Sentiment in Zhuangzi

老莊反親情倫理之說一向流行，持此論之學者分別由不同的詮釋角度，歸結出莊子「厭世」或「出世」的立場，認定莊子對親情倫理乃持反對的態度。然在《莊子》詮釋史中，認為莊子實不反親情倫理、甚至認為《莊子》親情立場與儒家相通的論述亦由來已久。 當代《莊》學研究專論「親情」者甚少，少數聚焦於親情的論述仍未著眼於實踐與操作方法。面對「孝」這個在中國傳統文化中深具影響力的論題，重視「懸解」的莊子，如何在「不可解」的牽繫下致力於一己心身之逍遙？ 本研究以親情為主軸，繼承《莊子》詮釋史上以莊子不反親情倫理的論述，藉由對勘經驗現象中《莊》、儒孝行踐履異同，探究二者生命觀與哲學底蘊之殊異，並由此對照關係彰顯莊子論孝特色與工夫進程。 經驗現象與實踐工夫的不同，必然反應其背後哲學底蘊的差異。在正常的境遇下，儒家和莊子所主張的孝行實踐並無二致。但當面臨「孝未必愛」乃至於父母之喪的情感變局，莊子於經驗現象中的孝道踐履與儒家有著很大的不同。儒家論域僅在「此世」，以仁、禮為孝道踐行的準繩，心安理得與否尤重於心靈平和。相較之下，莊子則肯定人的「真宰」、「真君」在「六合之外」以「薪盡火傳」的姿態永恆存在。 因此，莊子於「不可解於心」、「不擇地而安之」的孝敬與愛事外，更重視藉由「無情」、「安之若命」等工夫實踐「反本」、「全真」之道，以自身心靈的養護為首要目標。莊子理想中的情感，對於所有的親人、朋友乃至於情人，都仍要「不可解於心」、「不擇地而安之」從內而外、一以貫之地盡力付出，只是對於現象世界的結果，懷抱著無待、無執與無求的隨順態度，但求一己心靈不失平和靜定。並進一步透過孝行階梯，將此用情之道由一己生命推擴至天下眾人：由恪守儀節的「以敬孝」，到發自內心的「以愛孝」；進而放下牽掛、執著而「忘親」，推擴其工夫而「使親忘我」；最終達到能「忘」天下、更且「使天下兼忘我」的境界。The idea that Daoists like Laozi and Zhuangzi are opposed to family ethics has long been popular, with scholars who maintain this theory using different perspectives to argue that Zhuangzi, being “weary of the world” or “out of the world,” is conclusively opposed to family ethics. Yet, in the history of interpreting Zhuangzi, there has also been a long series of discourses arguing that Zhuangzi is really not anti-family in ethics, even to the point that the position of Zhuangzi on the family shares links with Confucian ethics. Few contemporary scholars are dedicated to researching the issue of “family relations” in Zhuangzi. Even when focused on a discourse relating to the family, they do not pay much attention to relevant practical implementation and operational methodology. Considering the deeply influential issue of “filiality” in traditional Chinese culture, one asks how Zhuangzi, who gives great weight to “extrication,” attains a carefree mind and body under the ties of the “inextricable?” This study mainly focuses on family relations, and intends to examine the similarities and differences between Zhuangzi and Confucian values, in terms of implementing filiality, view of life, and philosophical foundation. In the process, this study hopes to shed light on the richness and special characteristics of Zhuangzi's discourse on filiality. Differences in phenomenological experience and practice inevitably reflect differences in underlying philosophies. Under normal circumstances, the filiality espoused by Confucianism does not differ significantly from that as advocated by Zhuangzi. However, in the face of “filiality not leading to love” and drastic emotions in mourning the death of parents, the actual practice of filiality as pursued by Zhuangzi differs dramatically from Confucian filiality. The Confucian universe of discourse is limited to “this world.” It considers benevolence and propriety as the standards by which filiality is measured. Emphasis is given not to peace of mind and spirit but to follow the right way by heart. In contrast, Zhuangzi postulates that a “real ruler” and a “real lord” exist eternally “outside of this world,” akin to “a fire passing on even while the wood burns out.” Therefore, apart from filiality and love that are considered “inextricable from the heart” and the idea that “regardless of situation one should put [one’s parents] at ease,” Zhuangzi furthermore uses such terms as “passionless” and “at ease as if fated” to implement the way of “returning to the root,” and “being wholly genuine,” taking the nurturing of one’s own spirit as a primary purpose. The ideal sentiment as espoused by Zhuangzi is, for all family members, friends and even lovers, one that is “inextricable” and that “regardless of situation one should put [one’s parents] at ease.” It is a complete devotion from the inside out: one that embraces a compliant attitude but does not wait for outcomes, that does not stubbornly insist, and that does not seek after results, but without losing the peace and quiet of one’s own mindset. Moreover, using a ladder of filiality, he extends this path to everyone in the world. He goes from observing a rigorously formal and regular “filiality based on respect” to a “filiality based on love.” This progresses to a level in which family relations and ties become “forgetting relations,” and “having one's relatives forget oneself.” Ultimately, one reaches the realm of “forgetting the world” and “also having the world forget oneself.