陶望齡的老莊詮釋與晚明[無善無惡]之辯── 以其 《解老》， 《解莊》 為探討中心 = Tao Wangling’s interpretation of Laozi and Zhuangzi and the discourse of “neither good nor evil” in late-Ming : focusing on Jie Lao and Jie Zhuang

• Main Author: 洪維陽 Ang, Wei Yang
• Other Authors: Qu Jingyi
• Format: Theses and Dissertations
• Language: Chinese
• Published: 2018
• Subjects: DRNTU::Humanities::Philosophy::Chinese; DRNTU::Humanities::Religions::Taoism
• Online Access: https://hdl.handle.net/10356/87637; http://hdl.handle.net/10220/46809
• Institution: Nanyang Technological University

Tao Wangling’s Jie Lao and Jie Zhuang were written towards the end of his life. His commentaries on Laozi and Zhuangzi are the keys to understanding his thoughts on nature and fate and his views on the discourse of “neither good nor evil.” Tao’s responses to the discourse of “neither good nor evil” with Laozi and Zhuangzi’s philosophy exemplifies the syncretism of Confucianism and Daoism. This paper argues that Tao’s interpretations deal mainly with three issues: (1) the issue of existence and non-existence; (2) the issue of objectivity and subjectivity; and (3) the issue of cultivation. Firstly, Tao views existence and non-existence as one and argues that “substance and function” and “stillness and action” are one, this better explain why one should not forsake the substance which “neither good nor evil” or the cultivation of “do good and eliminate evil”. Secondly, Tao based on the “non-knowing” Keywords: Tao Wangling, Jie Lao, Jie Zhuang, Neither good nor evil characteristic of the substance, opposes to holding on to either existence or non-existence. He argues that one should neither pursue nor forsake. Tao feels that, as long as one is holding on to something, one is establishing the standard for objectivity, and this is inevitably subjective. In view of this, he proposes one to neither pursue nor forsake in cultivation, to free one from objectivity and subjectivity and adapt to the ever-changing world. Tao was not the only one who used Laozi and Zhuangzi to respond to the issues surrounding the discourse of “neither good nor evil,” other Yangming scholars like Zhu Dezhi and Jiao Hong also expounded on “neither good nor evil” in their commentaries. This phenomenon is an advancement to both hermetical history of Laozi and Zhuangzi as well as the discourse of “neither good nor evil.” This paper aims to reconstruct Tao’s thoughts and philosophy as well as his interpretation of Laozi and Zhuangzi. Comparisons are made in the process to highlight the focus of interpretation among the Yangming scholars.