 |
|
| 王弼玄學思想的考察=An Explanation of Wang Pi's Hsüan-hsüeh Philosophy | ||
| 作者 | 戴璉璋 (著)=Tai, Lian-chang (au.) |
|---|---|
| 出處題名 | 鵝湖學誌=Legein semi-annual journal |
| 卷期 | n.14 |
| 出版日期 | 1995.06 |
| 頁次 | 27 - 40 |
| 出版者 | 東方人文學術研究基金會 |
| 出版地 | 臺北市, 臺灣 [Taipei shih, Taiwan] |
| 資料類型 | 期刊論文=Journal Article |
| 使用語言 | 中文=Chinese |
| 關鍵詞 | 玄學=hsùan-hsüe; 王弼=Wang Pi; 有/無=yu/wu=there is/there is not |
| 摘要 | 針對時人對於王弼玄學的一些疑惑與誤會，本文提出下列三個問題來討論： 一、王弼所謂「無」究竟是什麽？ 二、「無」與「有」的關係如何？ 三、「無」究竟可說抑或不可說？筆者分析王弼的言論，認爲王氏玄學思想中的核心觀念「無」，是「有」的本體，是「有」得以生成、保全的超越根據。「無」的意義須在「無之」的工夫實踐中來體證，它不是只憑理智思辨即能說明的一個所謂「純形式的抽象概念」。王弼從「無」與「有」的關係中，體悟到「全有必返於無」、「明無必因於有」的道理。憑藉這一體悟，他復活了老、莊的智慧，也爲魏晉玄學標示出發展的大方向。「全有必返於無」，是玄學家們生活實踐的指導原則；「明與於因於有」，則是玄學家們修爲工夫的體證原則。 王弼說：「聖人體無，無又不可以訓」，這不表示「無」即不可說。他提出「名號」與「稱謂」的分別，前者可用以說「有」，後者可用以說「無」。因此認爲王氏對於「無」「始終沒有說清楚」，也是一種誤會。 This article aims at an explanation of some doubts and misunderstandings of the present day about the Hsüan-hsüeh of Wang Pi. Three questions will be discussed: 1. What does Wang Pi mean by the term wu (there is not)? 2. What is the relation between wu and, yu (there is)? 3. Is it possible to express wu? After analyzing Wang Pi's writings, the author concludes that wu. the core concept of Wang pi's Hsüan-hsüeh, is the substance of yu. and is the transcendental basis upon which yu is completed and preserved. The significance of wu can be understood only during the practice of wu-chih (to nullify, to cancel), because it is not an ”abtract formal concept” which can be explained by intellectual speculation. From such relation between wu and yu, Wang Pi propsed the doctrines that ”To complete yu, one must return to wu, ”and that” To understand wu. one must take the route of yu. ”By such understanding, he revived the wisdom of Lao-tzu and Chuang-tzu, and pointed out the way for the development of Hsüan-hsüeh. The doctrine. ”To complete yu, one must return to wu,” is the principle by which the hsüan hsüeh philosophers behave themselves in real life. And the doctrine, ”To understand wu, one must take the route of yu.” is the principle by which they cultivate their understanding. When Wang Pi said, ”The sage experiences wu, and wu is unable to explained,” he did not mean that wu is inexpressible. He proposed the distinction between ”naming” and ”calling”, the former is used in the field of yu, and the latter wu. Hence it is wrong to accuse Wang Pi for ”not saying it clear what wu is about.” |
| 目次 | 一、 29 二、 30 三、 37 |
| ISSN | 10213732 (P) |
| 點閱次數 | 142 |
| 建檔日期 | 1998.04.28 |
| 更新日期 | 2020.06.02 |
建議您使用 Chrome, Firefox, Safari(Mac) 瀏覽器能獲得較好的檢索效果，IE不支援本檢索系統。
