朱熹人欲思想在日本近世的误读 ———以古学派对 “无欲说” 的批判为线索

Misreading of Zhu Xi̓s Thought on Human Desire in Early Modern Japan—A Study Tracing the Critical Discourse of Ancient Learning Scholars on"No Desire"

摘要:

在朱熹思想中 “欲” 和 “人欲” 是不同的范畴, 其讲 “灭人欲” “去人欲” 并非要人 “灭欲” “无欲”, 而是主张克制不合于理的过分欲望。 虽然朱熹人欲说在中国后世也招致了误解, 但日本近世对朱 熹人欲说的漏读与误读却呈现体系化的特征。 这一现象酝酿于藤原惺窝、 林罗山等所谓朱子学的 “忠实介绍 者” 当中, 至古学派兴起后, 其内部各家儒者开始对宋儒人欲说进行猛烈抨击, 然而观点不尽相同: 山鹿素 行区别了周敦颐和朱熹无欲说的差异, 贬周而褒朱; 伊藤仁斋、 伊藤东涯认为 “主静” 不合于 “天地生物 之心”, 指出无欲是无意义的修养工夫; 荻生徂徕、 太宰春台则考究 “人欲” 在 《礼记·乐记》 中的内涵, 批判宋儒人欲说是对古典真意的背离。 朱熹人欲说被古学派如此误读, 与近世早期朱子学与阳明学对欲望的 严格主义演绎有关, 藤原惺窝、 林罗山等的人欲说中并未传递出朱熹对 “欲” “人欲” 的区分, 而阳明学者 中江藤树与熊泽蕃山则极力表现着儒家无欲境界的奇妙。 这些诠释传统共同构成了古学派理解朱熹人欲说的 历史文脉。

Abstract:

In Zhu Xi_'s thought_"desire_" and _"human desire_" are different categories. When he talks of _"eradicating human desire_", he does not want people to _"eliminate desire_" or _"have no desire_"; instead, he advocates restraining unreasonable and excessive desires. Although Zhu Xi_'s theory of human desire incurred misunderstanding in China misreading of it in early modern Japan could be found in many schools_' thoughts. This tendency first appeared in the early scholars of Zhu Xi learning such as Hujiwara Sēka and Hayashi Razan who have been recognized for their _" loyalty_" to Zhu Xi_'s thought. After the rise of the Ancient Learning members of this school launched fierce attack on Song Confucian theory of human desire. However their views were not quite the same. Yamaga Sokō draws a distinction between Zhu Xi_'s theory of _"no desire_"and that of Zhou Dunyi criticizing the latter while still admiring Zhu Xi for his contribution to Confucianism. Itō Jinsai and Itō Tōgai contend that _"staying still_" does not accord with the heart of heaven and earth thus _"having no desire _"is meaningless in self-cultivation. Based on a philological study of _"Music_" in the Book of Rites ,Ogyu Sorai and Dazai Shundai claim that the human desire theory of Song Confucians deviates from the classical true meaning. Ancient Learning scholars_' misreading cannot be understood without referring to the rigorism of the early scholars on Zhu Xi and Wang Yangming. In Hujiwara Sēka and Hayashi Razan _'s exposition of Zhu Xi learning they failed to introduce Zhu Xi?s differentiation between _"desire_" and_"human desire_" . Nakae Tōjū and Kumazawa Banzan on the other hand had portrayed a fascinating image of the Confucian _"no desire_" . The discourse of these Neo-Confucians in the early modern Japan had formed a basis on which Ancient Learning scholars develop their understanding of Zhu Xi_'s thought on human desire.