本文首先對眾說紛紜的《列子》傳本提出看法，認為是在資料上保存了先秦古《列子》的若干遺文，後經張湛編輯注釋，於是《列子》始流行於世。至於《列子》因與《列子注》思想觀點有明顯差異，故作者不可能為張湛。其次，本文論証《列子》之成書思想，當在向秀與郭象之間，從向秀的無生自生論走向郭象的獨化論，從向秀的情欲自然論走向郭象的性分命定論，可知郭象獨化論並非異軍突起，乃是一社會思潮，向秀與《列子》已為之作了若干理論準備。再者，論述《列子注》從理論上把王弼的貴無論與郭象的獨化論統一起來，建構出玄學貴虛論，這是張湛為了避免貴無引起誤解而提出「至虛」概念用以代替「無」，其實就是將無的要義加以展開，所謂至虛，並非一客觀實體，而是指「以無為心」。 In the first place, I like to propose my opinion on the controversial 《Lieze》. I believe the book retains certain works left from the 《Lieze》 in the Qing Dynasty and, with the remarks of ZHANG Zhan, 《Lieze》 became a popular work. Owing to the remarkable difference between the points of view introduced by 《Lieze》 and 《Remarks on Lieze》, ZHANG Zhan could not be the author. In the second place, we have come to conclude that the thought introduced by 《Lieze》could be formed between XIANG Xiu and GUO Xiang. The fact that it changes from XIANG Xiu’s Self Production to GUO Xiang’s Self Creation and from XIANG Xiu’s Natural Desire to GUO Xiang’s Natural Function indicates that GUO Xiang’s Self Creationis not anything coming from nowhere, it is a social thinking and XIANG Xiu and 《Lieze》 both had made their contributions with certain theories. Secondly, when it comes to discussing 《Remarks on Lieze》 that theoretically unifies WANG Bi’s The Noble is Nothing and GUO Xiang’s Self Creation as the theory of Emptiness Governs Metaphysics, where ZHANG Zhan proposed the idea of utmost emptiness as replacement of lacking to avoid misunderstanding triggered by The Noble is Nothing. In fact, it is to explore the definition of lacking and the term of utmost emptiness is not any objective body, it means being centered on the lacking.
政大中文學報, 8, 29-44 Bulletin of the Department of Chinese Literature National Chengchi University