北宋两刘牧再考

本文在笔者以前考证的基础上,又以读书所得新证据对北宋两刘牧的问题进行了不同角度的考证。并以考证结果为根据,对诸多已成“事实”进行了商榷,指出：三衢刘牧无任何易学著作存世；朱震等有关“河洛”图书的传承代次,全是瞎说,不可再引以为据；“河洛”图书内容出于彭城刘牧著一卷本《易数钩隐图》之后,很可能是其弟子窜人；范谔昌的“象学”并不讲“河洛”图书,以此溯及陈抟之“象学”亦非“河洛”内容；范氏晚于彭城刘牧,并非其师等。最后指出：彭城刘牧讲太极大道,理应在“宋明理学”的研究领域中占有一席之地。

On the author of Yi shu gou yin tu again

Based on the author's former textual researches and new evidence, this paper sets forth new viewpoints on the issue concerning the two figures with the same name of LIU Mu in the Northern Song Dynasty from different angles. By the result from the latest researches, the paper reverses the accomplished conclusion and points out: (1) the LIU Mu from Sanqu had not written any works related to Yi; (2) the transmission pedigree concerning the He tu (River Diagram) and Luo shu (Luo Chart) mentioned by ZHU Zhen has no foundation and should not be based any longer; (3) the contents of He tu and Luo shu came out later than the one-volume Yi shu gou yin tu written by the LIU Mu from Pengcheng, so they most probably were supplemented by his disciples; (4) FAN E-chang's imagology does not relate to He tu and Luo shu. Traced back by this fact to CHEN Tuan's imagology, it should not relate to He tu and Luo shu, either; (5) FAN E-chang was born later than the LIU Mu from Pengcheng, so, the former was not the latter's teacher. Finally, the paper insists that the LIU Mu from Pengcheng who discourses the Dao (Way) of Taiji (Grand Ultimate) undoubtedly should be given a position in the studies of Song-Ming neo-Confucianism.