朱熹评胡宏《知言》“善不足以言性”——旨在批评将“本然之性”与“气质之性”分成两截

Zhu Xi’s Comment on Hu Hong in Zhiyan“Goodness is Not Enough to Express the Nature”:Against the Separation of“Original Nature”and“Temperamental Nature”

对于胡宏《知言》所谓“性也者,天地鬼神之奥也。善不足以言之,况恶乎哉”以及胡安国所言“孟子道性善云者,叹美之词,不与恶对”,朱熹作了深入分析。他依据程颢所言“善固性也,然恶亦不可不谓之性”,既讲“本然之性,固浑然至善,不与恶对”,又讲“气质之性”之有善恶,认为胡宏所谓“善不足以言性”,是“本然者是一性,善恶相对者又是一性”的“两性”,是“分成两截”,只是讲“本然之性”之至善,而没有讲性之有善恶,因而具有“性无善恶”之意。换言之,朱熹并不是批评胡宏主张“本然之性”无善无恶,而是批评他只讲“本然之性”之至善,而没有讲“气质之性”之善恶对待。尤其是,朱熹明确认为,胡宏讲“本然之性”之至善,在根本上不同于告子讲“性无善无不善”。

Hu Hong said in Zhiyan that“The nature is the mystery of heaven and earth,which can not be expressed by good,let along evil.”Hu Anguo said that“Mencius said that the nature is good,which is a lament for beauty,not that the nature is good.”Zhu Xi made an in-depth analysis of them.According to Cheng Hao’s statement that“The nature is good,but it must be said that the nature is also evil”,Zhu Xi not only said“Original nature is the highest good,not against evil”,but also that there are good and evil in“Temperamental nature”,and thought Hu Hong’s so-called“goodness is not enough to express the nature”is divided into two parts“Original nature”and“Temperamental nature”,which has the meaning of“the nature without good and evil”.In other words,Zhu Xi is not criticizing Hu Hong for advocating that“Original nature”is neither good nor evil,but that he only talks about the highest good of“Original nature”,rather than the good and evil of“Temperamental nature”.In particular,Zhu Xi clearly believes that Hu Hong’s theory of the highest good of“Original nature”is fundamentally different from Gaozi’s saying that“the nature is neither good nor evil”.