摘要
《象山语录》与陆九渊亲著的文章存在许多差异,且不同语录之间也有差异,典型者如“不读书”“安坐瞑目”“六经注我、我注六经”“收拾精神”“扫去阶级”“只此一路”等话语。这些存有矛盾与争议的话语遮蔽了象山学本真。之所以出现“差异性记录”,除了语录体本身的局限、编写语录者的主观色彩之外,还与陆九渊“急于晓人”的言说方式有关,与丰富多样、重本轻末、“无所不用其极”“欲使其自悟”的教学方法有关,与象山资质高明却好争闲气的个人气质有关。《象山语录》提供了宝贵的象山学素材,其异录也可使后人困惑乃至误解,因此象山生前反对刊行。今人应将《象山语录》与象山著作、生平、思想相互参证,考证真伪,甄别孤证与疑语,区分象山话语与编写者语言,以同情之理解去阐释象山思想,方能还原象山学的真实面目。
There are many differences between Xiangshan Quotations and Lu Jiuyuan’s articles,and there are also differences between different quotations.Typical examples are“Don’t read”,“Sit down in peace”,“Six classics note me,I note the six classics”,“Clean up the spirit”,“Enlightenment without class”,“Only this one way”and so on.These contradictory and controversial discourses obscured the true nature of Xiangshan School.In addition to the limitations of the quotation itself,the subjective color of the quotation writers,the reason for the emergence of difference records is also related to Lu Jiuyuan’s eager to know people way of speaking,it is rich and diverse,emphasizes the basics and ignores the last,and do things without scruples.The teaching method of want to realize oneself;Xiangshan’s high-qualified but competitive personal temperament.Xiangshan Quotations provides valuable materials for Xiangshan studies,and its different records can also make future generations confused and even misunderstood.Therefore,Xiangshan opposed its publication during his lifetime.Today,people should refer to Xiangshan Quotations with Xiangshan’s writings,life,and thoughts,verify the authenticity,distinguish solitary evidence and doubts,distinguish between Xiangshan’s words and the other people’s language,and explain Xiangshan’s thoughts with a sympathetic understanding,to present the true nature of Xiangshan School.
作者
邓国坤
DENG Guokun(School of Philosophy and Social Development,Guizhou University,Guiyang 550000,China)
出处
《齐鲁学刊》
CSSCI
2022年第3期13-22,共10页
Qilu Journal
基金
国家社会科学基金青年项目“象山学阐释演变史”(21CZX033)
贵州省2020年度哲学社会科学规划国学单列课题项目“20世纪以来海外象山心学编译与研究”(20GZGX30)。
关键词
陆九渊
《象山语录》
差异性记录
Lu Jiuyuan
Xiangshan Quotations
contradictory and controversial discourses