唐君毅与牟宗三对伊川理学的理解与阐释

Tang Junyi and Mou Zongsan's Interpretations on the Neo-Confucian Cheng Yi's Philosophy

对于宋明理学,牟宗三先生与唐君毅先生都有深入系统的研究,但两先生对于宋明理学内部各派的定位却不尽相同,这在他们对伊川理学的理解与诠释上体现得较为明显。具体地说,唐先生将伊川之"理"界定为"当然之理",强调在伊川思想中理与气、性与情等关系是"当然"与"实然"的关系,具有内在的连续性,而不具有分解或二分的可能;牟先生则将伊川之"理"界定为"静摄之理",由此,理与气、性与情便成为"静"与"动"、"只存有而不活动"与"只活动而不存有"的二分的关系。唐、牟两先生的观点可谓大异其趣,牟先生对于伊川理学的界说与诠释虽然自成一格,系统严整,但唐先生的观点则更为客观合理。

Mou Zongsan and Tang Junyi , both eminent Confucian philosophers in 20th century, have sys-tematic views on Song-Ming Neo-Confucianism respectively .Their conclusions , however , are sometimes qui-et different and even opposite with each other .This can be clearly seen in their interpretations on the philos-ophy of Cheng Yi .Tang suggests that the li （ principle ） in Cheng Yi ’ s philosophy can be viewed as “princi-ple as it ought to be”.On the basis of this characteristic , the relation between li and qi （ vital force ） , xing （nature） and qing （ emotions） can be concluded as a relationship between “is” and “ought”.And both sides are interrelated rather than separated and segregated .Conversely , Mou suggests that li in Cheng Yi ’ s philosophy is a “principle without activeness”;thus according to Cheng Yi , li and qi , as well as xing and qing , are separated with each other .The former belongs to the field of “stillness” or“being only but not ac-tive”;whereas the latter belongs to “activeness” or“activeness only without an implication of being”.This paper demonstrates that , though Mou’s view is systematic and coherent , Tang’s perspective is more reason-able and objective .