論郭象《莊子注》中修養論的可能性－以「天道」與「心性」為核心

Abstract

在具體探究郭象的修養論之前，必須先了解郭象哲學的宇宙觀或世界觀。換言之，我們必須先整理出郭象哲學的形上預設。因為宇宙觀或形上預設的不同，會牽涉到「人」於宇宙之中的不同的定位問題，換言之，也會牽涉到修養論的不同可能類型。 一談到修養，則必定涉及到人對正面意義的活動的發揚，或者對負面意義之活動的解消。而不論正面或負面意義的活動，都涉及到人某種主動作為的能力。。這種能力在中國傳統哲學中，往往以「心」這個概念來指稱討論修養問題時，「心」或「心性」是很重要的關鍵。此外，修養還涉及了「應然作為」的問題，也就是應當「如何修養」的問題。中國傳統哲學中，「心」含有思與知的能力，「心能夠思」才能判斷與了解「真知」。所以，「如何修養」，也涉及「心」的討論。郭象也非常反對「學」、「知」、「教」的行為。但他在別的描述中，有限制性的認定「學」的肯定面。「性」與「學」的關係，郭象認為的學習會幫助萬事萬物先天稟受的「性分」的完滿與完成的角色。 郭象的修養論，也可以如此的面來可以思考。他雖然「自然之分」、「性分」之下，否定了萬物的主體或主動性，但又主張以「率性」、「任性」的「無為」與「闇自然」「順」、「因」等的詞來，描述人應有作為。因此，筆者認為郭象《莊子注》中，雖然仍可有它的修養論，但郭象的修養論是極具限制性的。因為至人與凡人都已有「性分」與「自然之分」先天的限制，即使凡人後天多大的努力也無法變成至人。這也就是說，「性分」是無法改變，而人無法超越其先天稟受的「性分」的極限之下，凡人以「無心」來任「自然」順「性分」而「無為」的話，方可以實現他的「性分」的極限。也就是說，萬事萬物天生稟受的「性分」的圓滿完成為郭象《莊子注》中認為的有限的修養論。 郭象《莊子注》認為的修養，在至人與凡人的修養境界是天生已決定的，至人有至人境界中應有之修養，凡人則有凡人境界中可達至的修養。但不論凡人或至人，他們後天的努力所完成的修養，就是完成其「性分」；在此意義上，至人與凡人是相同的。

Before concretely discussing Guo Xiang’s theory of self-cultivation, we must understand his cosmos or universe theory. In another word, we have to sort out his metaphysical assumptions. The differences of cosmos theory or metaphysical assumptions would result different positions of human beings in the cosmos. Also, it involves different types of theories of self-cultivation. The theory of self-cultivation definitely involves the enhancement of positive activities or the settlement of negative activities of human beings. No matter the positive or negative activities, all involve the active ability of human beings. This ability, in traditional Chinese philosophy, is often discussed by the concept of “mind”. “Mind” or “mind nature” plays very critical key. In addition, The theory of self-cultivation also involves the question of what have to do, that is how to self-cultivate. According to Chinese traditional philosophy, “mind” includes the abilities of thinking and knowing. If “mind can think”, one can judge and understand the “true knowledge”. Therefore, “how to self-cultivate” involves the discussion of “mind”. Guo Xiang opposed the actions of “learning”, “knowing”, “teaching”. In his other descriptions, he restrictedly acknowledged the positive side of “learning”. Guo Xiang’s theory of self-cultivation denies the whole creation’s own accord under the concepts of “naturally difference” and “ difference of mind nature”, while it depicts what human beings have to do under the concepts of “self-willed”, “capricious inaction” etc.. Therefore, the writer contends Guo Xiang’s theory of self-cultivation is very restricted under his “A Commentary on The Book of Master Zhuang” for human beings are innately restricted by “naturally difference” and “difference of mind nature”. Accordingly, general people can not become a supreme people in spite how hard one works. In another word, “difference of nature mind” can not be changed. Since people can not surpass the limits of “difference of nature mind”, people have to do inactively in order to naturally comply with “difference of nature mind”. Guo Xiang’s “A Commentary on The Book of Master Zhuang” contends the self-cultivation realms of general and supreme people have been inherently decided. However, the hard working of general or supreme people to achieve self-cultivation is actually to accomplish their “difference of nature mind”. In this meaning, all people are the same.