一身与天下:论早期道家“治身”与“治天下”关系的演变
|
摘要
对于早期道家的政治思想,学界目前大多集中在黄老一系。对于老庄一系的政治思想则关注较少。其实,从现有资料来看,老庄一系的道家对于政治也有他们自己独特的想法。就"治身"与"治天下"的关系来看,老庄一系道家的代表人物老子、杨朱、庄子有着明显的不同。老子强调"治天下"要建立在"贵身"的基础之上,只有知道"贵身"的人才能把天下治理好,反之那些不懂得"贵身"的人则是没有资格治理天下的。杨朱把老子的"贵身"思想发挥到极致,使得道家思想呈现出注重生命的一面,而这也反映了杨朱的政治思想。在杨朱看来,每个人都把自己管理好了,那么天下也就治理了。庄子则对"治天下"有所轻视,认为"治天下"是"治身"的附属品,是不得已而为之的事情,实在不值得有意为之。
While scholars focus on Yellow Emperor and Laozi integrity for the early Daoist political thought,that of Laozi and Zhuangzi is scarcely cared about.In fact,the Daoists of Laozi and Zhuangzi do have their own ideas of politics,in governing the body or governing the world.Laozi,Yang Zhu and Zhuangzi are the representatives of Daoism.Laozi emphasizes that ruling the world should rely on an expensive body.On the contrary,those who fail to know of their expensive bodies are not entitled to governing the world.Yang Zhu follows suit so as to make Daoism attributable to life.He claims that if everyone has managed himself well,the whole world will be governed.Zhuangzi,on the other hand,despises the idea of governing the world,believing that governing the world is but an appendage of governing the body and a matter of necessity.
While scholars focus on Yellow Emperor and Laozi integrity for the early Daoist political thought,that of Laozi and Zhuangzi is scarcely cared about.In fact,the Daoists of Laozi and Zhuangzi do have their own ideas of politics,in governing the body or governing the world.Laozi,Yang Zhu and Zhuangzi are the representatives of Daoism.Laozi emphasizes that ruling the world should rely on an expensive body.On the contrary,those who fail to know of their expensive bodies are not entitled to governing the world.Yang Zhu follows suit so as to make Daoism attributable to life.He claims that if everyone has managed himself well,the whole world will be governed.Zhuangzi,on the other hand,despises the idea of governing the world,believing that governing the world is but an appendage of governing the body and a matter of necessity.
引文
[1]丁四新.郭店楚竹书老子校注[M].武汉:武汉大学出版社,2010.
[2]蒋锡昌.老子校诂[A].民国丛书(第五编)[M].上海:上海书店,1996.
[3]刘笑敢.老子古今[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社,2006.
[4]高明.帛书老子校注[M].北京:中华书局,1996.
[5]冯友兰.中国哲学简史[M].北京:北京大学出版社,1985.
[6]冯友兰.中国哲学史新编(上卷)[M].北京:人民出版社,1998.
[7]胡适文集(第六册)[M].北京:北京大学出版社,1998.
[8]蒙文通文集(第一册)[M].成都:巴蜀书社,1987.
[9]侯外庐,赵纪彬,杜国庠.中国思想通史(第一卷)[M].北京:人民出版社,1957.
[10]梁涛.《庄子·天下》篇“内圣外王”本意发微[J].哲学研究,2013(12).
[2]蒋锡昌.老子校诂[A].民国丛书(第五编)[M].上海:上海书店,1996.
[3]刘笑敢.老子古今[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社,2006.
[4]高明.帛书老子校注[M].北京:中华书局,1996.
[5]冯友兰.中国哲学简史[M].北京:北京大学出版社,1985.
[6]冯友兰.中国哲学史新编(上卷)[M].北京:人民出版社,1998.
[7]胡适文集(第六册)[M].北京:北京大学出版社,1998.
[8]蒙文通文集(第一册)[M].成都:巴蜀书社,1987.
[9]侯外庐,赵纪彬,杜国庠.中国思想通史(第一卷)[M].北京:人民出版社,1957.
[10]梁涛.《庄子·天下》篇“内圣外王”本意发微[J].哲学研究,2013(12).