湛若水关于儒道之别的观点述略——以《非老子》为中心

Reflections on Zhan Ruoshui's Distinction between Confucianism and Daoism: a Study of Critique of Laozi

在《非老子》中,湛若水主要以"道"与"自然"这两个重要概念作为分析儒家与道家区别的依据。湛若水认为,《老子》所说的"道",是虚远而飘渺的,道与器是分离的,而且《老子》视社会的道德规范、人伦秩序为大道沦丧的产物;儒家所说的"道",则是平易而近实的,道与器是一体的,而且儒家认为社会的道德规范、人伦秩序就是道的体现,就是道。而《老子》所说的"自然",强调的虽然是不加人为、因顺事物的本然状态,但是在其号称自然的时候,却时时不免拂人之性;在其声称自然的地方,又处处带有人为之私。儒家所说的"自然",是指不能有人为之私,是指物各付物而己不与,儒家虽然没有口口声声说自己明自然,却时时处处表现出自然。湛若水的观点与说法,颇具睿智。

In his Critique of Laozi, Zhan Ruoshui analyzes the difference between Confucianism and Daoism by focusing on two important eoneepts-dao （way） and ziran （self-so）. Zhan argues that the idea of dao in Laozi is otherworldly and insubstantial; this dao is separated from qi （the sensible particulars in the world）; Laozi regards moral norms and ethical conventions as degenerated from the great Dao. By contrast, the Confucian idea of dao is down-to-earth, which is inseparable from qi. The Confucianists see moral norms and ethical conventions as manifestations of dao. Ziran in Laozi means self-so. The idea is to let everything develop its own natural potentials without being interfered by human effort. However, this idea often goes against human nature. Where it emphasizes the freedom from the human interference, one can often detect selfishness. The idea of ziran as understood by the Confucianists indicates that we should rid ourselves of the selfishness of human effort, that things nurture themselves without being interfered by us; although the Confucianists do not claim to have a perfect understanding of ziran, their practice is never incompatible with the principle of ziran in concrete situations. Zhan Ruoshui＇s analysis is full of insights.