| 摘要: | 本文以荀學人性論為核心，將其先後置於兩漢以至於隋唐間的儒者視域，在此脈絡底下，筆者發現荀學人性論雖從漢代學者的包容態度到魏晉時期仲長敖，隋唐時期王通、韓愈的質疑態度，但仍有諸多儒者如：司馬遷、劉向、董仲舒、徐幹對荀學表達肯定看法，唐人楊倞更是荀學史上第一個為《荀子》做注之人。當此脈絡延入宋代儒者的視域，卻顯現出不同的風貌，本文分別探討了被錢穆先生稱之為「綜匯儒」的非理學家和「別出儒」的理學家這兩派學者，在不同的學術視域下，對荀學人性論及由其衍生而出的相關看法之異同：首先，兩派學者雖在人性善惡論調上少有完全認同荀子性惡說，但勸人為善之意卻與荀學不謀而合；其次雖然對禮教本源看法不同，但宋代儒者們卻都肯定禮教對人的形塑作用；再者，在心性修養的議題上，宋儒們化用了荀學「虛壹而靜」的方法，但修養的路徑可說是有了由外而內，化被動為主動的改變。
Focusing on the theory of human nature in the thoughts of Xun ZI, this paper places it in the vision field of the Confucians during the two Hans, Sui and Tang dynasties. In this context, the author found that for the theory of human nature in the thoughts of Hsun Tzu, the scholars in Han dynasty held tolerant attitude, and Chung Chang’ao in Wei and Jin dynasties, Wang Tung and Han Yu in Sui and Tang dynasties held questioning attitude. However, there were many other scholars, such as Ssu Machien, Liu Hsiang, Tung Chungshu, Hsu Kan and so on, who held positive attitude. What’s more, Yang Ching in Tang dynasty was the first person who made notes for the Hsun Tzu in its history. When this context extended to the vision field of scholars in Song Dynasty, it presented different style. This paper respectively discusses the relative opinions of the neo-confucianism which were called as “Zonghui Confucianism” and “Biechu Confucianism” by Chien Mu on the theory of human nature in the thoughts of Hsun Tzu in different academic vision fields: first of all, though two schools of scholars had few agreements on the theory of human nature of good and evil proposed by Hsun Tzu, their determination to ask people to be good coincided with the thoughts of Hsun Tzu; secondly, though they had different views on the origin of moral codes, the scholars in Song dynasty affirmed that moral codes had its shaping function for people; furthermore, on the issue of mind cultivation, the scholars in Song dynasty adopted the way of "achieving calmness by modesty and concentration" in the thoughts of Hsun Tzu , but the path of cultivation had been changed to be active from passive completely. |
