本文旨在藉由「張載氣論是否是箇大輪迴？」這項論題，探討自朱熹、高攀龍、徐必達，以迄王夫之對《正蒙》虛氣關係的不同解釋，在明清《正蒙》詮釋發展中的影響與意義。本文以為，儘管朱子並未完整地注解《正蒙》全書，但由於他在理學史上的關鍵地位，廣泛地影響明清《正蒙》注解者詮釋張載思想的觀點。其中至為關鍵的影響之一，即是朱子從理氣不離不雜的架構詮釋張載虛氣一體的關係。這可由早期《正蒙》詮釋者接受朱子以周張並提，至李光地辨析太極非太虛，而王植在《正蒙初義》中總結性地指出朱子以理氣論詮釋張載虛氣論之不當，卻又以太虛之三層義分別安立朱張二子之學中得見。相較於朱子下開明清《正蒙》諸詮之源的關鍵意義，王夫之晚年所著的《張子正蒙注》獨具慧眼，既上提氣之形上義，重新由虛氣一體的詮釋觀點，反思朱子詮釋橫渠氣論啟人疑議之處，更對顯自身氣論與張載氣學的相異之處。基於此，本文在研究步驟上，先探討朱子如何依「理在氣先」重詮《正蒙》，由此帶出朱子批判橫渠氣論是個大輪迴的理據。其次，闡明王夫之如何以「理在氣中」詮釋《正蒙》，並依此進路批判朱注之不宜。最後，本文從存在世界之根源、理序與終極歸趨，指出船山如在理氣之辨的主軸中，闡明張載氣論並未陷入輪迴困境，以及辨明此議題在詮釋《正蒙》時的必要性。 “Is Tai Xu a paradox?” This article discusses the differences between Gao Pan Long and Xu Bi Da’s interpretation of Zheng Meng, and what these interpretations meant to the scholars in Ming and Qing Dynasty who interpreted Zheng Meng. Although ChuHsi did not annotate the whole Zheng Meng, he started a trend of interpretations of Zheng Meng in the Ming and Qing Dynasty. He used the idea “Principle before Matter” to interpret Zheng Meng’s “Xu and Qi as One”, and this interpretation had great influences on the Zheng Meng annotators in Ming and Qing Dynasty. However, Wang Fuzhi had another clever explanation. He explained “Xu and Qi as one” with the metaphysical meaning of Qi. He also pointed out the questionable interpretations by Chu Hsi, and showed its differences with Zhang Zai’s Qi Theory. Firstly, this article discusses how Chu Hsi used his idea of “Principle before Matter” to reinterpret Zheng Meng, hence to provide evidence for the argument that Zhang Zai’s theory is paradoxical. Secondly, this article discusses how Wang Fuzhi’s idea of “Principle within Matter” is used to criticize the inappropriate annotations by Chu Hsi. Finally, by distinguishing Principles and Matters, this article explains why Wang Fuzhi had clarified that Zhang Zai’s theory is not paradoxical.
