关于荀子“性朴”论的再证明

The Reconfirmation on Xunzi's Teaching of “Plain Human Nature”

荀子死至宋国子监雕印《荀子》的1300年间,唯汉刘向与唐杨倞整理、注释过《荀子》,期间"编简烂脱,传写谬误"甚多且致"未知者谓异端不览,览者以脱误不终"。《荀子》之外于荀子持"性恶"论的记载,战国秦汉唯见刘向、王充、荀悦的著述,刘向前的秦汉学者皆不言荀子持"性恶"论。在当今学者周炽成质疑荀子"性恶"论之前,清末薛炳、民初刘念亲皆专书或专文据《荀子·礼论》篇言"性者本始材朴也"等推定荀子持"性朴"论,推定《荀子·性恶》篇非荀子所作。质疑荀子持"性恶"论的还有蔡元培、梁启超、傅斯年、郭沫若、王恩洋、陈登元、唐君毅等及日本学者金谷治、兒玉六郎等。林桂榛《〈荀子〉"性恶"校正议》等文已据《荀子》文字推定《性恶》篇"性恶"字眼系刘向因汉代流行"善—恶"对说而改《性恶》中"善—不善"对说之"不善"字眼为"恶"所致,且《性恶》篇末尾仍有不直接"善—不善"对说的"不善"字眼未遭改夺。再来可靠地证明《荀子》本不持"性恶"论而持"性朴"论的内证是:(1)《性恶》篇等对"性—恶"概念有严密而统一的界定,其"性"范畴没有任何玄想与歧义;(2)《礼论》篇论"性—伪—圣人"的"性者本始材朴也"片段与上下文完全不合,反与《性恶》篇论"性—伪—圣人"的片段紧密相合,其属错简自《性恶》篇无疑,原始《性恶》篇正深论"材—性—伪—圣人(礼义法度)"问题;(3)《性恶》篇谈"离其朴,离其资,必失而丧之(朴资)"及"目明而耳聪也"的文字,实是荀子在驳斥孟子"性善"说的"离善"论时言"材—性"关系及原始"材性"本"资朴"(人性起点无善恶乃素朴状)。荀子《性恶》篇驳孟子"性善"论而言"性不善"时反复讲材性本"朴",且讲透了"材—性—伪"的关系,故《性恶》篇实主张"性朴"(以纵顺人性情或有恶果来证明材性属"恶"实大谬),且且《性恶》篇约20处"性恶"字眼确系"性不善"而讹夺。《性恶》全篇及《荀子》全书谈"材—性—伪"的观点是清晰而统一的,荀子持"性朴"论而非持"性恶"论实铁证如山。

During the 1300 years f＋om Xunzi died to the book Xunzi block-printed by Imperial Academy, Liuxiang and Tang Yangqiong were the only two scholars who had collected and noted on the book Xunzi, but there were so many wrong placements of bamboo slips and misinterpretations that readers would just skip the book or cannot finish reading. Besides the book Xunzi, records about Xunzi!s teaching of ＂evil human nature” could be found in Liuxiang, Wangchong and Xunyue!s writings in corresponding period of Warring State and Qin and Han dynasties. The rest scholars in Qin and Han dynasties prior to Liuxiang had never mentioned teaching of ＂evil human nature”. Besides contemporary scholar Zhou Chicheng! s doubts on ＂evil human nature”, both Xuebing in late Qing dynasty and Liunian in the early Republic of China had presented books or articles to prove the validity of Xunzi! s teaching of ＂plain human nature”. They also demonstrated that the Chapter of ＂evil human nature” was not written by Xunzi with evidences found in Chapter of Ritual, and scholars who share same opinion are Cai Yuanpei, Liang Qichao, Fu Sinian, Guo Moruo, Wang Enyang, Chen Dengyuan, Tang Junyi, and some Japanese scholars as JinGuzhi and Eryuliulang. For the predominance of ＂good-evil” in Han dynasty, Liuxiang changed the original expression ＂not good” into ＂evil”, and since then the expression ＂good-not good” in chapter of ＂evil human nature” became ＂good-evil”. Some unchanged ＂not good” expressions could still be found at the end of chapter of ＂evil human nature”. Modern Scholar Lin Guizhen has proved that in articles as ＂On the Collation of Xunzi! s Evil Human Nature!”. Here are three internal evidences to prove Xunzi! s teaching of ＂plainchuman nature”. Firstly, there was a strict and uniformed definition to ＂human nature-evil”, and the category of ＂human nature” had no other ambiguous meanings. Secondly, the part of ＂plain human nature” in Chapter of Ritual was not accordant with context in chapter of ＂human nature-behavior-saints”, but it was totally accordant with chapter of ＂evil human nature”. This part definitely was a wrong placement of chapter of ＂evil human nature”. The original chapter of ＂evil human nature” focused on ＂talent-human nature-behavior-saints” （rituals, righteousness and laws）. Thirdly, descriptions as ＂giving up plain nature and talents leads to lostthem” and ＂being good at vision and hearing” in chapter of ＂evil human nature” was an argumentative text to Mencius! teaching of ＂good human nature”,in which Xunzi presented his views on ＂＂talent-human nature” and pointed out that the origin of primitive ＂talent-human nature” is ＂plain human talent” （the origin of human nature is plain）. In fact, chapter of ＂evil human nature” advocated that the origin of human nature was plain, and it clearly presented relation of ＂talent-human nature-behavior”. The chapter of ＂evil human nature” claimed ＂plain human nature”,and it was a fallacy to prove ＂evil-human nature” with evidences as indulging human! s nature or resulting in evils. There were more than 20 expressions of ＂evil human nature” should be expressions of ＂not good human nature”. The whole chapter of ＂evil human nature” was accordant with the book Xunzi on the point of ＂＂talent-human nature-behavior”, so evidences for Xunzi being an upholder of ＂plain human nature” instead of ＂evil human nature” were undeniable and irrefutable.