李翱聖人之學研究

Abstract

本論文以中唐文士李翱為研究對象，由他對聖人之道的思考，及學為聖人的種種努力，貫串其學說內容。自此延伸至中唐之學術面貌，望能回歸當時文士所面對的時空環境，理解他們如何解決時弊、如何推動儒學、又如何看待儒、釋、道三教關係。 本論文第參至第陸章涵蓋了李翱所關心的重要議題，包含心性論與修養工夫、聖人言行與儒家經典詮釋、政治思想，以及文、道關係等。 第參章探討李翱聖人之學的基礎，指出他在〈復性書〉與《論語筆解》皆已明確表達百姓之性與聖人之性相同，人可以透過復性工夫而成為聖人。其次，李翱綰合〈易繫辭〉、《中庸》、《大學》中的「誠」，賦予心性修養的意義，朝著終極的聖人之道前進，以此為基礎，一步一步擴成至修齊治平。此章亦略論李翱思想對《五經正義》的吸收與超越。 李翱主張人可「以心通」聖人之心，《論語筆解》即是一例，第肆章便以此為題，討論兩個問題，第一是內容上李翱在《論語》一書中強調了哪些要旨？第二是方法上他如何與舊注有所區隔？研究揭示韓、李在《筆解》中極重視「孔門四科次第」關係，認為「文學、政事、言語、德行」一階升過一階，人終能至聖人境界。其次，詮釋經典有新方法乃由於他相信聖人因時制變，只要合於道，權變的運用亦是聖學一環。 第伍章綜論李翱的政治思想，探討其學說中的經世性質。主要有兩點發現，一是李翱主張為政者的德行對國事影響極大，他以為君王除了以武功定禍亂，更應修文德，復制度以治天下，不能以私害公，破壞朝廷常制。第二，李翱對百姓生計特別關注，如針對中唐物輕錢重之弊，他主張應改納布帛，同時〈平賦書〉汲取古代什一之法，提出量入為出、均平稅率等想法，以改時弊。本章亦略論李翱反佛之事，指出李翱站在社會經濟與文化的角度，將佛教排除於聖人之道外。 第陸章討論李翱思想中的文與道的關係、文論標準，以及文章風格三項。指出李翱認為「學聖人之道始於文」，學古文者乃是悅古人之行、愛古人之道，這是受到韓愈影響，他們追求仁義與文章，齊頭並進。第二，李翱主張寫史需指事書實，作鑒於世人。在中唐，對文章的標準儒者各不相同，李翱認為六經之詞津潤怪麗，皆不相師，進而發展出「義深則意遠、意遠則理辯，理辯則氣直，氣直則辭盛，辭盛則文工」的文章標準，務求以最適切的文詞表達深刻的義理。回觀李翱所寫的文章，可發現其文以思致見長，為文結構嚴謹，不費虛詞，所用的文辭技法皆以彰明聖人之道為目標。放至時代趨勢而論，韓愈、李翱這樣努力結合文與道二者，藉由學文來求道，為文來傳道的作法，深具唐人特色。 第柒章談李翱聖人之學的價值，比較他與韓愈、皇甫湜之異同，指出在中唐其學說的性質，最後縱觀五代至清學者對李翱的評價。 綜而言之，本研究點出李翱在中唐文士改革時弊，開始關注聖人議題的隊伍中，代表了儒者由內而外重振儒學的企圖，他充實了儒家內聖論述，又不偏廢外王治人之學，同時重新訓解經典，並積極為文傳聖人之道。因此，由思想上、經學訓詁上、政治理論上、文論與文章上，李翱之學皆具貢獻，今日我們評斷唐代儒學內涵時應一併觀之，不可忽略。

This dissertation is a study about Li Ao's thoughts, mainly his concept to “the tao of the sage.” In Mid-T'ang, part of ku-wen（古文） writers, including Li Ao, started to discuss ancient sages, through which they tried to save the political and cultural crises caused by the An-Shi rebellion of 755（安史之亂）; their ultimate goal is to re-establish and revive Confucianism. Tracing how Li Ao learned sages provides a chance to explore this important academic phenomenon, and to indicate the significance of Li Ao in the history of Confucianism. Chapter One and Two introduce the research background, the structure of this dissertation and Li Ao's life. Chapter Three focuses on Li's concept in fu-hsing(復性), which becomes the fundamental part of learning sages. He explained the process of inner cultivation, like ch'eng(誠) and ding(定). Fu-hsing Su also would be a prominent example how Li combined I-ching, Chung-yung, and Ta-hsueh. Chapter Four, with Lun-yu Bi Jie, investigates the significant way Li Ao and Han Yu studing Chinese Classics: pursuing the mind of ancient sages. They regarded the sequence of Four Fields in Confucian( Virtue, Speech, Politics, Art) to be four different levels, and learners could follow this order to close sages. Chapter Five points out that Li's political thoughts used Confucius and Mencius value to solve the concrete social problems in Mid-T'ang. For instance, P'ing-fu Shu reveals Li's efforts to apply ancient sages' thoughts for the taxation reform. Chapter Six investigates three issues: How did Li Ao think about the relationship between wen(文) and tao(道)? What is his standard of wen-chang(文章)? What is his own writing style? All these concern Li's understanding to the tao of the sage. Han Yu and Li Ao were devoted to integrating jen-yi(仁義) and wen-chang. They believed men comprehend tao through wen; meanwhile, wen-shih(文士) could advocate tao by wen. Chapter Seven and Eight evaluate the position of Li Ao's thoughts in Confucianism by comparing it with other Confucians’ in Mid-T'ang and reviewing Li's historical comments. This dissertation points out “sage learning” will be a meaningful aspect of study to the revival of Confucianism in Mid-T'ang. It is because wen-shih, at that time, discussed issues like hsing-ming(性命), wen-chang, Confucian Classics and political problems in a form of learning sages. Li Ao is a prominent example. The influence of his thoughts can also be found in Song Dynasty; he, in this way, is called one of the forerunners to Neo-Confucian movement.