王阳明致良知的二重结构 ——积累和彻悟 = A Dual Structure on the Zhi-Liang-Zhi of the Wang Yang-ming’s Thought

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

In this paper, we generally understand that the fulfillment of Innate Knowledge of Goodness(致良知) is an ultimate theory of Yangming’s thought. For example, through chronological record(年谱), we can find that he has proclaimed the fulfillment Innate Knowledge of Goodness since his fifty.
Meanwhile, although Yang-Ming's disciples are all based on the theory of fulfillment of Innate Knowledge of Goodness, they are diversly understood their master's ultimate thought, practically related to the self-cultivation theory(工夫论). For this problem, we can answer by studying the dual structure of Yangming's idea on the fulfillment of Innate Knowledge of Goodness.
It can be understood like this: the former takes a stress on the spontaneity of Innate Goodness[良知]. This idea can be called as Gongfu of Benti (本体工夫), which means that self-cultivation is based on the spontaneity of Innate Goodness(良知); the latter takes a focus on the refrainment of the environment. This thought could be called as Gongfu of Benti, which means that self-cultivation needs artificial efforts to revive Innate Goodness.

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

阳明五十岁前后提倡致良知说以后，他讲学的宗旨便是致良知三个字。可是，《明儒学案》的著编者黄梨洲却说阳明晚年提倡致良知，未暇给弟子们充分发扬致良知的要义而去世，故引起阳明弟子对致良知的分歧，甚至有误会。其实，致良知的不同理解就会产生阳明弟子的分化。并且在阳明弟子中，最初对致良知的分歧的端倪在于钱绪山和王龙溪之争论，所谓“天泉问答”。此问答围绕如何理解四句教而进行的。但是，仅分析“天泉问答”，不能充分解释致良知里存在的二重结构，因为记载“天泉问答”的三种记载中，较接近于原貌的《传习录（下）》的记载里阳明分明地说他有两种教法，可就王龙溪的“四无说”来说，仍然不给予肯定。故我参考“严滩问答”的内容进行补充。历来“严滩问答”不如“天泉问答”受到瞩目，但我却认为，“严滩问答”是研究阳明工夫论时不可缺少的资料。现在学术界对于“天泉问答”的理解，即关于“天泉问答”里的钱绪山与王龙溪的立场的理解，存在有些倾向：钱绪山着重于工夫，王龙溪着重于本体。此种说法不无道理，应该讲清楚，否则容易造成误解。因此，仅以本体和工夫的构造，解释钱绪山和王龙溪之致良知说，不能充分说明两贤之不同点，也不能充分解释致良知的二重结构。故本论文采用“积累”和“彻悟”的构造，试图说明两贤之不同点，同时要解释致良知的二重结构。

참고문헌 (Reference)

• 1 王守仁, "王阳明全集" 上海古籍出版社 1992
• 2 陈荣捷, "王阳明传习录详注集评" 学生书局 1998
• 3 王畿, "王畿集" 凤凰出版社 2007
• 4 方祖猷, "王畿评传" 南京大学出版社 2001
• 5 陈来, "有无之境" 人民出版社 1991
• 6 张学智, "明代哲学史" 北京大学出版社 2000
• 7 黄宗羲, "Mingru Xuean" 中华书局 2008