“太虚即气”之“即”当为“是”义考论——对牟宗三解读的反思

An Examination of the Meaning of “Ji” as “Is” in “Taixu Ji Chi”: A Reflection on Mou Zongsan’s Interpretation in Shengsheng Ethics of Confucianism

牟宗三将横渠"太虚即气"之"即"诠释为"不离之即",引发了诸多争论。无论考之于用字习惯、理论目的,还是历史阶序,这个"即"都只宜断为"是",意即"太虚"就是"气",将横渠学理定性为气本论,在学理上没有违和感。牟宗三将"太虚即气"之"即"解释为"不离之即",属于"六经注我",意在凸显儒家"天道性命相贯通"的传统,以完善三系论的分判。我们可以借此消化牟宗三的儒学思想,但不宜认为这就是横渠思想的原貌。不明白这个关系,受牟宗三影响形成先入之见,是造成目前横渠研究多有混乱的根本原因。

Mou Zongsan interprets the “ji” of Hengqu’s “Taixu ji Chi” as “not leaving each other, ” which has led to lots of debates. Examined either from word usage, theoretical purpose, or historical order, this “ji” can only be concluded as “is, ” and “Taixu ji Chi” as “Taixu is Chi.” It is not incongruous to characterize Hengqu’s doctrine as Chi-based theory. Mou Zongsan’s unique interpretation follows the doctrine “six arts comment me, ” which is intended to highlight the Confucian tradition “the coherence of Tiandao and Xingming” in order to improve his threefold typology of Song-Ming Neo-Confucianism. We can use this to digest Mou Zongsan’s thoughts, but it is not appropriate to assume this as the original appearance of Hengqu’s thoughts. The misunderstanding of this relationship and the preconception influenced by Mou Zongsan are the roots of some confusions in the current Hengqu research.