離異與回歸：論顏李學派與夏峰北學的分與合一一以孫奇逢與顏元“聖人論"為中心

Separation and Reunion: the Yan-Li School's Departure from and Return to the Xiafeng Northern School, with a Focus on Sun Qifeng and Yan Yuan

Abstract

LANGUAGE NOTE | Document text in Chinese; abstract also in English.

在明清之際，夏峰北學的開山鼻祖孫奇逢以“學為聖人”的思想作為回歸、重釋孔孟經典來重整理學各派的內聖思想與張人倫、行踐履的外王思想的連接點來兼容并包各派。因此，孫奇逢去取聖人的標準是開放的。而顏元也就是在實踐孫奇逢“學為聖人”思想的理路中，發現理學與孔孟儒學之間的張力以至於才巴漠、唐、宋、明之儒仝部剔除於聖賢之外而只認、周公、孔子的聖人品格，并以此為著力點轉而異於夏峰之學；但由於其過低估計了學為聖人的難度及儒學內在的矛盾，以至於雖極力以“周孔正道”批判理學體系但又無法深入重建儒學體系；過度依靠單純書本知識及對實際事務知識的缺乏導致的儒學普通性想像與清王朝走向複合型帝國的形勢格格不入，及對清代皇權意識形態建設缺乏清醒認識及走向權力中心途徑的缺乏，最終只得回歸夏峰之學的兼容并包。所以，顏元之學從屬於夏峰北學系統，清代北學的主體是夏峰北學，而非顏李學派，因此，顏李學派也不存在二世而亡，它只是落實在現實中就回歸到夏峰北學的更大傳統中去了。而之所以在近代以來的清學史研究中，極端突出顏李學派而漠視夏峰北學，原因就在於對歷史中大傳統與小傳統處理的錯位，而正是這種錯位使得以大小傳統來重新梳理中國史成為必要。

Between the Ming and Qing Dynasties (early to mid seventeenth century), Sun Qifeng (1584-1675), founder of the Xiafeng Northern School of Confucianism, advocated the doctrine of “learning to be a sagely person” as a means to return and give new exegeses to the Confucian classics. This advocacy was an important means by which Sun set up an open pivot that would link various schools teaching different doctrines. These doctrines fell into two categories, one promoting “internal, innate sagacious nature” and the other “external cultivation for ruler-leadership” by stressing human relations and personal conduct. Thus, Sun had loosened the definition of a sagely person. In his implementation of Sun Qifeng’s theory of “learning to be a sagely person,” Yan Yuan (1635-1704) discovered the tension between Confucianism and neo-Confucianism. He therefore excluded the Confucian scholars of the Han, Tang, Song, and Ming periods from his roster of “Sages and Worthies,” which reserved a place for Duke Zhou and Confucius, the only two individuals who really possessed a sagely character. This treatment marks a turning point where he divorced himself from the Xiafeng School. However, Yan Yuan underestimated the difficulty in “learning to be a sagely person” and the internal contradiction in Confucianism. As a result, he found himself in a mired position reconstructing the study of Confucianism, despite his utmost efforts to employ the orthodox doctrines of Duke Zhou and Confucius for his criticism of neo-Confucianism. His excessive reliance on knowledge acquired from reading and his lack of practical experience conjured up a fantasy of Confucianism in universal practice. This fantasy was completely incompatible with the political situation of the Qing dynasty, which was moving toward the foundation of a complex empire. In addition, he lacked a conscious knowledge of the Qing regime’s establishment of its ideology, and a means by which he could move to the political center. In the end, he could only return to the Xiafeng school’s comprehensive doctrine. For this reason, Yan Yuan’s study substantially belonged to the Xiafeng Northern School system. The main component of the Qing dynasty’s northern study was the Xiafeng Northern School, not the Yan-Li School. Hence, it is not accurate that the Yan-Li School became extinct after two generations. Rather, as soon as it was put in reality it made a return to the Xiafeng Northern School, the mainstream of the time. Nonetheless, since early modern times in the scholarship on Qing intellectual history, the Yan-Li school has been given most attention while the Xiafeng Northern School has been largely neglected. This phenomenon is a result of the misplacement of the greater and lesser traditions. This erroneous treatment prompts reconsideration in the study of Chinese history by means of proper placement of greater and lesser traditions.