“理一分殊”的本体诠释:兼论经学的本体学性质

Onto-Hermeneutics of “Liyi Fenshu”: Ontological Feature of Confucian Classics

今日论经学,其目的在发挥儒学,提倡国学,而其实质修持则不能不回归本体之学,其方法用行则不能不深入本体诠释之学。"理一分殊"是宋明理学的核心命题,在近年来的新儒学讨论中具有重要地位,涉及到本体学、知识学与伦理学三个层面,但其讨论还仅仅限于经典诠释式的讨论,如何在进一步融合上述分析以了解其含义,更分析地说明其不同意涵,以补充其内容,这是"理一分殊"所需要的本体诠释之探讨。我们很难确证"理一分殊"的佛学来源,但易学的思想基础是清楚而直接的。或许,正因为有华严宗的思想作为参考,方使理学家更好地关注到易学中体现的理气分化而统一之道理,从而发展出理一分殊的思想。至于心学家则重视心的主动整合能力,此也不必完全归于禅学的影响,当可追溯到先秦儒学(如孟子)处。要想审视"理一分殊"概念的发展过程,便不能不兼有理气之学以作为背景认识,尤其应重视《西铭》中体现的个人与宇宙间一体的气之体验以及程颢对天理之体验。在此两者的体验基础上才能平等地分析气与理的平等对应性与相互参与性。由此以见理一分殊,既是理的统一性、分化性的彰显,也是气的统一性、分化型的彰显,两者不一不二,骨肉相连,血脉相通,犹如一钱之两面,一物之两层,一事之两端,电磁共振,质能互换。在这个认识之上,如何建立以仁义为基础的现代儒学,显然需要一个整体的宇宙与人的关系之认识。这种关系既是理的关系也是气的关系。从仁的德行来说,更体现整体性;从义的德行来说,更体现分化性。仁更偏向气质的同情共感,义则偏向于理性的差别认知。以仁义为基础的伦理学所要掌握的命题,不仅是"理一分殊",还应包括"一本万殊"及理气互动而共存等命题。

Today, the purpose of study of Chinese classics is not simply to establish Confucian classics as canons of traditional Chinese Learning but to promote Confucian learning or Confucian philosophy as learning and understanding of identity of humanity,the fundamental generative ontology of humanity through onto-hermeneutics. ＂Liyi fenshu 理一分 殊（one principle and many manifestations） ＂is the core proposition of SongMing Neo-Confucianism. This proposition occupies an important position in development of Confucianism as a holistic philosophy which involves ontology, epistemology and ethics. In contemporary times, these three aspects of Confucianism are merely studied mostly as objects of commentaries or historical expositions in Confucian Classics in so far as I can see. How to take a step forward for theoretical and creative development is a serious challenge. How to work out implications and ideal values in the Confucian texts is something we need also to face as a problem. Regarding the sources of this doctrine, one view is that it originated from Buddhist theory of huayan（ 华 严）. Although I see its relevance, I argue more for the initial relevance of the tradition of Yijing learning. For it is in the system of the Yi one can easily see the functioning of ＂liyi fenshu＂ whereby the power of qian realized its wide distribution in the kun. As for the mind-philosophy in the School of Wang Yangming, what needs to be stressed should be the active initiative of the mind which unifies experiences into one dynamical unity. Hence we may not have to rely on Chan Buddhism as a necessary source. What I wish to point out is that there is already a tradition of the dao in Confucianism and its many presentations finally come to the ideas of li and qi and thus the proposition of ＂liyi fenshu＂. In the beginning of Neo-Confucianism in Song, this idea presents itself in Chang Hao and Zhang Zai as direct experience of the ultimate reality. The result of my analysis is that ＂liyi fenshu＂ also requires＂qiyi fenshu 气 一分 殊 ＂（one qi and many manifestations of qi）. This shows the unity of li and qi and their unity in oneness as well as in manyness. This relationship can be said to support the unity of heaven and man, unity of human self and others, unity of knowledge and action, unity of ren and yi or other virtues. With these being said, we have a unity of onto-cosmology, epistemology and ethics to be experienced as a resonance of the creativity deep in the nature and mind of man, which eventually illustrates the principle of＂one origin and many particularities＂（yiben fenshu 一本分殊 or yiben wanshu 一本万殊）.