后心学时代的朱陆之辩——以整庵与南野关于“性”“良知”之辩为中心

Debate between ZhuXi and LuJiuyuan in the Post-era of the Philosophy of the Mind:on Contention about“nature”and“conscience”between Luo Zheng’an and Ouyang Nanye

罗整庵和欧阳南野关于“良知”是否是“性”的论辩,是明代理学和心学的一场重要交锋。整庵在《困知记》中批评姚江之学的“良知说”,欧阳南野致书反驳。二先生围绕“性”“良知”这一核心问题,展开了一场由认识论、工夫论为基础,上达于本体论的论辩。在认识论层面,整庵认为“良知”不是“性”;南野则强调“良知”即是“本然之善”,因此“良知”是“性”。在工夫论层面,整庵认为要“穷究物理,博通典训”最后豁然贯通;南野则认为应当易简工夫,发明良知。二先生之辩论最终上升为本体之争,整庵以“圣人本天”为原则,强调天理的客观性、绝对性;南野则试图消解物我、心理、体用之间的对立,确立良知作为本体的合法性。这场论辩是后心学时代朱陆之辩的延续与推进,不仅进一步阐明了理、性、心、良知、知觉、格物等概念的内涵,还凸显了理学、心学理论体系中各自存在的弊端,揭示了明代理学向气学发展的倾向。

The debate between Luo Zheng’an and Ouyang Nanye on whether“conscience”is“nature”is the contention between Neo-Confucianism and school of mind in the Ming Dynasty.In his book“Kun Zhi Ji”,Luo Zheng’an criticized the“conscience theory”by Yao Jiang.And then Ouyang Nanye sent him a letter to refute his opinion.Thereby Centering on the core issues of“nature”and“conscience”,they engaged in a debate from“epistemology”,“Effort theory”,to ontology.On the epistemological level,Luo believes that“conscience”is not“nature”.While,Ouyang emphasizes that“conscience”is“original goodness”,so“conscience”is“nature”.At the level of“Effort theory”,Luo believes that we should study hard the classics of sages,and the nature of things,and finally achieve the state of omniscience.But Ouyang believes that we should reflect on ourselves and discover the inherent conscience in our mind.The debate between the two scholars eventually escalates into dispute about noumenon.Luo emphasizes the objectivity and absoluteness of the nature law,taking sages as the supreme principle.whereas,Ouyang tries to dispel the opposition between“the Matter and Me”,“mental mechanism”,“substance and function”,and establish the legitimacy of conscience as noumenon.This debate is the continuation and promotion of Zhu and Lu’s contention in the post-era of school of mind.This debate not only further explaines the connotation of“heavenly principle”,“nature”,“mind”,“conscience”,“consciousness(知觉)”,“principle exploration”,but also reveals defects of the school of mind and Neo-Confucianism respectively and the tendency of Neo-Confucianism towards Qi(气学)in the Ming Dynasty.