朱子后学与朝鲜前期儒学的无极太极之论

Theories of Wuji-Taiji in Zhu Xi’s Disciples and Early Joseon Confucians

朱子后学对“无极而太极”的解释大致分两种:第一种观点以黄榦、饶鲁、吴澄为代表,继承朱子“无形而有理”的说明;第二种观点以蔡沈、蔡渊为代表,强调该句是对《系辞传》“易有太极”的发明,认为“无极”乃是指“无体之易”。程复心等元代理学家兼用这两个观点,而颇受元代学术影响的高丽末、朝鲜初的学者,如权近、河崙、徐敬德等人,自然也提出了一些与朱子后学不同的解释。此后,经过李彦迪、李滉与李珥等人的辩论,第一种解释即黄榦、饶鲁等人的观点才逐渐被奠定为朝鲜儒学的正统理论。

Interpretations of "Wuji er Taiji" by Zhu Xi’s disciples can be classified into two opposing views: the first view, represented by Huang Gan, Rao Lu and Wu Cheng, follows Zhu Xi’s explanation that "there is no shape but principle";the second, represented by Cai Chen and Cai Yuan, emphasizes that "in the Yi there is Taiji" with reference to the "Appendix III" of the Yijing;in this perspective, Wuji refers to "the Yi of no shape." Cheng Fuxin and other Neo Confucianism scholars in the Yuan Dynasty subscribed to both of these two views. By contrast, scholars in the late Koryo and early Joseon, who were under the heavy influence of Yuan scholarship, such as Gwon Geon, Kim siseup and Seo Gyoungdeok, challenged Zhu Xi’s interpretations. Since then, after the debate among Yi Eonjeok, Yi Hwang and Yi Yi, the first view held by Huang Gan, Rao Lu and Wu Cheng gradually rose to become the orthodox theory among Joseon Confucians.