18 世纪东亚儒教思想史中的徂徕学派 与丁茶山 ——“以心制心”、“以礼制心”、“以天制心”

Abstract

At the beginning of the twentieth century Inoue Tetsujirō first described the development of Confucian thought in Japan in terms of the development of three schools: the Zhu Xi School, the Wang Yang-ming School and the Ancient Learning School. These categories have been widely used in the description of Japanese Confucianism ever since. In his intellectual historical narrative of Japan’s path to modernity Maruyama Masao also analyzed the Confucianism of Japan’s Ancient Learning School (in particular that of Ogyū Sorai) as the central point of change in the history of Japanese thought. Maruyama’s work in this area became an accepted classic. Since Maruyama, various scholars have sought to step outside the paradigms established by him through breaking down the meta-narrative of modernity he offered and rather looking at the development of Japanese thought (and Confucianism) in detail, concentrating their research on a range of particular instances and sources. The success of this kind of detailed research over the past half-century has been an important development. On the other hand, it is also true that through this kind of research intellectual history has lost some of its richness by losing the ability to tell an overarching story of the role of ideas in the development of history. Now is therefore the time when, building on the achievements of this kind of detailed research, and furthermore taking the development of Confucian thought not only in Japan but throughout East Asia as our point of reference, we should within this broader context look at the history of the Confucian thought of Tokugawa Japan in a much more expansive way. Looking at the history of Confucianism across East Asia offers us the capacity to relativize the intellectual history of our own country. That opportunity to relativize our own national intellectual histories exists not only for Japan, but for China and Korea also. We should develop an approach for reexamining Confucianism in an East Asian context which allows us to overcome the national history paradigms of the past. This article looks to overcome national history narratives by looking at intellectual history in the East Asian context through an examination of parallels in the Confucian analyses of Sorai Learning and Chong Yak-yong. In his Lunyu commentary, Lunyu gujin zhu, Chong quoted from the Lunyu (Confucius Analects) commentaries of Ogyū Sorai (Rongo chō) and his disciple Dazai Shundai (Rongo kokun gaiden). This demonstrates that at the very least Tasan was aware of the existence of the Sorai School. Chong’s Confucianism was similar to Sorai in the sense that they were both critical of the xinfa theory of Song Learning, they both emphasized the importance of ‘rites’, and they both seemed interested in understanding the importance of ‘heaven’. Chong differed from Sorai, however, in that he never completely rejected Zhu Xi. For that reason, even though his criticism of xinxing and xinfa showed parallels with that of Sorai and Shundai, his development of these issues was never as radical, nor was his criticism of Zhu Xi Learning ever as developed. For that very reason, however, he was able to deal with questions that were never addressed by either Sorai or Shundai. Thinking schematically, while the Sorai school simply criticized Song Learning’s ‘control the heart by means of the heart’ doctrine by emphasizing their own doctrine of ‘control the heart by means of the rites’, Chong went further and provided a potentially deeper analysis through his doctrine of ‘control the heart by the means of Heaven’. Speaking from the context of the history of Japanese Confucian thought, the corrections to and reformations of Sorai thought carried out by the likes of Matsumiya Kanzan or Hirose Tansō, important later intellectual developments, were within the range of the kind of approach already taken by Chong.