“礼者天理之节文”平议——从文质论的角度看

On‘Ritual Propriety as the Moderation and Decoration of the Heavenly Principle’from the Perspective of the Theory of Basic Disposition and Refinement

“礼者,天理之节文”,是朱子对理、礼关系的著名界定。本文从清儒戴震、凌廷堪等人对朱子的批评说起,追溯了先秦经、子文献中礼、理二字的含义,指出它们都属于文质论的讨论范畴,理作为内在纹理,与作为外在文饰的礼文,都是针对人情质实的节文。宋代张载、二程以后,由于对天理的强调,对礼、理关系的讨论有所变化,朱子则坚持了“理”的文质论含义,但其“节文”的用法,却与先秦多数文献中的“节文”用法多有不同。节谓等差,文谓文采,因而,其“礼者,天理之节文”之说,虽使用了文质论语言,却并非传统的文质论结构,真正的含义是:理是生生质实的文理,礼则是实现天理的实践方式。

Zhu Xi made a definition of the relationship between principle and ritual propriety under which“ritual propriety is the moderation and decoration of the Heavenly principle.”Beginning from Dai Zhen and Ling Tingkan’s criticisms of Zhu,this paper traces the original concepts of ritual propriety and principle in the pre-Qin classics and philosophical writings and argues that,according to the theory of basic disposition and refinement,both principle as the internal figure and ritual propriety as the external form are the moderation and decoration of physical human feelings.After Zhang Zai and the Cheng brothers,more emphasis was placed on the Heavenly principle and ideas about the relationship between ritual propriety and principle underwent some changes.Nevertheless,Zhu Xi continued to interpret principle according to the theory of basic disposition and refinement.To Zhu,moderation referred to graduation of differences and decoration to embellishment.His definition,though it followed the theory of basic disposition and refinement,was not exactly the same as the traditional one.What Zhu truly meant was that principle refers to the decorative patterns of the physical production and reproduction,while ritual propriety refers to the practical way of realizing the Heavenly principle.