首页> 外文期刊>Religions >Guo Xiang and the Problem of Self-Cultivation in Daoist Naturalism
【24h】

Guo Xiang and the Problem of Self-Cultivation in Daoist Naturalism

机译:郭象与道家自然主义的修养问题

获取原文
       

摘要

Recent research on Daoism has distinguished various models of self-cultivation present in the tradition, in particular those which aim at returning humanity to a natural, spontaneous form of existence (often associated with early pre-Qin “philosophical” Daoism), and those which aim at transcending human nature through technical practices (often associated with later “religious” Daoism). During the Wei-Jin period, organized Daoist religion was still in its early stages, yet the difference between the two models was very much an issue in the Dark Learning ( xuanxue ) thought of the intellectual elite. In this paper, I trace this debate as expressed in Wei-Jin thinker Guo Xiang’s Commentary to the Zhuangzi , in particular in Guo’s criticisms of the desire or attempt to exceed the limits ( ji ) of one’s inherent nature and his reinterpretation of the Zhuangzi ’s criticisms of technical practices. While Guo follows Xiang Xiu in rejecting many of the claims of radical transcendence through self-cultivation, I argue that this does not imply that he lacks any positive conception of self-cultivation, but rather that he sees such cultivation as only possible through an immanent historical process in which both natural spontaneity and artificial techniques have a role to play.
机译:最近对道教的研究区分了传统中存在的各种修养模式,特别是那些旨在使人类恢复自然,自发的生存方式的模式(通常与先秦的“哲学”道教相关),以及那些旨在通过技术实践超越人性(通常与后来的“宗教”道教相关)。在魏晋时期,有组织的道教仍然处于早期阶段,但是两种模式之间的差异在知识分子的“黑暗学习”思想中是一个很大的问题。在本文中,我追溯了魏晋思想家郭向对庄子的评论中所表达的辩论,特别是郭对对一个人的内在本质的超越或渴望的批评以及对庄子的重新诠释。对技术实践的批评。郭继祥跟随项秀拒绝通过修养进行激进超越的许多主张时,我认为这并不意味着他缺乏任何积极的修养概念,而是他认为这样的修养只有通过内在才能实现自然自发性和人工技术都在其中发挥作用的历史过程。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号