江南·体育最新(JN SPORTS)官网入口-2024 European Cup

一 十年前的1998年，郭店竹简正式公布，立即引起了国内、国际学术界的极大关注，掀起了一股研究的热潮，此后出版的先秦思想史著作，如果没有利用郭店竹简及随后公布的上海博物馆藏竹简，便会被视为“过时”，不具有了学术研究的前沿性。正好在这一年，我来到中国社会科学院历史所做博士后研究，受身边同事研究热情的影响，我也开始关注起出土文献研究，博士后报告定为《郭店竹简与思孟学派》。2001年初博士后出站时，我已完成了十五万字的工作报告，并在报刊上发表了七、八篇相关论文。在博士后报告鉴定会上，庞朴、姜广辉、陈来、廖名春等学者对报告给予了充分肯定，并希望我对其补充、完善，争取早日出版。然而这时我感到学术的大门似乎才刚刚向我开启，一连串的学术问题迎面而来，有待我去思索、去探索。所以博士后出站留历史所思想史研究室工作后，除了参加一些集体课题外，我仍把主要精力放在郭店竹简与思孟学派的研究之中，五六年时间又先后发表了近二十篇这方面的论文，较之博士后报告，这时的研究已更为充分、深入，字数也达到了四十余万。 2006年，我申请去哈佛燕京学社做访问学者，杜维明先生告诉我，他准备在哈佛搞一个seminar（研读班），专门研讨思孟学派，于是我又带着这一课题来到了哈佛。哈佛的一年时光是美好、愉快的，而每周五在Yenching House举办的seminar更是给人留下难忘的记忆，第一学期我们读《五行》，第二学期读《中庸》，大家自由争论，互相辩驳，畅所欲言，往往一两句经文便会用去一下午的时间，但丝毫没有枯燥、乏味的感觉，而是充满了精神的享受与快乐。在美国期间，我还在哈佛大学中国文化年会做了《新出土竹简与中国文化再认识》的专题发言，并受耶鲁大学东亚研究中心、中央华盛顿大学哲学系的邀请作了郭店竹简的学术报告，在与国外同行交流中的点滴收获，也都被我吸收到研究之中。 2007年6月，我结束了在美国的访问回到了北京，这时我的工作单位已转到了JN江南·体育最新官网入口，承担起一定的教学任务。但我对思孟学派研究仍感意犹未尽，教学工作之余，仍将主要精力用在课题中，又陆续写了几篇这方面的论文，至此我的郭店竹简与思孟学派研究才算告一段落，这时时间已到了2008年，距我来北京已有十年之久。 二 回想这并不短暂的十年，深感学术探索的艰辛与不易。郭店竹简研究是个跨学科的综合研究领域，涉及到古文字学、文献学及哲学、思想史等多个学科，学术界一般按研究的先后顺序分别将其称为第一序（古文字学）、第二序（文献学）和第三序（哲学、思想史），我的研究主要集中在第二序和第三序，尤其是第三序上。所以吸收、借鉴古文字学者的成果是十分必要的，但文字的释读又是个非常复杂的过程，同一个字往往一开始有不同的释读意见，而一字之差又影响到文义的理解。这样的事例笔者在研究中碰到过很多次。 我的专业是中国思想史，研究思想史、哲学史的学者一般多侧重于义理的阐发、分析，而不太注重文献本身的研究，我以前也不能例外。但在接触到竹简研究后，才认识到文献的重要性。通过相关的传世文献，不仅可使晦涩难懂的竹简文字一下变得豁然开朗，同时，出土文献也可以帮助我们解决传世文献的真伪及成书年代等问题，这就是学界津津乐道的“二重证据法”，所以要想研究出土文献没有扎实的文献功底是不可想象的。所以我来社科院历史所后，对文献研究特别留意，专门下了一些功夫，在做博士后期间，我写了四十万字的《中国先秦学术思想史编年》（与刘宝才教授合作，我撰写春秋战国部分），从年代学、文献学的角度对先秦学术思想做了梳理，为本课题的研究打下坚实的文献基础。 不过在研究中感到最为艰难、也最耗费心力的还是哲学义理方面的探讨。对于郭店儒简，学术界一般将其定位为“孔孟之间”，认为是填补了孔子之后孟子之前思想史的空白，但也有一些学者认为竹简的内容更接近荀子，而不是孟子，主张将其定位为“孔荀之间”。我在研究竹简《五行》时注意到，竹简的内容不仅与以后的孟子存在联系，对以后的荀子也产生影响，这说明子思以后儒学的分化实际是双向的，而不是单向的，将郭店儒简定位为“孔子与孟荀之间”可能更合适。在这一认识的基础上，我先后发表多篇论文，对早期儒学的心性论、天人关系、仁内义外、仁与孝的关系、政治理念还有孟子性善论、慎独等问题做了集中探讨，提出了自己的观点与看法。这些观点在学术界曾产生了一定影响，有些还被学者经常引用，不过由于一些论文的写作时间较早，特别是在这十年的探索、研究中，我的学力和认识也有了提高，现在看来其中的一些观点已有调整的必要了。例如，我于2000年发表的《郭店竹简与〈中庸〉公案》一文，曾推测今本《中庸》可能编订于荀子之手，现在看来证据不足，必须要放弃了，这件事给我的教训是：一份材料说一份话，在材料不足的情况下，切不可作过多的推论与猜测。我写的“孔子论‘仁’”一文，曾在“青年儒学论坛”上宣读过，遭到几位朋友的激烈批评，这使我不得不对自己的思路重新反省。大约半年之后，我又写出了《郭店竹简“ ”字与孔子仁学》，对于这一稿，陈明兄首先表示肯定——而在“青年儒学论坛”上，他对我的批评最为激烈。庞朴先生也曾来一电子邮件，对拙文大加赞赏。杜维明先生对我讲，他一直准备写一篇这方面的文章，但看了拙文后，觉得已没有必要再写了，他想说的都被我讲出来了。拙文“脱胎换骨”式的变化，与论坛几位同仁的批评、刺激显然是分不开的。 三 我的思孟学派研究，受到了多位前辈学者的关心和帮助，这是我最为幸运也最为自豪的事情。在前辈学者中，庞朴先生与我关系最为密切，对我的帮助也最大。我开始从事竹简研究时，庞朴先生正好创办了“简帛研究”网站，为学者提供了一个交流平台，我有了文章也常在那里粘贴发表，一段时间我成了该网站发表论文最频繁也是最多的学者。我与庞先生很快成了忘年交，皂君庙庞宅也成了我经常光顾的地方；我每完成一篇论文，庞先生总是第一个读者，而且不吝夸奖、鼓励之言，有了不同看法，却只是婉转地予以表示。2005年山东大学成立儒学研究中心，庞朴先生担任主任，他将中心的研究重点确定为思孟学派，并让我承担了《思孟学案》一书的写作。我从庞先生身上学到的，不只是为学方法，还有他“温良恭俭让”的做人方式。 李学勤先生对我的研究也给予了极大的帮助，并为《郭店竹简与思孟学派》一书赐序，使拙作生辉不少。郭店竹简与思孟学派的关系最早就是由李先生提出的，我的研究可以说是在他的观点上的进一步的发展和深化。不过我在做博士后时，李先生还在担任历史所所长一职，公务繁忙，受其直接指导的机会较少。为了弥补这种缺憾，我专门找来李先生五、六十篇讨论先秦文献的文章，仔细阅读、揣摩，领会其治学的思路和方法，并与思想史研究结合在一起，故我的为学也有“私淑”于李先生的地方。 2002年在清华大学举办的“新出楚简与儒学思想”国际学术会议上，我提交并宣读了《竹简〈性自命出〉与孟子“天下之言性”章》一文，利用郭店竹简中“交性者，故也”等材料，讨论《孟子》中“天下之言性者，故而已亦”这段难解的文字，结果引起激烈争论，时裘锡圭先生在座。不久裘先生写出《由郭店简〈性自命出〉的“室性者故也”说到〈孟子〉的“天下之言性也”章》一文，是对拙文的一个回应。裘先生认为笔者联系出土竹简解读《孟子》“天下之言性”章，很有见地，非常正确，肯定了笔者对“故”字的解释，同时又对“故”字做了详尽的考察，列举了“故”字五种不同的用法。读裘文后，使我大开眼界，没有想到一个小小的“故”字，竟然有如此深奥的学问。由于拙文在清华会议上受到一些学者的批评，我一度对自己产生了怀疑，想要将其放弃，裘先生的肯定才使我重获信心。裘先生于我，可谓“一字之师”。 杜维明先生最近几年一直关注于思孟学派的研究，2005年10月，经杜先生提议，由北京大学儒学研究和山东大学儒学研究中心共同主办，在北京大学哲学系召开了“郭店竹简与思孟学派”座谈会，会议纪要经整理后发表在我主编的《中国思想史研究通讯》2005年第4期上。2006至2007年，杜先生又召集在哈佛访问的几位学者共同研读思孟学派的有关文献，这一年大家的学习、研究成果，最终结集为《思想·文献·历史——思孟学派新探》（杜维明主编，北京大学出版社，2008）。2007年8月，在杜先生的倡议下，哈佛燕京学社与山东师范大学齐鲁文化研究中心共同举办了“儒家思孟学派国际学术研讨会”，会议论文结集为《儒家思孟学派论集》，已由齐鲁书社于2008年底正式出版。从这里不难看出杜先生对思孟学派研究的推动之力及所付出的心血。杜先生倾向将郭店竹简看做孟子的思想资源，意在突出孟子在思想史上的地位，而我则认为从子思到孟、荀，是儒学内部深化但同时也是窄化的过程，故不应在孟、荀之间争正统，而应“回到‘子思’去”，统合孟荀，在丰富性的基础上再建儒家道统。杜先生与我虽然有这些认识上的不同，但从不将其观点强加于我，而是鼓励我按自己的想法去研究、探索。与杜先生接触，给人留下影响最深的是他平易近人、和蔼可亲的长者风范。 姜广辉、刘笑敢、陈来诸位老师也对我的研究给予很大帮助。姜广辉老师是我在历史所学习、工作时的领导，也是国内较早研究思孟学派的学者之一，对思孟学派研究有很大的推动之力。姜老师性格豪爽，求贤若渴，扶植后学，不遗余力，这可以说是他身上最为宝贵的品质。2004年5月，在清华大学一个会议上，我与刘笑敢老师正式相识，回到香港后，刘老师即来一电子邮件：“梁涛：在京见面，很高兴。我早已经注意到你的文章。希望你永不自满，超越前贤，为中国学术界作出贡献。中国文化研究的中心应该在中国，这需要一大批有志气、有能力的青年学者的不懈努力。重要的是不慕虚名，不断提高。”刘老师的勉励不仅使我深受鼓舞，也意识到自己身上的责任。刘老师早年毕业、任教于北大，后辗转于美国、新加坡，现任教于香港中文大学。刘老师虽然身处海外，但一直关心着中国哲学、文化的发展与前景。郭店竹简公布后，刘老师给予了极大关注，他申请课题，举办工作坊，积极推动香港地区的出土文献研究。陈来老师是我十分敬佩的学者，也是我一直努力追赶的目标，但我对陈老师的真正了解，还是在哈佛的一年时光。在哈佛的seminar上，我与陈老师在学术观点上有过分歧，产生过争论，但陈老师不愠不怒，以平等态度与我商榷、讨论。我的《即生言性的传统与孟子性善论》一文完成后，曾请陈老师指正，陈老师认真阅读后，指出了文中一些不合理之处，我经过反复思考，最终接受了陈老师的意见，对原文做了较大的修改，部分章节甚至经过了重写，所以此文实际也包含了陈老师的智慧和心血。 四 十年光阴，弹指一挥间。回想当年踏入大学之门时，老师给我们讲“十年磨一剑”、“板凳要坐十年冷，文章不写一句空”的为学之理，当时颇感意外，不以为然，至今才知此言不虚。古人论学亦有“凿井及泉”之说，意为在某一点集中用力，方可由此及彼，豁然贯通，对此现在我也深有体会。博士后研究期间，我没有像以前写博士论文那样，先列一个提纲，确定一个大概的思路，便一马平川地写下去，而是突出了具体的问题，以问题为突破口。我最早完成的两篇思孟学派的论文是关于《中庸》和孟子“四端说”的，由于下了一些功夫，文章写完后，眼前的视野一下开了，一连串的问题冒了出来，常常是一篇文章写完后，又马上引出下一篇，这些年来就这样一直写了下来。文章完成、发表的越多，外界的期待和压力也就越多，外出开会，常有朋友问：你的思孟学派研究什么时候完成啊？什么时候才能看到你的大作？每当这时我就在内心催促自己：要快！要快！然而值得庆幸的是，这些年虽然我也曾浮躁过，迫不及待过，但总算坚持下来了，终于没有自乱阵脚！因为我深知学术研究就是在追求真理，我不能在没有发现真理时自欺欺人，更不能去欺骗读者。由于一段时间我发表论文较多，一时有“快手”之称，其实只有自己知道每一文写作中的搜肠刮肚，千回百转，有些文章从酝酿到完成要经过数年之久，有些文章完成后，很快又不满意，又对其修订、删改……我知道自己的做法不明智也不聪明，会给自己带来诸多麻烦，试看今日中国各大高校对科研指标化、数据化的管理方式，一篇论文的学术质量倒在其次，关键要看它发表在什么刊物上；一位学者的晋级升等，也取决于其论文、著作的数量多少，结果就是鼓励大家多干快上，什么大课题、大项目，一两年就可以匆匆上马，匆匆结项。可以肯定，这种管理方式的不良后果将会在不远的将来充分暴露出来。我常想，在今日这种“恶劣”的学术环境下，能否出现学术大师、出现学术名著？实在是一件值得让人怀疑的事情。也许，在今日选择自我放逐，明日才会被历史所记住。 《郭店竹简与思孟学派》，梁涛著，54万字，中国人民大学出版社，2008年5月。 （原载《中华读书报》2009-8-19） 附:美国英文《Dao》杂志对我院梁涛教授新作发表书评 Liang Tao (梁濤), Guodian Bamboo Strips and the Si-Meng School 郭店竹簡與思孟學派 Beijing 北京: China People’s University Press 中國人民大學出版社, Franklin Perkins, Professor of Philosophy, DePaul University The discovery of numerous lost texts in recent decades in China will certainly compel us to revise our standard history of the early Ru 儒. These changes will come partly from evidence in the excavated texts – ones with multiple copies were likely significant in their time – but also because these texts alter our relations to other received texts, many of which, like the Li Ji 禮紀, must now be taken more seriously. Furthermore, the excavated texts give us a new understanding of the transmission of texts, of the ways in which ideas were gathered, developed, and spread. What these new histories will look like is still far from clear, but Chinese scholars have been working toward this goal. For example, Guo Qiyong’s 郭齊勇recent anthology of Chinese philosophy, Selected Readings in Classical Chinese Philosophy (中國古典哲學名著選讀) (Beijing: People Press人民出版社, 2005), includes the “Xing Zi Ming Chu” (性自命出) and “Five Actions” (Wu Xing 五行) texts along with the traditional corpus. One high point in this rethinking of the development of early Ru thought is Liang Tao’s excellent new book, Guodian Bamboo Slips and the Si-Meng School. Liang’s book is more than a study of the Guodian texts but rather a full reconstruction of early Ru thought, including useful discussions of newly discovered texts but also of many received texts. Of these, the discussions of various chapters of the Li Ji are most helpful because the excavated texts provide such a new lens through which to view them. Liang includes chapters focusing on the “Great Learning” (Da Xue 大學) and “Zhong Yong” (中庸), as well as interesting discussions of the “Li Yun” 禮運 chapter of the Li Ji and the Zengzi 曾子chapters from the Da Dai Li Ji 大戴禮記. The two chapters that examine Mengzi孟子raise many important points in light of the Guodian texts, particularly in regard to the debate about rightness being internal or external, Mengzi’s reference to his flood-like qi (Mengzi 2A2), and the discussion of the relationship between xing 性 and gu 故 in Mengzi 4B26. Liang’s focus, though, is not so much on individual texts as on the relationships between them, both in terms of dating and authorship and in reconstructing philosophical debates. The first chapter begins with a thorough discussion of the evidence and leading opinions on the affiliations of the various texts in the Guodian find (10-33). Liang Tao presents this evidence in a balanced and thorough way, providing an excellent orientation in the current state of these debates in China. To summarize his conclusions, Liang associates the following texts with Zisi: “Dark Robes” (Zi Yi 缁衣), “Five Actions,” and “Duke Mu of Lu asks Zisi” (Lu Mu Gong Wen Zisi 魯穆公問子思) from the excavated texts, and the “Biao Ji” (表紀), “Fang Ji” (防紀), and “Zhong Yong” chapters from the Li Ji. As with many scholars, Liang takes the “Zhong Yong” chapter as merging two distinct works, the “Zhong Yong” and the “Cheng Ming” (誠明). Liang argues that the “Five Actions” and “Cheng Ming” texts fit together and are distinct from the others, representing the gradual development of the thought of Zisi. Liang argues that the “Xing Zi Ming Chu” differs from the Zisi texts and is most likely from Ziyou 子游. He also attributes the “Li Yun” chapter of the Li Ji to someone in the lineage of Ziyou. The other main figure Liang discusses is Zengzi, to whom he attributes the “Da Xue”, “Nei Li” (内禮) excavated text, and the Zengzi chapters from the Da Dai Li Ji. He also discusses the Classic of Filial Piety (Xiao Jing 孝經), taking that as a development of one side of Zengzi’s thought. Those who are skeptical of early dating of texts will object to many of Liang’s claims, and the very project of assigning precise dates and authors to the texts is questionable. As is often the case in arguing about authorship, Liang begins by asking which famous Ru is the most likely author, when it is quite possible the texts were composed by people now unknown to us. While acknowledging that divisions into schools (xuepai 學派) is a later imposition that must be treated with skepticism (5), the attempt to place texts into lineages tends toward seeing them as too distinct. At the same time, Liang provides careful and thorough arguments for his positioning of the texts and he takes little for granted. Moreover, Liang’s approach focuses on articulating distinct, related, and evolving positions among the early Ru. His reconstruction of these positions is largely persuasive regardless of whether a given text was composed by Zisi, one of his disciples, or some unrelated scholar taking up a similar position. In terms of the development and evolution of views, one of the most interesting examples is Liang’s analysis of the contrasts between the classic (jing 經) “Wu Xing” text from Guodian and the commentary (shuo 說) intertwined with in the Mawangdui 馬王堆 version (390-419). He takes the Mengzi as a midpoint between these, since on one side Xunzi links Mengzi to the theory of five actions and Zisi, and on the other side, the language of the shuo closely resembles that of the Mengzi, even discussing the duan 端, “sprouts” or “beginnings,” of virtue. Liang nicely analyzes the distance between the jing and shuo. For example, while the jing keeps a dual focus on the internal and external through its distinction between good actions (xing 行) and good actions of virtue (dezhixing 德之行), the shuo commentary attempts to explain all good actions as internal. Another interesting shift is the shuo’s explication of the internal in terms of different kinds of vital force, qi 氣, a position Liang sees as developing Mengzi’s discussion of “flood-like” qi. The result is not only insight into the three texts but also a nice illustration of how the positions within one lineage evolved and changed. As in this example, Liang’s history focuses on the working out of tensions and problems. The most central and recurring tension Liang follows is between the internal and external, which appears also as a tension between benevolence and rightness or ritual. This tension is well known but is usually reduced to the contrasting positions of Mengzi and Xunzi. By drawing in more texts, Liang reveals a much greater range of positions, tensions, and reconciliations. Liang uses this tension to categorize different texts, taking Zisi and Ziyou as emphasizing the internal, but also as animating individual texts, particularly Guodian texts like the “Xing Zi Ming Chu” and “Five Actions.” Many of the other tensions Liang raises were not so clear from the extant texts. One of the more interesting discussions follows conflicts around filial piety (468-508). Liang argues for a split between those giving primacy to filial piety (represented by the “Zengzi Da Xiao” 曾子大孝 chapter of the Da Dai Li Ji and more starkly by the Classic of Filial Piety) and those promoting a direct concern for all people (represented by Zisi). This tension also appears in political discussions, with some modeling loyalty to the sovereign on the absolute duty toward one’s father, while others appealed to the model of friendship, which can be freely entered and given up. Liang’s analysis makes similar tensions more visible in the Mengzi, for example, between his claim that the start of benevolence lies in a feeling of compassion for any child in danger (Mengzi 2A6) and his claim that the core of benevolence lies in familial concern (Mengzi 4A27). Another interesting conflict is between yielding the throne to the worthy (shanrang禪讓) and passing the throne to one’s son. The doctrine of yielding the throne to the worthy is most prominent in the “Dao of Tang and Yu.” Taking his clue from this, Liang shows how such ideas were widespread through the 4th century BCE, drawing on evidence from received texts and excavated texts like the “Rong Cheng Shi” 容成氏and “Zi Gao” 子羔 (166-177). According to Liang, this view of succession was discredited by the disaster that followed the King of Yan’s attempt to yield the throne to his minister Zi Zhi 子之 in 316 BCE. This analysis once again gives us a new perspective on Mengzi, whose stance against yielding the throne to the worthy (Mengzi 5A6) must be seen as explicitly arguing for a more conservative position. Liang uses this analysis to reconsider the “Li Yun” chapter of the Li Ji and to bring out a less obvious side of Ru political philosophy. He argues that one can designate two principles of early Ru political philosophy – the emphasis on virtue and elevating the worthy and the claim that the world is for everyone (tianxia wei gong 天下爲公). The latter aspect, which was developed more in the thought of Ziyou, led to a greater concern for political institutions and, according to Liang, has more potential for reconciliation with democracy. While it is not fair to criticize a book for what it is not, particularly a book this long, Liang’s analysis tends to ignore influences across different schools of thought. The biggest gap regards Mozi. Some of the Ru positions which Liang develops – such as the split between emphasis on filial piety and direct concern for everyone – show a greater convergence between the Mohists and the Ru. This surely is no coincidence. If it resulted from the influence of the Mohists, then it might mean that tensions within the Ru were accelerated through a division between those incorporating Mohist ideas and those simply opposing them. Alternately, it could be that the Ru and Mohists were originally not so distinct and that the division between them followed from a split around some of the tensions Liang outlines. One can easily imagine the author of the “Dao of Tang and Yu” splitting off from the Ru as they developed toward politically more conservative positions. Unfortunately, Liang’s exclusive focus on the Ru leaves aside these questions, even though he provides plenty of material to help in thinking through them. In some sense, the book appears to be part of an attempt to construct an authentic lineage (daotong 道統) of the Ru. In fact, Liang Tao’s work complicates and undermines such a project by reconstructing the history of Ru thought as centering on tensions and problems developing and changing in specific historical circumstances. Liang gives a brief history, from Han Yu韓愈to Mou Zongsan 牟宗三 , of the various attempts to construct an authentic lineage, and he shows great sensitivity to the political motivations underlying those constructions. These constructions have tended to embrace one side of Ru thought – usually the internalist side coming through Mengzi but occasionally the externalist side coming through Xunzi – while seeing the other as inauthentic. Liang argues that any account of the Ru tradition must see it in terms of processes of diversification. At times, Liang seems to revel in this diversity, but at other times, he calls for a return to Zisi, to an original Ru synthesis of the various tensions that led to its diversification (532-33). The book itself, though, gives many reasons for more radical view of the Ru tradition as constituted not by one original position but by attempts to grapple with genuine problems and aporia through changing historical conditions. While the greatest value of this book is in its detailed explanations of the Guodian texts, perhaps what is most interesting is this presentation of a much richer and more conflicted Ru tradition. （原载《Dao：A Journal of Comparative Philosophy》2009年8期）