試論程頤「理一而分殊」之「而」字不可省

梁巧燕

慈濟技術學院通識教育中心
國立政治大學中文所博士生

摘要

北宋程頤在與楊時討論張載〈西銘〉時提出「理一而分殊」命題，此後學者皆以「理一分殊」稱述之。然，察程頤在答覆楊時的信中，提出的是「理一而分殊」，而非「理一分殊」；且楊時在接受其師的說法後曾幾度引述，亦未見其直接以「理一分殊」四字連言稱述。對此，本文指出應回到命題提出的原始境遇中去理解命題，且應立基於程頤之體用思想來詮解命題的義理，進而從語句結構來分析「而」字在命題中所呈示的意義與作用，從而獲致一個結果：「而」字在命題中顯然具有重要的指示意涵，「而」字不當輕易減省，程頤之「理一而分殊」不等同於「理一分殊」。

 關鍵字：程頤、楊時、理一分殊

 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

An analysis of Cheng Yi’s “Li-yi erh Fen-shu”:
The word “erh” can not be omitted

Liang Chiao-Yen

Tz'u-Chi College of Technology, General Education Center
National Chengchi University, Department of Chinese Literature, Ph.D. candidate

Abstract

Cheng Yi and Yang Shi proposed the proposition of “Li-yi erh Fen-shu” in Northern Song Dynasty while they were discussing Ximing written by Zhang Zai. Scholars cited “Li-yi erh Fen-shu” to their speech thereafter. However, surveys of the letter to Yang Shi replied by Cheng Yi manifested that Cheng Yi mentioned “Li-yi erh Fen-shu”, not “Li-yi Fen-shu”. In addition, Yang Shi adopted his teacher’s statement and quoted it for a few times afterward, instead of quoting the four words “Li-yi Fen-shu.” Accordingly, the study indicated that we need to perceive the proposition in accordance with original circumstances, and to interpret the implications of the proposition based on Cheng Yi’s theory of essence and function; therefore, we can get a conclusion that the word “erh” obviously plays a crucial role in the sentence structure revealed in the proposition and has its meaning and implications. Hence, the word “erh” can not be omitted. Cheng Yi’s proposition of “Li-yi erh Fen-shu” is not equal to “Li-yi Fen-shu.”

Keywords：Cheng Yi、Yang Shi、Li-yi Fen-shu

回第十五期學報目錄