在“积累”与“非积累”之间——从明人对陈白沙“致虚”说的异议说起

Between“Accumulation”and“Non-accumulation”——From the Ming Scholar’s Objection to Chen Baisha’s Theory of“Reaching the State of Fullness”

明初统治者重视著述辞章,宋儒强调的治学修身理路逐渐淡出。陈白沙倡言“非积累”这一“致虚”之说,突出了一条通过内心证悟获得真理的道路。然而,诉诸内心证悟是否意味要摒弃知识积累的方式,白沙学派与明代朱子学者围绕下学与上达的关系展开激烈的讨论。同时,诉诸内心证悟的理解方式,需要特定的悟性和资质,使得教导的普遍化成为问题。阳明后学在与朱子学者讨论过程中,将白沙所讲“积累”与“非积累”与宗教问题关联起来,儒者的关注点逐渐从经典著述转向内心证悟,再由内心证悟转向教化问题,实现了从“学”到“教”的转变。

As the governors in the early Ming Dynasty attached great importance to writings,the self-cultivation emphasized by the Song Confucians gradually faded out.Non-accumulation,which belongs to Chen Baisha’s theory of“Reaching the state of fullness”,highlights a way of obtaining truth through inner enlightenment.However,regarding whether or not resorting to inner enlightenment means abandoning the way of knowledge accumulation,the Baisha School and the Zhuzi School in the Ming Dynasty had a heated discussion on the relationship between learning and sublimation.Besides,resorting to the inner enlightenment requires specific savvy and qualification,which makes it hard to realize the generalization of indoctrination.In the discussion with the Zhuzi scholars,the Yangming School linked up Chen Baisha’s theory of“accumulation”and“non-accumulation”with the religious issues,and the Confucians gradually shifted the focus from classical writings to inner enlightenment,and then from inner enlightenment to indoctrination,realizing the transformation from“learning”to“indoctrination”.