清初陆世仪对朱熹“理先气后”的诠释及其学术史价值--兼论冯友兰、唐君毅与牟宗三的诠释

Lu Shiyi's Interpretation of Zhu Xi's “Li First and Qi Next” in the Early Qing Dynasty and Its Values in Academic History——A Comment on the Interpretation from Feng Youlan,Tang Junyi and Mou Zongsan Respectively

朱熹讲理气不离不杂,并进一步讲"理先气后"。明代蔡清不赞同朱熹讲理先气后,罗钦顺质疑朱熹的"理与气决是二物",实际上包含了对理先气后的否定。明末清初的陆世仪不同意蔡清、罗钦顺的观点,强调朱熹既讲理气不离不杂、理在气中,又讲理先气后,并把理先气后诠释为"所以然在先"。现代学者冯友兰把朱熹的理先气后诠释为"逻辑在先",唐君毅诠释为"形上之先",牟宗三诠释为"形而上的先在"。这实际上构成了围绕着朱熹的理先气后而展开的学术脉络,其中,陆世仪的诠释承前启后,开现代诠释理先气后之先河。分析陆世仪、冯友兰、唐君毅、牟宗三的诠释及其间的异同,有助于对朱熹的理先气后作出更深入的诠释。

Zhu Xi spoke about no separation between li and qi and further interpreted“li first and qi next”.In the Ming dynasty,Cai Qing disagreed to Zhu Xi’s“li first and qi next”;Luo Qinshun questioned Zhu Xi’s idea of“li and qi are definitely two matters”,which was thought to be against his concept of“li first and qi next”.In the late Ming and early Qing Dynasties,Lu Shiyi disagreed with Cai Qing and Luo Qinshun and stressed that Zhu Xi had not only spoken about no separation of li and qi and li in qi but also about“li first and qi next”,thus interpreting it as“the reason lying ahead”.Feng Youlan,a modern scholar,explained Zhu Xi’s“li first and qi next”as“Logic lying ahead”and Tang Junyi regarded it as“metaphysics the first”;similarly,Mou Zongsan explained it as“metaphysical preexistence”.All these have actually constituted a sequence of academic thoughts on Zhu Xi’s“li first and qi next”.In this sequence of thoughts,Lu Shiyi’s explanation serves as a link between predecessors and descendents,?creating a precedent for a modern interpretation of“li first and qi next”.This analysis on the interpretation from Lu Shiyi,Feng Youlan,Tang Junyi and Mou Zongsan respectively and its similarities and differences among them is helpful to deeper explanation of Zhu Xi's theory of“li first and qi next”.