论朱熹对张载学术渊源的衡定

The Research about Zhu Xi' Comments on Zhang Zai' Academic Origin

关于张载的学术渊源,宋代学者中存在着不同的看法。朱熹在重构宋代理学史的过程中,对张载的学术渊源问题提出了自己的看法,这在理学史上产生了重要的影响。朱熹首先指出了范仲淹对张载具有"粗发其端"的开启之功;其次,他在肯定张载之学具有"自得"一面的同时,还特别强调了二程对张载成学的"警示"之功。在朱熹考察张载学术渊源的过程中,吕大临的《横渠先生行状》及伊川的评论都对朱熹产生了重要的影响。整体上看,朱熹对张载学术渊源的考察,在一定程度上是符合历史实际的;但是,在理学"宗派"观念的影响和制约下,朱熹的结论又会对正确看待张载的理学地位形成干扰。张载作为理学的开创者和奠基者,范仲淹与二程对他的影响是毋庸置疑的,但是如果因此而否认张载"自立说"以"造道"的探索历程和创造精神,那将是有违历史真实的。

About the Zhang Zai’ academic origin, there are different opinions among scholars in Song dynasty. Zhu Xi puts forward his views about it in the reconstruction process of the neo-confucianism’s history in the Song Dynasty. It has an important influence in the history. Firstly, Zhu Xi points out that Fan Zhongyan Preliminary opens a set of learning for Zhang Zai. Secondly, he has been sure that Zhang Zai is“complacent”;at the same time, he also emphasizes Cheng Brothers’ influence to Zhang Zai’s thought. In this process, Lv Dalin’s Hengqu’s Biography and Yichuan’ misunderstanding about it have had great influence on Zhu Xi. On the whole, Zhu Xi’s comments on Zhang Zai’s academic origin, to a certain extent, are in line with the actual history;but in the influence and restriction of neo-confucianism’s sectarian conception, Zhu Xi’s conclusion also interferences the correct understanding of Zhang Zai's academic origin. As a pioneer and founder of neo-confucianism, the influence of Fan Zhongyan and Cheng Brothers on Zhang Zai is beyond doubt, but if Zhang Zai’ spirit of creation is denied, it will be contrary to neo-confucianism’s history.