劉沅儒道交融的聖人觀——從孔子師老子談起

Speaker: Ms FAN Xuyan 范旭艷 (HKBU): zsufanxy@163.com

孔子師老子這一觀念,源於《禮記》、《史記》、《孔子家語》、《論語》等文獻中所記載的 「從老聃」「問禮於老聃」「竊比於我老彭」等孔子與老子交往的記錄。漢畫像石中有孔子見 老子畫像石。清初士人如閻若璩、毛奇齡辨別《古文尚書》真偽,仍認為孔子師老子實有其 事。清代中期學者從文獻真偽、禮學思想差異兩方面來論證孔子師老子這一記述不可信。劉 沅(1768-1855)在此學術背景之下,維護孔子師老子之說。本文首先探究劉沅從學術史角 度論證孔子以老子爲師,認為孔子讚揚老子「猶龍」,不僅是因為禮學的傳承,更是因為窮 理盡性之學的傳授。他充實了老子與孔子間學術傳承的內容,從思想上論證孔子師老子的可 能性。其次,從「儒家聖人的道家化」、「道家聖人的儒家化」兩方面來論述劉沅把儒道兩家 聖人融合一體。復次,以老子、孔子爲例,總結劉沅經學闡釋中亦儒亦道的聖人形象。最後 在劉沅影響之下,其孫劉咸炘(1896-1932)〈五君子說〉即體現了劉沅所建構的聖人形象在 後世學術思想史中的影響。

The Scheme of Convergence:
Confucian and Daoist Sages in Liu Yuan’s Commentaries

The notion that Kongzi once learnt from Laozi was based on the records in Rites (Li Ji)/Historical Records (Shi Ji) / The family sayings of Confucius (Kongzi Jia Yu), and the analects(Lunyu). The pictorial stones in Han dynasties also reconstructed the scene of Kongzi’s consulting Laozi. In early Qing period, scholars such as Yan Ruoqu and Mao Qiling, though dedicated themselves to distinguish the false documents, still believed that the tale of kongzi learnt from Laozi was nonfictional. However, in middle Qing dynasty, scholars argued that the story was not true. They pointed out that as the founders of two different intellectual schools, Kongzi must not have learn from Laozi, since Kongzi and Laozi hold significant varied views upon rituals(li). Moreover, the notion was brought up in Zhuangzi as an allegory. In the sight of this intellectual background, Liu Yuan (1768-1855) defended the traditional notion and at the same time against his contemporaries. Through his endeavor, he constructed a new kind of sage ideal. This article focuses on Liu Yuan’s strategy to restate the notion through his commentaries. Firstly, In Liu Yuan’s opinion, the reason why Kongzi complemented Laozi as a dragon was exclusively because of his knowledge of Xing and Ming instead of that of rituals(li). Thus, two sages’ thoughts can be connected. Secondly, Liu Yuan intended to interpret Confucian sage as Daoist sage, and vice versa. Thirdly, his commentary converged the characters of Confucian and Daoist sacredness, that qualified him to interpret Kongzi and Laozi to be similar sages. Last but not Least, as for the influence of this scheme of convergence, Liu Xianxin (1896-1932) followed his grandfather in writing the article on five gentlemen, in which created the genealogy of gentlemen that absorbed both Confucian and Daoist images as the examples to illustrate sacredness.