戰國儒家心性情說研究－
以《禮記》三篇、〈性自命出〉為中心的考察
摘要
儒家哲學始終以人為中心，關心人的情感、心性等問題，從心性情三者來說明人性主體的概念架構，對心性情三者的解釋不同或倚重方向不一，乃構成不同心性論體系，同時也是構成對人性的不同了解的原因。在戰國儒家人性學說的發展上，心性情思想佔有一個很重要的地位，只是往往研究者較偏重於對人性的性善與性惡之道德方面的探討，強調人性的道德自覺與德性涵養，但儒家是否只重視人格修養與道德陶冶？是否忽視人最直接的情感表現？是否就否定人的一切情感需求？其實，心性情的問題是有連帶關係的，無法只論其一或其二。如果離開了情感，只言心或性，則心性論容易流於形式化的概念，喪失其所固有的豐富性。
本論文的架構大抵上從「心」、「性」、「情」三者依序探究其涵義，不同文獻對「心」「性」「情」三者的使用，將有相同或相異的差別，這也是先秦儒學內部派別出現分歧，更是其派別劃分的主要標誌。所以，本文探索的範圍以《禮記》三篇－〈大學〉、〈中庸〉、〈樂記〉與楚簡〈性自命出〉為主，並與《詩經》、《尚書》、《左傳》、《國語》、《論語》為心性情問題的探源文獻，以及論述後來發展出來的孟子、荀子兩大儒家派別的概況。故本論文第二章「心性情問題探源與發展」即是以孔子之前的傳世中國古典文獻中的《詩經》、《尚書》、《左傳》、《國語》為探求心性情的初期思維概況，試圖從簡單概念中找出後來儒家心性情思想的依循緣由。其次，孔子本身作為先秦儒學的奠基者，即使還沒有提出完整的心性情學說或理論，但在《論語》中「性相近，習相遠也」的說法，已對後來弟子在人性論的看法上產生重要影響。最後，論述先秦儒學的兩大不同派別，孟子與荀子開展情形。第三章「《禮記》三篇」主要從〈大學〉、〈中庸〉、〈樂記〉的心性情探討中，我們可以看到這些孔子以後的弟子致力在解釋：以仁為內在性情的根據來源為何，並且試圖從不同的向度去為仁學與天道、性命的貫通作努力，以為仁學建構形上根據。第四章「〈性自命出〉」主要探索在孔子向孟子過渡時期中，隱約可見的儒家早期心性情說之輪廓。梳理《孟子》書中為何要極言人性本善，使得孔子的人性論到孟子的性善論之間的心性情說有如此明顯變化，從〈性自命出〉之探究，能得到相當程度的回答。第五章「結論」，總結本論文對戰國儒家心性情說研究的探析成果，以及未來展望。
關鍵詞：心、性、情、郭店楚簡、儒家
The Research of Hsin, Hsing, and Ching Hsuo of the Confucian School during the Warring States：A Research Centered on Three Chapters of “Li-chi” and “Hsing-tzu-ming-chu”
Abstract
Confucian philosophy is centered on human being all the time. It pays attention to the issues of human feeling (ching 情), nature (hsing 性) and mind (hsin 心). Hsin, hsing, and ching are employed to illustrate the conceptual framework of the subject of human nature. Different explanations or inclinations towards hsin, hsing, and ching establish various hsin and hsing ideological systems, and construct different comprehension of human nature at the same time. The ideas of hsin, hsing, and ching play a significant role in the Confucian theory of human nature during the warring states; however, researchers generally lay particular stress on the exploration of good nature and evil nature in moral aspects, and put emphasis on moral consciousness and virtue cultivation of human nature. Does the Confucian School merely put emphasis on the cultivation of personality and morality? Is the most direct expression of feeling ignored? Does the Confucian School deny all the need of feeling by human being? As a matter of fact, the issues of hsin, hsing, and ching are related. It is impossible to discuss merely one or two of them. If we only focus on hsin or hsing, omitting the feeling, hsin-hsing-lun would easily become a concept of formality and lose its inherent enrichment.
The structure of this research primarily explores the meanings of hsin, hsing, and ching in order. The application of hsin, hsing, and ching by various documents will lead to similarity or difference. This is also a sign that inner sects of the Confucian School disagree with each other in the pre-Qin period. Furthermore, it is a main symbol of the division among the sects. Therefore, the scope of this research is mainly based on three chapters of Li-chi (《禮記》)-- Ta-hsüen (《大學》), Chung-yung (《中庸》) and Yûeh-chi (《樂記》)—and the bamboo slips of Guodian Hsing-tzu-ming-chu (〈性自命出〉), takes Shih-ching (《詩經》), Shang-shu (《尚書》), Tso-chuan (《左傳》), Guo-yu (《國語》), and Lun-yu (《論語》) as the origin-tracing documents for hsin, hsing, and ching issues and applies the discourse of Meng-tzu (孟子) and Hsün-tzu (荀子) which were developed later on. Therefore, the second chapter of the research “The Origin and Development of Hsin, Hsing, and Ching Issues” applies Chinese classical documents handed down for generations before Confucius--Shih-ching, Shang-shu, Tso-chuan, and Guo-yu—to explore the general situation of hsin, hsing, and ching in the initial stage, and attempts to locate the reason why Confucian hsin, hsing, and ching ideas depend on the above-mentioned document with simple concepts. Secondly, Confucius himself as the founder of the Confucian School in the pre-Qin period, his proverb “By nature, near together; by practice far apart.” (「性相近，習相遠」)in Lun-yu had had a great influence on his disciples’ viewpoints of the theory of human nature even though he had not presented a complete hsin, hsing, and ching doctrine or theory. Finally, the research discusses the two major and distinct sects of the Confucian School-- Meng-tzu and Hsün-tzu—and their development. The third chapter “three chapters of Li-chi explores hsin, hsing, and ching in Ta-hsüen, Chung-yung, and Yûeh-chi, and we can see that Confucius’ disciples made efforts to explain the source which benevolence (jên 仁) is regarded as the inner disposition, and attempted to have a thorough knowledge of benevolence, tian dao and hsing ming to establish metaphysical basis for benevolence. The fourth chapter “Hsing-tzu-ming-chu” primarily explores the indistinct outlines of the Confucian hsin-hsing-ching-hsuo in the initial stage during the transitional period, and elucidates the reason why the goodness of human nature is illustrated to the utmost in Meng-tzu (《孟子》) so that the Hsin-hsing-ching-hsuo varies evidently between Confucius’ theory of human nature and Meng-tzu’s theory of good nature. From the exploration of Hsing-tzu-ming-chu, we can get a clear answer to a degree. The fifth chapter “Conclusion” sums up the result which this research explores the study of hsin, hsing, and ching hsuo of the Confucian School during the warring states, and prospects into the future.
Key words: Hsin, Hsing, Ching, the bamboo slips of Guodian, Confucian