玄远之幕的飘落——王弼《论语释疑》的命运

本文通过分析王弼《论语释疑》在中国思想史中的命运 ,探讨儒家经典被玄学所体现的道家思想解释时 ,其思想意义的被改变与被扩展 ;探讨这种改变及扩展给儒学发展带来的种种问题。     

王家台秦简“易占”与殷易《归藏》

从秦简“易占”与《周易》相应之卦存在的不同卦名来看 ,前者与卦之象义的关系简单直观 ,后者与卦之象义的关系则复杂抽象 ,故秦简“易占”之卦名当即先于《周易》之卦名而存在的殷易《归藏》之卦名。秦简“易占”之占辞中存有与殷易时代不合之数条 ,但其余占辞显然绝非后世所能编造 ,当即殷易《归藏》所收夏商旧有的占筮记录之辞。秦简“易占”虽非殷易《归藏》之原貌和全貌 ,但大体为殷易《归藏》之内容。     

ONENESS AND SELF‐CENTEREDNESS IN THE MORAL PSYCHOLOGY OF WANG YANGMING

Rather than “selfishness,” a more accurate and revealing interpretation of Wang's use of siyuis “self‐centeredness.” One of the main goals in Wang's model of moral cultivation was to attain a state devoid of self‐centered desires. Wang relied a great deal on the exercise and cultivation of an emotional identification and feeling of oneness with others. In this paper, I first provide a brief summary of the role of Wang's concept of siyu in his moral psychology. I then examine key passages in Wang's writings that reveal his nuanced understanding of siyu and, along the way, I draw on empirical research in psychology to help illuminate the significance of Wang's view of siyu to his overall model of moral cultivation.     

南朝《易》类义疏体式考

虽然《北史》云南朝易学好王弼之学,然而《南齐书》与《隋志》记载齐梁时郑学仍立为国学。通过对《易》类义疏文本的稽考,可证梁及以后南朝《易》类义疏在体式上都以王注为本。除此特点之外,南朝《易》类义疏虽本于王注,却好引他说或自立新说;南朝讲经之风盛行,《易》类义疏亦多以"讲疏"为名,然而梁以后《易》类讲疏体义疏在体例上与一般义疏趋同。     

论清代《管子》校勘中的学术传承——以王念孙、陈奂、丁世涵、戴望为系谱的考察

有清一代,《管子》校勘领域有着鲜明的学术传承。王念孙、陈奂、丁世涵、戴望三代学人,秉持乾嘉考据学之方法,致力于《管子》校雠事业,为后世的管子研究提供了扎实可信的文献基础。故对这一学术系谱进行考察,既可认清其在管子研究由古典向近代的学术转型中之地位,亦能借此个案了解清代子书校勘之命运。     

今、古文易学流变述略——兼论《子夏易传》真伪

本文从汉初易学之传承入手,比照分析了今、古文易学之传承情况,特别指出古文易派因无师承和对经义的固定传授,故虽同研古文《易》,但其对经义往往各自说之,持论不一,此于《周易正义·卷首》所载可见一斑。史料皆称王弼《易》所依乃是费氏古文本,然由出土之帛书本考之,疑王弼亦取于今文本,非尽依古文也。另据新出简帛资料,本文考证《子夏易传》确为学有渊源的先秦古《易》传本,并辨析了其之所以未被列入《汉书·艺文志》的缘由。     

《周易正义》之编撰

唐代为五经撰正义,为注疏统一之始。清儒服膺汉学,主翔实,故于《正义》多所讥诋,讥其虚浮。然唐时,儒玄合流,既已蔚为风气,孔氏《周易正义》之所以以形上学为纲纪者,亦非无故。此外,《周易正义》释义先以辅嗣为本,旁引汉魏南北朝诸说以供参证,有驳有断、有议有辩,与《书》《诗》《札记》诸疏之参据旧疏、杂出众手者不同。具体而言,《周易正义》调融南北,荟萃诸家,故用王而不固于王;参以玄言,故义理架构颇与老庄相通;渐染于浮屠,故排佛而用佛;发明义例、考辨意旨,自下新义,故有学术价值可言,尤宋人疑古开新之先导,非株守一先生说者可比。     

The debate on the yan-yi relation in Chinese philosophy: Reconstruction and comments

The debate on the yan-yi relation was carried out by Chinese philosophers collectively, and the principles and methods in the debate still belong to a living tradition of Chinese philosophy. From Yijing (Book of Changes), Lunyu (Analects), Laozi and Zhuangzi to Wang Bi, “yi” which cannot be expressed fully by yan (language), is not only “idea” or “meaning” in the human mind, but is also some kind of ontological existence, which is beyond yan and emblematic symbols, and unspeakable. Thus, the debate on the yan-yi relation refers firstly to metaphysics, secondly to moral philosophy, and then to epistemology and philosophy of language. Guided by this view, this paper recalls the source of the debate on the yan-yi relation to Yijing and Lunyu, distinguishes four meanings of “yi” in Chinese philosophy, and reconstructs three arguments. These arguments are the “yan cannot express yi fully” argument, “forget yan once you get yi” argument, and “yan can express yi fully” argument. Finally, this paper exposes and comments on those principles, methods and the general tendency shown in the debate from the following five aspects: starting point, value-preference, methodology, texts (papers and books), and influences. __________ Translated from Jianghai Xuekan 江海学刊 (Jianghai Academic Studies), 2005 (3)     

王弼“卦主说”探微——对《易传》以来“卦主”思想的继承与发展

“卦主说”是发端于《易传》并经由京房、郑玄等易学家发展的一种解易体例,在王弼那里达到了新的高峰。王弼“卦主说”包括三个方面的基本内容：“一爻为主说”、“内外二体说”和“卦名、卦辞以定卦义说”。从其“卦主说”这一侧面分析,王弼的易学具有义理象数兼用、易玄结合两个基本特征,其理论的最终落脚点是人事道德、社会政治。     

The transformation of the Wang Yangming scholarship in the West,ca. 1960–1980: a historical essay

Students of Ming philosophy and the thought of Wang Yangming likely know that the 1960s–1970s was a period during which many scholarships in this field of study were produced in the English language. Indeed, it has been almost half a century since a group of scholars came together at the University of Hawaii to present papers on Wang Yangming in commemoration of the fifth centenary of his birth. That group included, for example, Wing-tsit Chan, David Nivison, and Du Weiming. These scholars, along with two others not present—Julia Ching and Carsun Chang—played a transformative role in introducing Wang Yangming to an English-reading audience. But, the history behind their achievement, as well as how they interpreted him for that audience, has yet to be written. This paper provides a synopsis of that history, explaining why the scholars chose to write about him and what they said about his life and ideas.