孔子心學中潛藏的問題及其詮釋之發展：以「吾道一以貫之」的詮釋為中心=A Hidden Issue in Confucius's Theory of Mind-Body Relations: Three Interpretive Paradigms of the Analects Ⅳ: 15 and ⅩⅤ: 3
In confucius’s (551~479B.C.) theory of the mind-body relations, there exists a hidden question, namely, how can human mind apprehend the Dao? Although Confucius himself did not analyze this issue explicitly, it had been fully discussed in the history of interpretations of the Analects in East Asia. This paper discusses three interpretive paradigms in the hermeneutic traditions of the Analects IV: 15 and XV: 3 as set forth by the great Sung Neo-Confucianist Chu Hsi (1130~1200), Ming Confucianist Wang Yang-ming (1472~1529) and Ch’ing Dynasty scholars. The core of the Analects IV: 15 and XV: 3 lies in Confucius’s statement that “there is one single thread that binds [his] way together.” What did Confucius mean by “a single thread?” How is “binding” possible? What is the “way” in Confucius’s mind? These questions have attracted tremendous attention from interpreters of the Analects. Among them, Chu His stands out as a pivotal interpreter. Chu His represents Confucius’s “貫” as “通” (penetrating) and argues that this “one single thread” can be grasped only by “plumbing into” diverse “principles” (理) in a myriad of entities in the universe. Chu His is inclined to what may be called “methodological individualism.” Since the thirteenth century, attacks against Chu Hsi’s interpretation of Confucius have come from two major fronts. The “holistic criticism,” represented by Wang Yang-ming and his followers, insists that the “one single thread” is prior to and therefore more important than the diverse principles in all things. The second attack against Chu Hsi is launched by the Ch’ing Dynasty scholars of “evidential studies.” Ku Yen-wu (1913~1682), Zuan Y?an (1764~1849) and Chiao Hs?n (1763~1820) take Confucius’s “貫” as “to work” (事) or “to practice” (行). They argue that Confucius’s “one single thread” can be found only in the concrete behaviors of “loyalty” and “reciprocity.” They launched vehement attack against the metaphysical tendency in Ch’eng-Chu Neo-Confucianism. They subscribed to a position that the abstract “universal” can only be found in the concrete “particulars.” In other words, they agreed that the “universal” is immanent in the “particulars.” In this sense, they are inclined to a “immanentalist” position. In conclusion, some kinds of “creative tensions” can be observed in the changing interpretive paradigms pertaining to Confucius’s punch line: “there is one single thread binding [his] way together.” This type of tensions is the inner dynamism that makes Confucianism alive in history.
