第一篇
書評：張昭煒，《中國儒學緘默維度》
Zhaowei Zhang,The Tacit Dimension of Chinese Confucianism
□ 張錦枝
上海社會科學院哲學研究所副研究員
本文首發於《哲學與文化》第四十九卷第六期
作者：張昭煒
書名：《中國儒學緘默維度》
出版者：北京：中國社會科學出版社
出版時間：2020年
頁數：496頁
ISBN：978-7-5203-6634-2
中國儒者豐富的精神世界，不僅存在於名物、器具、藝術，更在於精神本身。武漢大學中國傳統文化中心張昭煒教授的《中國儒學緘默維度》一書細緻地梳理儒學中的緘默線索，掘發思想，說不可說，揭示超凡入聖的隱秘而精微的精神實踐，以及體證道體的活潑的生命境界，呈現傳統儒家精神世界的廣度和深度。
「緘默」一詞原本指與語言相對的沉默、無言，張著突破「緘默」的原有涵義，闡發它與「顯性維度」相對的中國儒學中的主靜、寂、未發、中和體的豐富意蘊。「維度」則體現了作者界定「緘默」的論域不僅僅是一種思想，功夫，抑或是境界，而是兼而有之。《中國儒學緘默維度》從體的角度言說緘默，將緘默的意涵從語言的靜默推進到意識領域的淵默，大大豐富了緘默的意蘊，也增進了緘默在語言維度方面作用的效果。因此，緘默亦是溝通。本書強調的是靜存功夫之後達到的天地萬物一體的境界，可以感通。
全書共十三章，結構以人物為主線，除第一章介紹孔子及其弟子開啟緘默的先秦源頭，第二章闡述孟、莊、屈和《易傳》四個流派的發展，第三章以揚雄為代表說明漢代孔顏緘默傳統的復現以外，第四章至第十三章以宋明儒者的緘默實踐為主，分述周敦頤、朱熹、文天祥、王陽明、楊簡、胡直、萬廷言、劉宗周、王夫之等思想家的思想，以方以智為緘默的集大成者，統攝先秦的四個流派。從結構上看，全書的論述重點是宋明理學的緘默史，理學的重點在陽明學，歸宿在方以智之學。四個流派之外，《緘默》還營構了多層線索，精心設計了道統和傳承的七條明線和七條暗線，明線與暗線之間又別有交疊，互滲，呈現縱橫線交錯的局面。
全書的特色首先是揭示了靜的多重維度。緘默維度是體，顯性維度是用，其指向在本體。本體自身無動靜，然而其淵寂杳渺，無可捉摸，恰與靜相似。靜的豐富的意蘊，意味著翕聚、伏藏、養蓄、收斂、凝聚、攝保、含冥、沉潛、退閉、韜隱、幽晦、深密、虛寂、澄源、淵微、專守、精一和貞定。書中總結了中國儒學緘默維度的二十五個基本特徵，兼涉功夫、道體和境界三大類，結合儒學思想史的發展貫穿全篇，妙運巧思，充分展開了緘默維度的具體內容。
功夫論是本書的另一特色。功夫論是儒學中一種獨特的關於生命實踐和體驗的學說，功夫目的在於達到純粹的心靈與精神。本書揭示的第一個基本特徵即，緘默維度關聯的儒學道體需要功夫才能呈現。鑒於緘默維度作為體的特殊性，其功夫論在闇然之處必然精微，書中已極力加以描述和分析。進而，其通過顯性維度，如致中和、制禮作樂、歌詠等闡發緘默之體，對緘默維度進行多層次地發明。所謂感中有寂，寂生春意。
此外，全書結合宋明理學融攝佛老的實際，在分析中細緻地梳理了二家之法在儒家功夫論中的運用。從三教融合的視角，其在先秦部分引入《莊子》作為緘默維度四流派之一，在宋明部分詳細探討了理學與道家的密切互動，如周敦頤與張伯端，朱熹與《周易參同契》，楊簡《內丹歌》等等（頁464）。道家內丹重精、神、意，與陽明後學羅念庵、王龍溪和劉蕺山的思想相通。書中認為，宴息統三教，儒學仁體、道家內丹和佛教密宗皆可以由顯入密。
惟全書在結構和內容上都過於偏重氣論，道家和道教氣息略顯濃厚，亦有不足。結構上偏重道家表現為，受方以智三教合一思想的影響，以莊子為儒學「真孤」，而莊子屬於儒家可能只是思想史敘述中的建構。原因在於陽明主三教合一，攝道歸儒，後學受其影響很大。書中回應威廉·詹姆斯神秘體驗的四個特點，歸納出緘默維度的四個典型特徵亦是以氣論為基礎而言之。其講文天祥實現歐陽守道的理想道德境界，復活孟子的浩然之氣運用的是道教的內丹學，大限來臨驗證的是全真教的「一生死」，則儒道的界限不明。內容上，全書多處反映氣論對作者的影響。儘管理學吸收了道家思想的影響，道家講氣息和儒家有所不同，不止於龍溪講儒謂「燕息」、佛氏謂「反息」、老氏謂「踵息」名稱之不同。二者氣息練習的內容和節奏不同，虛一的指向不同，對意念的引導和身體的反映也有所不同。氣息是入門功夫，只是權法。
朱子的養氣不從氣息上講。朱子曾經說過：「孟子論養氣，只全就已發處說。程子論養志，自當就未發處說」（《朱子語類》卷五十二）。未發時存養主要不是指從氣息上養，而是持敬養志存心。為了淡化氣論，朱子將孟子養氣說解釋為道德功夫，「養氣二項，敬以直內，義以方外」，還批評象山「只靜坐澄心，卻似告子外義」。陽明的說法亦類似。《傳習錄》第73條：問志至氣次。先生曰：「『志之所至，氣亦至焉』之謂，非『極至次貳』之謂。『持其志』，則養氣在其中。『無暴其氣』，則亦持其志矣。」陽明以志氣一體，認為如果在「必有事焉」上用功，是非自然纖毫無所遁逃，無「勿求於心」「毋求於氣」的弊病，卻終究不如致良知說落於實地，也不如《大學》格、致、誠、正精一簡易，徹上徹下。職是之故，陽明成熟階段的思想重在致知的已發功夫上，九聲四氣歌法宣天機，非其根本。
本書擔心道德約束影響精神生命的生長和生機，正是受道教氣論主導的影響。在敬與靜之間，書中認為「主是主靜，僕是持敬，主靜與持敬的關係如同以主統攝僕」（頁136）。本書以生發長養氣為目的，進而尋求養身、和氣的體驗，必然走向靜主敬僕論。二程以下，朱子、陽明都由主靜轉出，避免流入枯靜。理學持敬，如冬之肅殺，一去蕪雜，其間自有一陽來復的生機，無需專求之動靜。這一點伊川說的很明白：「只用敬字，才說著靜字，便是忘也」（《二程遺書》卷十八）。敬久則自有虛靜，但虛靜不是功夫目的。敬之中有許多的功夫節目，戒慎恐懼，切磋琢磨。儒家的靜坐亦是如此，內含痛自刻厲。
此外，其他的一些問題尚需指出。全書強調以人為主的體驗模式，有很強的陽明學特色，背後呈現的是一個大寫的「我」，在我的感覺經驗中包攏世界，在人的意義世界去感格他者，易於沉醉乃至陷入主觀神秘的精神體驗。進而造成兩方面的結果：一是較多渲染效驗和描述光景，強調精神愉悅的方面，在功夫論中淡化了敬畏、兢懼的一面；二是理學中盡力維護的自我與自然之間的平衡這一面被弱化，理學中物的意象被忽視。可以合內外，難以平物我。
本書作為以緘默為主線的儒學史加以呈現，有著很強的作者體驗和書寫的個體性特色。比如，對方以智思想的偏愛，將緘默維度與顯性維度作為體用有著此消彼長的關係，江右王門中列胡直和萬廷言而不列羅洪先等等，都由作者的興趣和關注點使然。但本書揭示和警惕主靜流弊以及回應西方學者詹姆斯等對神秘主義的定義，這些方面都不容讀者忽視。總之，全書對儒學的幽微而縱深的世界進行了有益的探索，並開啟與語言哲學、現象學、宗教學乃至自然科學多學科對話的新課題，是儒學研究的新收穫。
第二篇
Zhang, Zhaowei張昭煒,The Tacit Dimension of Chinese Confucianism中國儒學緘默維度
Beijing北京: Zhongguo Shehui Kexue Chubanshe
中國社會科學出版社,2020, 496 pages
Dao (2021) 20:359–363
□ Gensheng FAN
School of Philosophy, Wuhan University
Accepted: 4 March 2021/
本文首發於《Dao：A Journal of Comparative Philosophy》(2021) 20:359–363.
Studies of Confucianism have centered around such explicit dimensions as decrees, regulations, rites, music, and philosophical ideas. ZHANGZhaowei’s張昭煒book,The Tacit Dimension of Chinese Confucianism中國儒學緘默維度, however, focuses on the tacit dimension of Confucianism. Zhang systematically discusses the long-neglected Confucian ideas of“practicing in tacitness”(moshi gongxing默識躬行) and“experiencing in tranquility”(shenjing tizhi深靜體知), and probes into the“mysterious land”(mijing密境) of Confucianism. With a reexamination of the overall development of Chinese Confucianism, he constructs an orthodox lineage of the tacit dimension of Confucianism, which takes the tacit understanding of YANHui顔回and Confucius as its core and self-cultivation theory as guidance. This orthodox lineage, in Zhang’s view, is an open continuum that differs from traditional ones in that it incorporates two non-Confucians, ZHUANGZi莊子and QUYuan屈原, and revitalizes the tacit dimension,while Neo-Confucianism (lixue理學) and heart-mind Confucianism (xinxue心學) are grounded in moral ontology.
The book consists of three parts. The first part introduces its main ideas. In this part, Zhang argues that the tacit dimension of Confucianism should be interpreted from two perspectives, namely“being tacit”and“tacit understanding,”with“being tacit”as the means and“tacit understanding”the end. That is, we should experience deep silence by being tacit and understand tacitly the moral ontology in deep silence so as to achieve the“final pass”(touguan透關) by“resorting to tranquility”(zhujing主靜). The second part is a case study and includes thirteen chapters. The first chapter discusses the origin of the tacit dimension in Confucianism. Zhang holds that the tacit dimension of Confucianism originates from the tradition of Confucius’teaching of YANHui. In the second chapter, Zhang maintains that after Confucius and Yan, the tacit dimension of pre-Qin秦Confucianism developed into four schools: Mencius,Yi Zhuan易傳(Commentary on the Book of Changes), ZHUANGZi, and QUYuan. Chapter 3 to Chapter 13 discuss the development of the tacit dimension from the Han漢dynasty to the late Ming明dynasty. The last part is the conclusion, which is a summary of the twenty-five characteristics and rules of the tacit dimension in Confucianism. Thus, this book constructs a Confucian ontological lineage established by Confucius and YANHui and further developed by Mencius,Yi Zhuan, ZHUANGZi, and QUYuan.
According to Zhang, for more than two thousand years the tacit dimension has been a developing continuum. In the course of exploring the orthodox lineage of the tacit dimension of Chinese Confucianism, Zhang admits that he is deeply inspired by the ontology and self-cultivation theory of the tacit dimension in Chinese Confucianism, and is also influenced by the orthodox lineage constructed by YANGXiong揚雄and WANTingyan萬廷言. For many years, Zhang has been engaged in the study of the post-Yangming陽明scholars of Jiangyou江右, like HUZhi胡直, WANTingyan, and ZOUYuanbiao鄒元標. According to Zhang, the most fundamental feature of the selfcultivation theory of the Jiangyou Yangming School is“collecting oneself to retain the mind (shoushe baoju收攝保聚) and retreating into one’s nature through tranquility (zhujing yi tuicang yu mi主靜以退藏於密).”Zhang believes that WANTingyan studies in great depth Yi-ology (yixue易學), integrating the thoughts of both Jiangyou Yangming scholars and Zhezhong浙中Yangming scholars and unifying the two opposite ideas of Jiangyou’s“consummate tranquility”(jingji靜極) and Zhezhon ’s“consummate vitality”(shengsheng生生). The reason why Zhang identifies“consummate tranquility”and“consummate vitality”as the two core aspects of the tacit dimension in Chinese Confucianism is profoundly related toWANTingyan. In Zhang’s view, WANTingyan frequently uses such imagery words as“early spring”(chuchun初春),“spring scenery”(chunguang春光), and“spring wind”(chunfeng春風) to express the rich experience and pleasant state of mind achieved after resorting to tranquility and retreating into one’s nature. This kind of experience and state of mind, in Zhang’s opinion, is an explicit expression of the fundamental feature of the tacit dimension in Confucianism. This underlies why he takes the line“Dense Qi is like the early spring”(yinyun yiqi si chuchun氤氳一氣似初春) as a poetic expression of the fundamental feature of the tacit dimension of Confucianism and cites and stresses the line repeatedly in the book. To Zhang, WANTingyan interprets the states of mind of King Wen文, Confucius, YANHui, and Mencius from the perspective of the“consummate vitality of spring”(shengsheng chunyi生生春意) and constructs an orthodox lineage. All these, from Zhang’s point of view, provide important resources for the establishment of the Confucian ontological lineage of the tacit dimension in the book.
Also in this book, Zhang holds that YANGXiong is key to the orthodox lineage of the tacit dimension of Confucianism, connecting the past and the future, though Yang is traditionally considered unimportant in the development of Confucianism because he is neither recognized by the Neo-Confucians nor by the heart-mind Confucians. To Zhang, Yang’s idea, on the one hand, revives the pre-Qin tradition of tacit understanding like that between Confucius and YANHui, and, on the other hand, prompts ZHOUDunyi周敦頤to attach importance to the ideas of Confucius and YANHui, the corollary of which is the once-again revival of the tacit dimension of Confucianism. Zhang’s view, different from the traditional ones, is related to how Yang is viewed by Jiangyou Yangming scholars. Zhang finds that HUZhi, WANTingyan, ZOUYuanbiao, and other Jiangyou Yangming scholars have all discussed Yang’s idea, and in the views of Jiangyou Yangming scholars, Yang’s idea of“hiding thy heart in the deep valley, and praise thy nature”(cangxin yu yuan, mei jue linggen藏心於淵,美厥靈根) can best express the essence of their self-cultivation theory—“collecting oneself to retain the mind and retreating into one’s nature through tranquility.”As a result, Zhang comes to believe that Yang’s“hiding thy heart in the deep valley, and praise thy nature”is the guiding principle of the self-cultivation theory of Neo-Confucianism in the Song宋and Ming dynasties and can best express the essential meaning of the tacit dimension of Confucianism. Moreover, Zhang believes that Yang inherited the ideas of Confucius and YANHui, and rejuvenated the Confucius–YANHui teaching approach. Based on this, Zhang believes Yang is the earliest pioneer of Neo-Confucianism in the Song and Ming dynasties, much earlier than HANYu韓愈who is generally believed to be the earliest in academic circles.
What is more, many of Zhang’s views and arguments are directly related to FANG Yizhi方以智. Zhang for the first time comes up with the idea that the study of Fang should be a part of WANGYangming王陽明Studies, because Fang, Zhang argues, manages to save the seed of WANGYangming Studies at a time when the post- Yangming scholars encountered unprecedented difficulties in the late Ming dynasty. It is in this sense that Zhang regards Fang as the true follower of Yangming and a great master of Confucianism. Zhang also accepts and borrows Fang’s idea of Three Masters Being of the Same School (sanzi yitang三子一堂), which says that Mencius, ZHUANG Zi, and QUYuan are in the same lineage of thought. Zhang then extends this idea of Fang’s to the discussion of the tacit dimension of Confucianism. Zhang claims that the three masters converge at the tacit dimension, and they are all“letting the states of equilibrium and harmony exist in perfection”(zhi zhonghe致中和). In fact,“equilibrium and harmony”(zhonghe中和) is the explicit expression of the tacit dimension of Confucianism. This explains why after Confucius and YANHui the pre-Qin tacit dimension discussed in the second chapter of the book develops into four schools:Mencius,Yi Zhuan, ZHUANGZi, and QUYuan. In a way, Zhang has preliminarily constructed an orthodox lineage of the tacit dimension of Confucianism. However, the research in this field has just started, so there are still many problems with the book, mainly as follows.
First, this book presents an orthodox lineage of the tacit dimension of Confucianism, which is established by Confucius and YANHui and has been developed by Mencius,Yi Zhuan, ZHUANGZi, and Qu Yuan. The reason why the author believes the lineage has developed into the above-mentioned four schools is inspired by Fang. However, Zhang’s inclusion of QUYuan and ZHUANGZi as Confucians is not supported by sound evidence. As to why QUYuan should be regarded as a Confucian, Zhang only says that Qu exerted a far-reaching influence on later Confucians. This obviously does not suffice to support such an assertion. Also, it is unjustifiable for Zhang to simply adopt Fang’s view and consider ZHUANGZi to be a true follower of Confucius. Just a look at the texts of theZHUANGZiwill show that ZHUANGZi thinks highly of YANHui, but he does not have a good opinion of Confucius, and worse still, he even abuses and slanders Confucius. Under such circumstances, how can we conclude that ZHUANGZi attaches importance to the tacit dimension embodied in Confucius’teaching of YAN Hui? If Zhang cannot provide sound evidence to support such a conclusion, the so constructed orthodox lineage of the tacit dimension cannot speak for itself.
Second, some of the selected figures are not representative, and hence unconvincing.The selected figures under discussion include not only some recognized Confucians but also some non-Confucians such as QUYuan and ZHUANGZi. As a history of Confucianism from the perspective of the tacit dimension, it is unreasonable that the selected figures are not considered to be important in traditional Confucianism while some accepted Confucian masters are ignored. What is even worse, we find hardly any trace of the tacit dimension in the thoughts of the majority of Confucians. Against this background, we cannot help but wonder if there really exists such a tradition of the tacit dimension. If there does, why can’t we find the tacit dimension in the seminal works of those Confucian masters and why do we have to look for evidence in those unimportant works that people hardly know?
Third, Zhang claims that Confucianism and Taoism share the same roots and are similar and interlinked with regard to the tacit dimension, and that they are both in the same world of Qi氣, with their ultimate goals both being to accumulate and generate primordial Qi (Yuan Qi元氣). Why does the primordial Qi bred in the Taoist tacit dimension only lead to“natural adherence”(yang zi ran養自然), while the Yuan Qi bred in the Confucian tacit dimension leads to humanity which has moral connotations and can be extended to the explicit dimension of the humanistic world? Can the primordial Qi be regarded as the transcendent moral noumenon? All these need to be further expounded.
Finally, in some places, Zhang chooses the viewpoints that meet the needs of this book and uses them as the premises or bases of his arguments, which will inevitably be accused of arbitrariness and overinterpretation. For instance, the book traces the origin of the tacit dimension to Confucius and holds that Confucius has two approaches to teaching: one of the Confucius–YANHui approach and one of the Confucius–YANYan言偃approach. According to Zhang, these two approaches have developed in two directions:“rarely speaking”(hanyan罕言) and“elegantly speaking”(yayan雅言).“Rarely speaking”comes from a quote inThe Analects of Confucius:“What the Master rarely speaks about is profitableness, the will of Heaven, and humanity”(zi hanyan li yu ming yu ren子罕言利與命與仁).“Rarely speaking”refers to the subtle principles and the broad road to humanity that one cannot have access to simply with the help of language and that should be verified through tacit understanding. As far as this book is concerned,“rarely speaking”is directed mainly at humanity (ren仁) and the will of Heaven (ming命). This quote fromThe Analects of Confuciuscan be interpreted in many ways. If we simply look at its literal meaning for a moment, we find that Zhang’s claim that“rarely speaking”is mainly targeted at“humanity”and“the will of Heaven”is untenable. Zhang purposely turns a blind eye to the word“profitability”(li利) in the quote and pronounces that“rarely speaking”is concerned just with humanity and the will of Heaven. This is obviously an act of bending the quote to fit his own interpretation. There are additional similar subjective interpretations. True, the core of the tacit dimension of Chinese Confucianism may not be told but be tacitly understood, but if we ground the system of such a dimension entirely on those poetic wordings whose meanings are subject to personal interpretations, it can hardly become a topic for serious research.
Despite these existing problems, this book is the first bold attempt to systematically discuss the development of the Confucian self-cultivation theory. It focuses on the tacit dimension rather than on the explicit dimension of Confucianism. Due to such a change in its research paradigm, this book brings into view many figures and problems that have long been neglected in traditional Confucian studies, and comes up with many innovative and inspiring viewpoints which are conducive to the in-depth development of China’s Confucian studies.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11712-021-09784-x
#The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V. 2021