:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
題名:丁若鏞治《大學》的幾個特點
書刊名:臺灣東亞文明研究學刊
作者:孫叡徹
作者(外文):Son, Yea-chul
出版日期:2005
卷期:2:1
頁次:頁165-196
主題關鍵詞:大學丁若鏞誠意平天下三綱領孝弟慈明明德DaxueCheng-yakyongChengyiPingtianxiaSanganglingXiaoticiMingmingde
原始連結:連回原系統網址new window
相關次數:
  • 被引用次數被引用次數:期刊(1) 博士論文(1) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:1
  • 共同引用共同引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:101
在韓國,丁若鏞被稱為是朝鮮王朝實學的集大成之學者。在那個時代,一般讀書人學習或研究《大學》,幾乎都以朱子的《大學章句》為宗,然而丁若鏞研究《大學》,其意見與以性理學為宗的朝鮮學者不同,也與中國的朱熹不同。丁若鏞治《大學》的特點,簡略整理如下: 一、丁若鏞主張,學校名稱的「大學」即國學,應讀為「太學」,其學生即為「冑子」,因此「大學之道」就是「冑子之道」。太學教「冑子」以老老、長長和恤孤三大禮,此三大禮亦即太學興孝弟慈之本、興孝弟慈之教。 二、朱熹以為舊本《大學》有錯簡和闕文,因而把《大學》分為經一章和傳十章,重新編排和補充。丁若鏞反對朱熹的看法。丁若鏞在《大學公義》裡所引用的《大學》全文是古本《大學》,不是朱熹的《大學章句》,並視《大學》是敘述一貫的經文,分之為二十七節而解說。另外,關於《大學》的作者,朱熹認為是曾子作經一章而其門人作傳十章,丁若鏞保持懷疑的態度,不斷定《大學》的作者是誰。 三、對於「明明德」的解釋,朱熹主張「明德」是天賦與虛靈不昧之本性,丁若鏞反對,改用「孝弟慈」來解明德。他主張,通過「孝弟慈」實踐「明明德」,就能達成治國平天下的目標,因此,「明明德」之歸著點就是平天下,「孝弟慈」之實踐就是「明明德」之真面目。另外,他也主張實踐善行而後才能說「德」,實行以前,無所謂「德」。 四、丁若鏞不贊同朱熹《大學章句》把「新民」改寫成「親民」。他主張「親民」是通過實踐「孝弟慈」而後使老百姓興「孝弟慈」而相親相愛;又主張「新民」是興孝弟慈並使民興孝弟。如此,「新民」之義乃同於「親民」。 五、朱熹主張「至善」是事理當然之極,包括「明德」和「新民」,而「止至善」則是盡天理之極而毫無人欲之私。丁若鏞不贊同朱熹。若鏞解「止」為「至而不遷」,解「至善」為「人倫之至德」,解「止至善」為實際實踐「孝、敬、信、慈、仁」的人倫之至德。他以「人倫」解「至善」,更進一步,將這五個德目歸納為「孝弟慈」三目。 六、丁若鏞不贊同朱熹的「三綱領八條目」。「三綱領」是「明明德」、「新民」和「止於至善」,「八條目」是「格物」、「致知」、「誠意」、「正心」、「修身」、「齊家」、「治國」和「平天下」。丁若鏞容納「三綱領」,但是不採取「八條目」,這是若鏞治《大學》最大的特點:他不把格物致知列入八條目,而是與之分開,合併為一後而提高其地位。他以誠意、正心、修身、齊家、治國、平天下為格致六條,又以「意、心、身、家、國、天下」為物,以「誠、正、修、齊、治、平」為事。他釋「物有本末」,以意心身為本,以家國天下為末。他主張事有始終,以誠正修齊治平互為先後。 丁若鏞重視「誠意」,以誠意貫徹意、心、身、家、國、天下,並著重在治國平天下。他把「誠」看成《大學》的中心,以「誠」實踐「孝弟慈」,一方面以「誠」修己,一方面以「誠」化民,「誠」成為成己、成物的倫理實踐的原動力。
Cheng-Yakyong (丁若鏞) is identified as the scholar who integrated the practical science in Lee Dynasty of Korea. Different from almost of all the general intellectuals at that time, Cheng-Yakyong had some personal characteristics in studying Daxue (大學). At the middle and latter period of Lee Dynasty, just the age when Cheng-Yakyong existed, most intellectuals who studied or learned Daxue regarded Daxue Zhangju (大學章句) of Zhuzi (朱子) as the basic text. They also regarded Xinglixue (性理學) as their suzerain. But Cheng-Yakyong's point of view was different from that of these intellectuals and also was different from that of Zhu-Xi (朱熹). Six points below briefly introduce Cheng-Yakyong's characteristic viewpoint in studying Daxue. 1. Cheng-Yakyong insisted that ‘Daxue’ must be read ‘Taixue (大學)’ when it is the name of school; he also insisted that the students of this ‘Daxue’ as a school were the ‘Zhouzu (冑子)’ who were the eldest sons of the king or of the aristocrats. He also insisted that the fundamental teachings in this school was making aware of “laolao (老老).zhangzhang (長長).xugu (恤孤)”--the ground principle to cause “xiao (孝).ti (弟).ci (慈).” 2. Zhu-Xi believed that the old edition of Daxue had some mistakes in arranging the tablets. He also believed that the old edition of Daxue omitted some letters. So he attempted to divide the original text of Daxue into two parts--one chapter of ‘Jing (經)’ and ten chapters of ‘Zhuan (傳).’ He also attempted to rearrange the sentences and to fill them up with the omitted letters. But, in opposition to these insights and attempts of Zhu-Xi, Cheng-Yakyong wrote Daxue Gongyi (大學公義). In this book all the quoted originals of Daxue were from the old edition. He regarded the entire Daxue as Jingwen (經文), so he divided it 27 paragraphs. About the writer of Daxue, Zhu-Xi insisted that one chapter of ‘Jing’ was written by Zhengzi (曾子) and ten chapters of ‘Zhuan’ were written by the pupils of Zengzi. But Cheng-Yakyong adhered to the opinion that no one can conclude who the writer of Daxue is. 3. About the word of “mingmingde (明明德),” Zhu-Xi insisted like this; ‘mingde (明德)’ is a kind of original nature what the heaven endowed. The quality of this nature is ‘xuling bumei (虛靈不昧)’--that is to say formless, empty, clean and bright. Opposite to Zhu-Xi's opinion, Cheng-Yakyong insisted that “ming ming de” is the realisation of “xiao.ti.ci.” He also insisted that “mingmingde” can be concluded as ‘pingtianxia (平天下)’--that is to say making the peaceful world. 4. About ‘xinmin (新民)’ and ‘qinmin (親民),’ the opinion of Cheng-Yakyong is different from that of Zhu-Xi. In Daxue Zhangju, Zhu-Xi changed ‘xinmin’ to ‘qinmin.’ But Wang-Shouren (王守仁) in Ming dynasty insisted that it must be ‘xinmin.’ Combining both opinions of Zhu and Wang, Cheng-Yakyong suggested his own opinion; ‘qinmin’ means that people can love one another by the realization of “xiao.ti.ci,” and ‘xinmin’ also can make people restore “xiao.ti,” so ‘xinmin’ and ‘qinmin’ can have the same meaning.
圖書
1.韓愈、馬其昶(1975)。韓昌黎集。河洛圖書出版社。  延伸查詢new window
2.丁若鏞(1973)。大學講義。大學講義。漢城。  延伸查詢new window
3.丁若鏞(1973)。大學公議。大學公議。漢城。  延伸查詢new window
其他
1.(1976)。禮記,臺北。  延伸查詢new window
2.(宋)陳振孫。書錄解題。  延伸查詢new window
3.(南宋)朱熹(1974)。大學章句,臺北。  延伸查詢new window
4.(南宋)黎靖德(1973)。朱子語類,臺北。  延伸查詢new window
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top