【作者】 鲍永玲；

【导师】 潘德荣；

【作者基本信息】 华东师范大学 ， 中国哲学， 2010， 博士

【摘要】 第一编含三章。分析“心”字源初所具有的几个喻象,将“明德”/“知”作为“心”之“火藏”功能的展开。指示这些喻象作为儒道释思想内隐的核心特质,它们是如何被融会贯通在宋明理学,尤其是阳明心学的理论体系中。第一章“心”的分析,“心”所具有的“土藏”和“火藏”功能,预示了一系列高层概念语簇群的萌发。心的火藏功能,指示“知”之“明”,是心能发挥“思”之功能的重要原因。同时,“心”与“泉”、“镜”这两个喻象的关联也极为紧密。本章尤其注重分析先秦孟、庄对“心”之理解、喻象之殊异,提出这里“一动一静”的差异,正是交融为阳明心学特质的两大基础来源。第二章“知”：心的功能分析,以圭峰宗密“灵知”、“寂知”为例,阐释中国古代思想的论辩发展,如何将重心从“心”转移到了作为“心”之功能的“知”上；并指出阳明的“良知”学说,虽以孟子“四端”(幼芽)的“良知”思想为根基,但在很大程度上也吸收了圭峰宗密以“光”为主要喻象的“灵知”思想。第三章“心”为字母的若干分析,以儒家古典思想为背景,将“心”作为“字母”和“大本”,从对“心”做动态理解基础上,分析由此生发出的一系列在儒家思想中具有核心话语意义的语簇群,如“仁”、“性”、“德”等,指出它们内在有一种自然生长、相互呼应的意义脉络。第二编含四章。以阳明心学文本为分析依据,在中西互通的坐标体系下,将对心学若干基本喻象的阐释分析,扩展到对中国古代思想整体气质的梳理上。第四章动水与静水,原始儒道对“水”喻象的使用,一偏静一偏动。水蒸发为气,流而为道,风吹而水文、直波,对中国古代思想的影响包括：如何注经、如何循道、如何建立其一气蝉联的本体宇宙论,以及体用关系的讨论；“静水”之渊深明亮的喻象,则形成了“空潭泻春、古镜照神”的审美理念。第五章种子与植物,结合《周易》“复卦”和“恒卦”,阐释儒家建立在种子萌芽、生长之生命秩序基础上的“天时观”；“受中而生、中通而直”的“木”,为何成为中国古代关于“宇宙树”、“三才”、“人极”等的核心喻象；静静闭藏、收获的嘉谷,作为“时物”,得时而生、得时而落,正是“熟仁”的工夫；“和实生物”的世界观正是建立在“稼穑之甘”的基础上,“诚”在这里近似“真理”的展开,“贞”象征着“真理”的寂而闭藏。第六章日与镜,西方的“日”喻往往与作为上帝的“(光)泉”相通,中国则是“日”与“镜”喻在“照”的功能上相通。“日”“镜”都拿来象征人心,导致心学里更多承认个人成圣的可能性。“镜”的角度,决定了“境域”的展开程度,故可借用王国维“有我之境”、“无我之境”来解释“心镜”和“画镜”的问题。第七章光与灵明,儒家更重视“光明”,道家更重视“葆光”、“知白守黑”。人心如同“光的种子”,修身并非为“自耀其明”,而是“回光照内”而惜明,这是儒家以“生色”、“玉德”为君子特质的原因。“心亮”、“语莹”,都是这颗“光的种子”的映现,“共通感”在这里如同涌动的火溪(Feuerbach),促成人人间的谅解,这也是真善美的大源。美作为光的闪耀,使人与人、人与物之间“际”倏忽间消融了。第三编含三章。从基本喻象入手,讨论中国古代诠释经典、修身悟道功夫的几种模型,并对镜喻阐释做一些补正说明,以引出在此基础上中西比较研究的新思路。第八章两种诠释法,“经”是从“直波”图象渐次引申而形成,中国人对“直”、“水之赴下”、“百川归海”的重视,导致大禹“治”水有了诠释和读书方法论上的象征意义。“注”、“疏”、“导”、“引”、“衍”等解经方式,都是将“经”理解为一种水道,必须顺势而为,将注者的生命体验注入其中,或将经典中凝结的生命经验导引而出。同时,经典被视为一种有机的生长物,读书是为了在“立德”的基础上养心。“天地之心”的存在,使我们能和古人达成一种“共通”的理解。第九章工夫论,与“水”喻相联系,有观动、观静两种修炼方法。前者近似于儒家的“善观春意”,后者多是老庄、佛家的静坐功夫。“立志”以“木”喻为模型,是较为纯粹的儒家工夫,如孟子“以志帅气”。阳明将其发展为按照树木生长秩序而阐发的工夫：立志如布种,灌溉使萌芽舒发,养正并删去繁枝,最后达到熟仁境界。同时,阳明的“磨镜”,也随学者资质高低而具有内在的分辨和次序。宋明理学家过多融入静坐而悟本体的佛老功夫,开始产生极为严重的“光景”问题,追求把捉光明心体而为病执。第十章补正和反思,对镜喻进行补正。分析阳明“心学”在何种程度上与朱熹理学存“通”而与象山心学有“异”。阳明先提“心”学,后提“致良知”,都未摆脱“知”(灵光)和“仁”(种子)在他理论中的微有罅隙。“以镜喻心”本自老庄,其与共通发动的“仁端”无涉；明镜应物“知”和光澈灵明“知”,来自融合老庄的宗密思想,本义为求空空大圆镜智。要将这些本身异质的喻象融入儒家以“仁”之“充实”、“感动”为基础的“心”、“良知”理论,就须付出艰苦努力。阳明尚能勉强圆融,在他后学处始分崩离析,或流于禅,或拘于儒,并不能完全理解阳明为何作此融合工作的苦心。镜的“反光”特性,在西方导向形成“反思”、“表象”、“思辨性”等形而上学概念,以致罗蒂断言西方“形而上学”成因乃在“巨镜之心”的图画；而在古代中国,镜的反光自照,或实或虚,同样形成令人头痛的“光景”问题。这正是值得我们深思之处。更多还原

【Abstract】 The concepts of Xin心and Zhi知are two of the most important ones in Wang Yangming’s philosophy of Xin. "Xin", according to Wang, is not "material", rather it plays a functional role, while the concept of "zhi", another functional concept overlapping with "xin" derives from two different schools of thought: the concept of liangzhi良知from Mencius with an emphasis on intuition, emotion and the concept of lingzhi灵知of Zongmi宗密with an emphasis on mysticism, transcendence, etc.During his lifetime, Wang’s philosophy has undergone some changes in system of theory. In the beginning, his understanding of "xin" is far from being clear; later with his deepened understanding of "zhi",he proposes "Zhi liang zhi致良知”.It is only after this that both his system of thinking and effort theory are established around the core concept of "liangzhi". From this perspective, we can detect that Wang’s philosophy of xin internally follows the rational and intellectual thought of Chu His朱熹.In Wang’s system of concepts, "xin", as the,,seed" and,,letter", gives rise to other clusters of concepts. However, in his understanding of "xin", Wang is greatly limited by traditional metaphors of "xin", such as "tuzang土藏”und the,,seed","huozang火藏”und the light (sun), "quan泉”(spring), "jing | jian镜/鉴”(mirror) and doesn’t make distinguished contribution in this field. His innovation lies in the fact that he bases both the concept of "lingzhi" and "liangzhi" on the "lingming灵明”function of xin and it is only in this way that the "xin"is as luminous as the "seed of light".Compared to Westen Christian doctrines in which God is the only source of light, Wang’s philosophy puts "xin" as the origin where light comes from. Also the proposition that everyone can be enlightened, obviously, is based upon this conception of "xin".However in Wang’s philosophy of xin, there lurks some internal problem. The metaphor of "seed", as a preferred image of Confucianists, identifies perfectly with Confucianists’ emphasis on "chongshi充实”(fulfillment), "guanghui光辉”(brightness), ,,ren仁" and "siduan"四端(four moral principals); while the metaphors of "j ing"(镜,mirror) and "jingshui"(静水,still water), which are often used by Taoists, speak to the Chuang Tzu’s ideals of "xujing虚静”,"shengzhi圣知”and "zuowang坐忘”.Also in Six Dynasties, some classic metaphors in Buddhism came to merge into these two branches as mentioned above. As a result, a metaphor-based analysis of Wang’s philosophy of xin will give us a glimpse of traditional culture family tree. However the problem is in the combination of chongshide充实的(substantial) "seed" metaphor and kongxude空虚的(empty) "mirror" metaphor to explain the funtions of "xin" or "zhi, these two different systems of metaphors, unavoidably, create some internal inconsistancy in Wang’s theory; morover, this leads to the inadequacy of its effort practice——the problem of "guangjing光景”(illusion).更多还原