life, returning to the original books&returning to ourselves, and having the courage to construct&remolding confucianism.更多还原