丁若镛对京房辟卦说的批判

Jeong Yakyong's Criticism of Jing Fang's Bigua Theory

丁若镛的推移说是基于辟卦说而展开的理论,其14辟卦说的根源可追溯到京房的12辟卦。丁若镛虽采用京房易中的"辟卦"一语,但总体上对京房的辟卦说持批判态度。其中丁若镛对京房辟卦说的批判主要见于《易学绪言》中的《汉魏遗义论》、《唐书卦气论》、《班固艺文志论》等。尤其是《唐书卦气论》,对京房的辟卦说和分卦直日法进行了详细的批评,是揭示茶山易与京房易关系的重要资料。笔者试图通过这些零散的资料,重新整合丁若镛对京房易的批判。京房易的特征在于阴阳灾变说,丁若镛严厉地批判此是沦于左道和邪僻的术数。易学史上,京房被公认为最早使用"辟卦"一语之人,但丁若镛不仅主张"辟卦"一语在京房以前便已使用,并将其起源追溯到《周易》的形成时期。但笔者认为丁若镛缺乏支撑自身推测的充分文献证据,故而批判性地探讨了他的主张。京房根据与汉代身份制相对应的辟、公、候、卿大夫等品阶对64卦进行了分类。但丁若镛认为辟卦称为君主卦,不能解释为只有天子才能使用辟卦。另外,他还认为把辟卦设定为君主卦就如君主统治臣下,辟卦作为中心卦统制其它各卦。另一方面,丁若镛还批判京房的分卦直日法是过于复杂、支离破碎的理论,是易家的蔀障。

Jeong Yakyong＇s tuiyi（transformation between the hexagrams）theory was based on and developed from Jing Fang＇s（77-37BCE）bigua（sovereign hexagrams）theory,in that Jeong＇s＂fourteen-sovereign-hexagram theory＂could be traced back to Jing Fang＇s＂twelve-sovereign-hexagram theory.＂Although Jeong adopted the term of bigua（sovereign hexagram）from Jing Fang,in general he maintained a negative view toward Jing Fang＇s bigua theory,which could mainly be seen in the chapters of＂On the Lost Meanings of the Han[206BCE-220CE]and Wei[220-265CE]Changes Scholarship＂（Han wei yiyi lun）,＂On the Guaqi Theory in the Tang shu [History of the Tang Dynasty（618-907）]＂（Tang shu guaqi lun）,and＂On Ban Gu＇s（32-92）Art and Literature Treatise＂（Ban Gu yiwen zhi lun）of his Yixue xuyan（An Introduction to the Scholarship on the Changes）.Particularly,in the Tang shu guaqi lun he offered detailed criticism of Jing Fang＇s big-uatheory and fen gua zhiri（correlating 365 and 1/4days of a years with the sixty-four hexagrams）method,an important document exposing the differences between Dashan＇s and Jing Fang＇s scholarship on the Changes.The author attempts to integrate these scattered materials and summarize Jeong＇s criticism on Jing＇s scholarship on the Changes.Jing Fang＇s Yi learning was characterized with prognostication by anomalies,which was criticized by Jeong Yakyong as heresy and heterodox mantic art.In the history of Changes scholarship,Jing Fang was generally accepted as the first person who used the termbigua（sovereign hexagram）,whereas Jeong contended that this term had been employed before Jing Fang＇s time and could be traced back to the date of composition of the Zhou Changes.But the author finds the textual evidence does not suffice to support Jeong＇s viewpoint of this and thus critically discusses his opinion.Jeong Yagyong didn＇t accept Jing Fang＇s view that a certain group of hexagrams should be assigned to a certain social position and that particular groups of certain social ranks could use them exclusively,and therefore the biguadoes not mean that only the Emperor should have the privileged right to use it.In addition,Jeong held that the establishment of biguaas sovereign hexagrams easily led to an incorrect conclusion that,just like a sovereign who governs his subordinates,abigua as a central hexagram dominates other hexagrams.Jeong also averred that Jing Fang＇s fen gua zhiri method was too complicated and fragmented,and viewed it as an obstacle preventing people from grasping correct meanings of the Changes.