论周敦颐《通书》之“神”——以朱子、牟宗三为中心的讨论

On “Spirits” in Zhou Dunyi’s Tongshu:A Discussion Focusing on Zhu Xi’s and Mou Zongsan’s Views

前贤未充分注意和深入研究《通书》之“神”及朱注、牟宗三的评论。周敦颐的《通书》明确以“神”为与“物”相对的形上存在,同时又有遍在性、微妙性、活动性。以“理”来诠释《通书》之“神”,是朱子注的重要特点。牟宗三认为,朱熹的“理”是存有不活动的“但理”,以这样的“理”论“神”,失落了《通书》之“神”本有的灵妙性。牟宗三对朱子之理的认识有其片面性,但他对《通书》之“神”内涵的揭示有其思想的深刻性,不失为一种富有新意的创造性阐释。牟宗三把诚体、神体、理体、心体贯通为一,认为这是一个整体的生生不息的天命流行之体,这些阐释对我们重新理解北宋理学有重要的思想意义。

Former scholars did not pay enough attention to nor deeply study the “spirits” in Zhou Dunyi’s(1017-1073) Tongshu(A Book Penetrating [the Classic of Changes]), and Zhu Xi’s(1130-1200) and Mou Zongsan’s(1909-1995) comments on it. The Tongshu clearly takes “spirits” as the metaphysical existence in comparison to “things”, and has universality, subtlety and activity at the same time. An important feature of Zhu Xi’s annotation lies in that he interpreted the “spirits” in Tongshu with “principle”. Mu Zongsan averred that Zhu Xi’s “principle” is existent but inactive;also that by using such “principle” to interpret “spirit” he lost the original numinous quality of the “spirit”. Mou Zongsan’s understanding of Zhu Xi’s view is one-sided, but his revelation of the connotations of “spirits” has its ideological profundity, which can be regarded as a creative interpretation full of new ideas. Mou Zongsan integrated the ti(conceptual body) of sincerity, that of divinity, that of principle, and that of heart-mind into one, and believed that this is an integral and ceaselessly producing body of the mandate of heaven. These interpretations have important ideological significance for us to re-understand the Neo-Confucianism of the Northern Song dynasty(960-1127).