退溪李滉对阳明“知行合一”之批判及其回响

Yi Hwang’s Critiques and Echoes on Yangming’s Unity of Knowledge and Action

对于阳明的“知行合一”,退溪学派创始人李滉认为“形气”“义理”层面的“知”分别是“不勉而行”“勉而后行”,故前者可说“知行合一”而后者不可。对此,栗谷学派的吴道一和韩元震严守朱子对“知”“行”的分判,反对以“形气—义理”的框架来判断知行能否合一;同属栗谷学派的金钟厚则以“形气—性命”对应“人心之知—道心之知”,来分析“不能真知”与“虽真知亦有不能行”之原因并提出解决方案。这些论述不仅展现了朝鲜性理学的理论样貌,也能为重新理解朱子学和阳明学提供启发。

Regarding to Yangming’s proposition“the unity of knowledge and action(知行合一)”,Yi Hwang(李滉),the founder of Toegye(退溪)School,considered that knowledge in the level of“form and qi(形气)“and the level of“righteousness and li(义理)“could respectively lead to“action without endeavour”and“action through endeavour”.Thus,Yangming’s proposition is true in the former situation but false in the latter.Hereto,O Doil(吴道一)and Han Wonjin(韩元震),who belonged to Yulgok(栗谷)School,observed Zhuzi’s distinction between knowledge and action strictly,and were resolutely against Yi Hwang’s judging whether knowledge and action are unified or not by the structure“form and qi vs.righteousness and li”.However,another Yulgok School scholar Kim Jonghu(金钟厚)used the structure“form and qi vs.nature character endowed by Heaven(性命)”to correspond with the structure“knowledge of human desires(人心之知)vs.knowledge of moral mind(道心之知)”,analyzing the reason why“real knowledge cannot be obtained“and“real knowledge cannot be taken into action”,as well as proposing his solution.These discussions not only reveal the theoretical appearance of Joseon Neo-Confucianism,but also provide enlightenment on the differences between Zhuzi School and Yangming School.