略论明代易学的形成、演变及意义
|
摘要
明代易学在理学、心学、佛学三者相互碰撞与交融的学术背景下形成,反映了此一时期学术文化发展的理路与特色。明代定理学于一尊,易学以程朱之说为正宗。然程朱易学在明代盛行之时,又出现了完全不同于程朱易学乃至反对程朱易学的势力:一是心学视域下的易学,一是以恢复汉学考辨传统为宗旨的象学。明代易学经历了由独尊程朱到修正批判程朱即以心学和佛学解《易》,继而转向调和理学与心学、融通儒学与佛学的演进历程,故往往表现出融合象数与义理、心学与理学、道家与儒学的鲜明特点。明代易学的价值在于确立了程朱易学在明清时期的法定权威地位,承传整合了以程朱为主流的宋代易学,在某些方面修正了宋代易学的缺陷,推动了易学的发展,是易学史上不可缺少的重要环节。尽管清人对明代经学水平多有非议,我们仍不宜一味抹杀明代易学的学术贡献。
The Ming(1368-1644)scholarship on the Changetook its form under the academic background when the Learning of Principle(li xue 理学),Learning of Heart-mind(xin xue 心学),and Buddhism impacted and learned from each other,which reflected the path and features of the development of academia and culture during this period.In the Ming dynasty,the Learning of Principle(credited to the Cheng brothers and Zhu Xi[1130-1200])enjoyed an unrivaled prestige and accordingly the Changes of Cheng and Zhu were established as the orthodoxy in regard to Changes scholarship.However,when Chengs' and Zhu's Changes were in vogue in the Ming dynasty,there appeared two forces disparate or opposite to Chengs' and Zhu's Changes,among which one was the Changes scholarship under the vision of the Learning of Heart-mind,the other being the imagery school aiming to restore the textual research of the Han(206BCE-220CE)Changes tradition.The Ming Changes scholarship experienced a course of evolution from only venerating Chengs' and Zhu's Yi learning to amending and criticizing their learning,i.e.,interpreting the Changes from perspectives of the Learning of Heart-mind and Buddhism,then tothe reconciliation of the learning of Principle and that of Heart-mind,and finally to the synthesis of Confucianism and Buddhism.So,the Changes scholarship in the Ming dynasty is apparently characterized by the fusion of image-numerology and meaning-principle,conflation of the learning of heart-mind and that of principle,and coalescence of Daoism and Confucianism.The value of the Ming Changes scholarship lies in its establishment of the authoritative position of Chengs' and Zhu's Changes in the Ming(1368-1644)and Qing(1616-1912)dynasties,its succession and correction to some extent of the Song(960-1279)Changes scholarship where Chengs' and Zhu's Changes formed the mainstream,and the formation of its particular outlook on the Changes,pushing the development of Changes scholarship forward and constituting an indispensible link in the history of Yi learning.Although many Qing(1616-1912)scholars were highly critical of the Ming classical studies,we should not blindly blot out academic contributions made by the scholarship on the Changes in the Ming dynasty.
The Ming(1368-1644)scholarship on the Changetook its form under the academic background when the Learning of Principle(li xue 理学),Learning of Heart-mind(xin xue 心学),and Buddhism impacted and learned from each other,which reflected the path and features of the development of academia and culture during this period.In the Ming dynasty,the Learning of Principle(credited to the Cheng brothers and Zhu Xi[1130-1200])enjoyed an unrivaled prestige and accordingly the Changes of Cheng and Zhu were established as the orthodoxy in regard to Changes scholarship.However,when Chengs' and Zhu's Changes were in vogue in the Ming dynasty,there appeared two forces disparate or opposite to Chengs' and Zhu's Changes,among which one was the Changes scholarship under the vision of the Learning of Heart-mind,the other being the imagery school aiming to restore the textual research of the Han(206BCE-220CE)Changes tradition.The Ming Changes scholarship experienced a course of evolution from only venerating Chengs' and Zhu's Yi learning to amending and criticizing their learning,i.e.,interpreting the Changes from perspectives of the Learning of Heart-mind and Buddhism,then tothe reconciliation of the learning of Principle and that of Heart-mind,and finally to the synthesis of Confucianism and Buddhism.So,the Changes scholarship in the Ming dynasty is apparently characterized by the fusion of image-numerology and meaning-principle,conflation of the learning of heart-mind and that of principle,and coalescence of Daoism and Confucianism.The value of the Ming Changes scholarship lies in its establishment of the authoritative position of Chengs' and Zhu's Changes in the Ming(1368-1644)and Qing(1616-1912)dynasties,its succession and correction to some extent of the Song(960-1279)Changes scholarship where Chengs' and Zhu's Changes formed the mainstream,and the formation of its particular outlook on the Changes,pushing the development of Changes scholarship forward and constituting an indispensible link in the history of Yi learning.Although many Qing(1616-1912)scholars were highly critical of the Ming classical studies,we should not blindly blot out academic contributions made by the scholarship on the Changes in the Ming dynasty.
引文
(1)牟宗三《心体与性体》,上海:上海古籍出版社,1997年,第12页。
(2)[清]张廷玉等撰《明史》卷二百八十二,北京:中华书局,1974年,第7221页。
(3)[清]张廷玉等撰《明史》卷一四七,第4116页。
(4)台湾中央研究院历史语言研究所编《明太宗实录》卷一五八,台北:中央研究院历史语言研究所,1968年,第2页。
(5)[清]黄宗羲《明儒学案》,北京:中华书局,1986年,第179页。
(1)[清]张廷玉等撰《明史》卷二百八十二,第7222页。
(2)[明]杨慎《升庵外集》卷六一《文事》,清道光二十四年刻本。
(3)林庆彰《晚明经学的复兴运动》,载《明代经学研究论集》,台北:文史出版社,1994年,第134页。
(4)[明]王守仁《王阳明全集》卷二,上海:上海古籍出版社,1992年,第45页。
(5)[清]张廷玉等撰《明史》卷二百八十二,第7222页。
(1)[清]朱彝尊《经义考》卷四十九,北京:中华书局,1998年,第272页。
(2)今《四库》所存胡居仁《易像钞》四卷已非胡氏原作。《四库提要》指出:“其说《易》亦简明确切,不涉支离玄渺之谈。考万历乙酉御史李颐《请以居仁从祀孔子庙庭疏》,称所著有《易传》《春秋传》,今颇散佚失次。朱彝尊《经义考》载有居仁《易通解》,注曰‘未见’,而不载此书,岂此书一名《易通解》欤?然李颐时已称散佚失次,何以此本独完?疑后人裒其绪言,重为编次,非居仁手著也。”朱伯崑先生认为:“此书所辑诸家易说,有黄正宪、章本清语,皆出于胡氏之后。显然,此书乃后人所伪托,非胡氏之作。”见朱伯崑《易学哲学史》第三卷,北京:昆仑出版社,2005年,第85页。郭彧先生认为,“今见四库全书本《易像钞》(非‘易象钞’)”注文中有“胡叔心”,“若此书为胡居仁所作,无自属其名字之理”;又引蔡清、章潢、杨时乔、顾宪成、焦竑等胡氏身后诸家之言论,故绝非胡居仁所作。郭先生将此书与钱一本之《像抄》对比后发现“《像抄》前两卷文字与《四库全书》本《易像钞》前五卷文字完全相同,其三十二图,唯《马图》画有‘龙马’,《龟书》画有‘神龟’,其余亦完全相同。”故郭彧以四库全书本《易像钞》为钱一本之著作。参见郭彧《续四库提要辩证》(经部易类),此著作为网络发表,网址:http://www.confucius2000.com/zhouyi/xu4kutybzh/jing5.htm.此外,刘勇亦在对四库本《易像钞》及钱一本《像钞》之序言、结构和内容进行大量比较分析后,直指《易像钞》为钱氏之书。他还进一步推测:“《四库提要》所据胡居仁《易像钞》,是两淮盐政李质颖在乾隆皇帝的催索之下,通过当地总商向书贾匆忙购取。”“结合之前由乾隆皇帝本人所定的征书标准,以及两淮盐政实际的采集环境,完全有可能此书是书贾为射利而将钱一本所著《像抄》改署胡居仁之名的结果,书前的序言,大概也是在此时篡改的。”参见刘勇《从胡居仁与〈易像钞〉看〈四库提要〉之纂修》,载《燕京学报》新21期,北京:北京大学出版社,2006年,第107-137页。
(3)[清]永瑢等《钦定四库全书总目》卷五,景印文渊阁《四库全书》第1册,台北:商务印书馆,1986年,第117页。
(1)[清]永瑢等《钦定四库全书总目》卷五,景印文渊阁《四库全书》第1册,第115页。
(2)[宋]杨简《杨氏易传》卷九,景印文渊阁《四库全书》第14册,第97页。
(3)[清]永瑢等《钦定四库全书总目》卷三,景印文渊阁《四库全书》第1册,第87页。
(4)[清]永瑢等《钦定四库全书总目》卷一百七十,景印文渊阁《四库全书》第4册,第514页。
(5)[明]陈献章《陈献章集》,北京:中华书局,1987年,第145、55、217页。
(6)[清]永瑢等《钦定四库全书总目》卷七,景印文渊阁《四库全书》第1册,第170页。
(1)皮锡瑞论明代经学曾云:“明时所谓经学,不过蒙存浅达之流;即自成一书者,亦如顾炎武云:‘明人之书,无非盗窃。’弘治以后,经解皆隐没古人名字,将为己说而已。其见于《四库存目》者,新奇谬戾,不可究诘。”见[清]皮锡瑞《经学历史》,北京:中华书局,1959年,第278页。
(2)[清]张廷玉等撰《明史》卷二百八十二,北京:中华书局,1974年,第7221页。
(3)[清]张廷玉等撰《明史》卷一四七,第4116页。
(4)台湾中央研究院历史语言研究所编《明太宗实录》卷一五八,台北:中央研究院历史语言研究所,1968年,第2页。
(5)[清]黄宗羲《明儒学案》,北京:中华书局,1986年,第179页。
(1)[清]张廷玉等撰《明史》卷二百八十二,第7222页。
(2)[明]杨慎《升庵外集》卷六一《文事》,清道光二十四年刻本。
(3)林庆彰《晚明经学的复兴运动》,载《明代经学研究论集》,台北:文史出版社,1994年,第134页。
(4)[明]王守仁《王阳明全集》卷二,上海:上海古籍出版社,1992年,第45页。
(5)[清]张廷玉等撰《明史》卷二百八十二,第7222页。
(1)[清]朱彝尊《经义考》卷四十九,北京:中华书局,1998年,第272页。
(2)今《四库》所存胡居仁《易像钞》四卷已非胡氏原作。《四库提要》指出:“其说《易》亦简明确切,不涉支离玄渺之谈。考万历乙酉御史李颐《请以居仁从祀孔子庙庭疏》,称所著有《易传》《春秋传》,今颇散佚失次。朱彝尊《经义考》载有居仁《易通解》,注曰‘未见’,而不载此书,岂此书一名《易通解》欤?然李颐时已称散佚失次,何以此本独完?疑后人裒其绪言,重为编次,非居仁手著也。”朱伯崑先生认为:“此书所辑诸家易说,有黄正宪、章本清语,皆出于胡氏之后。显然,此书乃后人所伪托,非胡氏之作。”见朱伯崑《易学哲学史》第三卷,北京:昆仑出版社,2005年,第85页。郭彧先生认为,“今见四库全书本《易像钞》(非‘易象钞’)”注文中有“胡叔心”,“若此书为胡居仁所作,无自属其名字之理”;又引蔡清、章潢、杨时乔、顾宪成、焦竑等胡氏身后诸家之言论,故绝非胡居仁所作。郭先生将此书与钱一本之《像抄》对比后发现“《像抄》前两卷文字与《四库全书》本《易像钞》前五卷文字完全相同,其三十二图,唯《马图》画有‘龙马’,《龟书》画有‘神龟’,其余亦完全相同。”故郭彧以四库全书本《易像钞》为钱一本之著作。参见郭彧《续四库提要辩证》(经部易类),此著作为网络发表,网址:http://www.confucius2000.com/zhouyi/xu4kutybzh/jing5.htm.此外,刘勇亦在对四库本《易像钞》及钱一本《像钞》之序言、结构和内容进行大量比较分析后,直指《易像钞》为钱氏之书。他还进一步推测:“《四库提要》所据胡居仁《易像钞》,是两淮盐政李质颖在乾隆皇帝的催索之下,通过当地总商向书贾匆忙购取。”“结合之前由乾隆皇帝本人所定的征书标准,以及两淮盐政实际的采集环境,完全有可能此书是书贾为射利而将钱一本所著《像抄》改署胡居仁之名的结果,书前的序言,大概也是在此时篡改的。”参见刘勇《从胡居仁与〈易像钞〉看〈四库提要〉之纂修》,载《燕京学报》新21期,北京:北京大学出版社,2006年,第107-137页。
(3)[清]永瑢等《钦定四库全书总目》卷五,景印文渊阁《四库全书》第1册,台北:商务印书馆,1986年,第117页。
(1)[清]永瑢等《钦定四库全书总目》卷五,景印文渊阁《四库全书》第1册,第115页。
(2)[宋]杨简《杨氏易传》卷九,景印文渊阁《四库全书》第14册,第97页。
(3)[清]永瑢等《钦定四库全书总目》卷三,景印文渊阁《四库全书》第1册,第87页。
(4)[清]永瑢等《钦定四库全书总目》卷一百七十,景印文渊阁《四库全书》第4册,第514页。
(5)[明]陈献章《陈献章集》,北京:中华书局,1987年,第145、55、217页。
(6)[清]永瑢等《钦定四库全书总目》卷七,景印文渊阁《四库全书》第1册,第170页。
(1)皮锡瑞论明代经学曾云:“明时所谓经学,不过蒙存浅达之流;即自成一书者,亦如顾炎武云:‘明人之书,无非盗窃。’弘治以后,经解皆隐没古人名字,将为己说而已。其见于《四库存目》者,新奇谬戾,不可究诘。”见[清]皮锡瑞《经学历史》,北京:中华书局,1959年,第278页。