再論《太一生水》中宇宙生成論的結構及想法

再論《太一生水》中宇宙生成論的結構及想法 ,对于想了解历史故事的朋友们来说，再論《太一生水》中宇宙生成論的結構及想法是一个非常想了解的问题，下面小编就带领大家看看这个问题。

原文标题：再論《太一生水》中宇宙生成論的結構及想法

（希伯來耶路撒冷大學東亞系）
（中國簡帛學國際論壇2009提交論文首發）
中文摘要：《太一生水》1至8号簡以宇宙生成爲主題，包括三個部分，即宇宙生成模式、宇宙生成過程之摘要以及若干宇宙論之擴大形式。經過分析三個部分的異同以及對“太一”與“水”之理解的改變，本篇揭示其三個想法不一貫。最初所提出的宇宙生成模式未見於先秦文獻，有可能奠基於崇拜太一、數術等背景，而後來的兩個部分除去第一個部分所有的特殊性，改變本來的想法，使《太一生水》和戰國末期的某一種共同理解更爲一致。筆者認爲《太一生水》中宇宙生成論的提出揭示着戰國末期對宇宙論思想的演變过程。
The Taiyi sheng shui太一生水belongs to the group of texts discovered from Tomb No. 1 at the site of Guodian 郭店 (Jingmen 荊門, Hubei Province) in 1993. Most scholars assess that the tomb belongs to a Chu petty noble, who died around 300 BCE; hence it is believed that most or all of the texts in the tomb date from the 4th century BCE. The text was copied together with the fragments of text, parallel to the Laozi老子 (the Guodian Laozi C fragments), forming with them “a single manuscript document.” The Taiyi sheng shui part comprises 14 slips and about 300 characters. Approximately two-thirds of the text deal with cosmogony (slips 1 to 8, about 190 characters). These eight slips present one of the earliest evidence for emerging cosmogonic thinking in China, and provide us with a rare glimpse at the early stages of the evolution of Chinese cosmogonic thought.
Despite its early dating, the discussion on the slips 1-8 appears sufficiently sophisticated to suggest an advanced stage of cosmogonic discourse. The Taiyi sheng shui cosmogony is well-structured, its vocabulary is rich and the terms it employs appear to have been carefully selected; and it presents the longest generative chain in the entire known corpus of pre-Qin literature. Importantly, both terminologically and structurally, the Taiyi sheng shui account differs significantly from those in other early sources, either received or recently unearthed.
The roots of the Taiyi sheng shui cosmogony are hard to follow. Some scholars link it with the religious tradition of the state of Chu楚and/or with astrological practices of the late Warring States to Han period. Other scholars discern in the text influence of the Laozi, of the Zhouyi周易philosophy, or of the yin-yang 陰陽 school. In what follows I shall explore these and other suppositions and try to locate the Taiyi sheng shui cosmogonic structure in contemporaneous discourse. My aim is to go beyond the common practice of analyzing the text’s cosmogony through exclusive focus on the terms it employs, but rather analyze how the function of these terms changed throughout the discussion. I hope to demonstrate that the short text comprises two conceptually different sections. The cosmogony of the first four slips has no parallels in the early literature and seems to imply a very peculiar background – probably, the Taiyi worship and/or astrological practices. Yet the second section appears as an attempt to accommodate this original perspective within a dominant cosmological approach of the middle to late Warring States period discourse. Thus, I shall argue that the Tai yi sheng shui actually reflects the dynamics of the development of cosmogonic thinking in the late 4th century BCE.
The Taiyi sheng shui presents cosmogony as a step-by-step process, in which every new stage introduces a new phenomenon or phenomena generated through the interaction of the elements presented in a previous stage. The text reads:
大一生水，水反薄大一，是以成天。天反薄大一，是以成地。天地復 相 薄 （1）也，是以成神明。神明復相薄也，是以成陰陽。陰陽復相薄也，是以成四時。四時（2）復[相]薄也，是以成寒熱。寒熱復相薄也，是以成濕燥。濕燥復相薄也，成嵗（3）而止。
故嵗者，濕燥之所生也。濕燥者，寒熱之所生也。寒熱者，[四時之所生也]。四時（4）者，陰陽 [之]所生[也]。陰陽者，神明之所生也。神明者，天地之所生也。天地（5）者，大一之所生也。
是故大一藏於水，行於時，周而或oooo（6）萬物母；一缺一盈，以己為萬物經。此天之所不能殺，地之所（7）不能埋，陰陽之所不能成。君子智此之謂。。。（8）
Taiyi produced Water. Water came back and joined Taiyi; thereby, Heaven was completed. Heaven came back and joined Taiyi; thereby, Earth was completed. Heaven and Earthreturned and joined each other; (1) thereby, spirits and illuminated were completed. Spirits and illuminated returned and joined each other; thereby, yin and yang were completed. Yin and yang returned and joined each other; thereby, the four seasons were completed. The four seasons (2) returned and joined [each other]; thereby, the cold and the heat were completed. The cold and the heat returned and joined each other; thereby, the wet and the dry were completed. The wet and the dry returned and joined each other, completed the year (3) and stopped.
Thus, the year is what was produced by the wet and the dry; the wet and the dry are what was produced by the cold and the heat; the cold and the heat [are what was produced by the four seasons]; the four seasons (4) are [what] was produced by yin and yang; yin and yang are what was produced by spirits and illuminated; spirits and illuminated are what was produced by Heaven and Earth; Heaven and Earth (5) are what was produced by Taiyi.
Therefore, Taiyi hides itself in Water, acts through the seasons, cycling, so it happens that oooo (6) the mother of Myriad things. Waning and waxing, it takes itself to be the guideline of Myriad things. This is what Heaven cannot kill, Earth (7) cannot bury, yin and yang cannot bring about completion. The gentleman who knows it is called… (8)
The content of slips 1-8 may be divided into three parts (three paragraphs in my translation, below referred to as the Parts A, B and C), connected by the particles “thus” gu 故 / “therefore” shigu 是故. The first section (Part A) presents a generative chain in nine steps which begin with Taiyi’s太一engendering the Water shui水, and then consequential creation of Heaven tian天, Earth di地, “spirits and illuminated” shen ming神明, yin陰 and yang陽, the four seasons si shi四時, the cold and the heat, the wet and the dry, and is crowned by the completion of the year sui 嵗 (slips 1-4).
This chain has two features: first, the Water was “produced” or “generated” sheng生, while all the other elements were “completed” cheng 成. This terminological difference may be due to the conceptual one: except for the Water, the rest of phenomena appear as a result of interaction of two elements, so the terms “produced” and “completed” seem to refer to different acts. Second, the whole process is carried out in two stages: in the beginning Water, Heaven and Earth are generated through the creative force of Taiyi itself, either exclusively by Taiyi, or with the help of the previous Tayi’s creature. The copulation of Heaven and Earth opens the second stage, establishing a new pattern for continuation of the genesis (slips 1-2). The direct connection with the Primary Source was broken; the process is advanced by the elements that were generated themselves. New phenomena are introduced in pairs or in fours (“the four seasons”); only the last element (“the year”) was “completed” alone, which also marks the end of the process (slips 2-4). The words “and stopped” er zhi而止 should thus mean the end of the entire cosmogonic process, implying that creation of "the year" crowned the process. Noteworthy, the four seasons did not generate the year directly (as they do in the Zidanku子弹库 Chu silk manuscript, the Shangshu尚書, “Yao dian” 堯典 chapter, or the Huainanzi淮南子, “Tianwen” 天文 chapter), but via completion of the natural phenomena such as “the cold and the heat” and “the wet and the dry” (slips 2-3). All this makes the Part A is the most original section of the text, considerably different from all the known sources.
The Part B summarizes the above cosmogony, repeating it in a reverse order, with three modifications. First, it omits the Water. Second, it replaces the term “completed” (cheng) with “generated” (sheng) throughout the description, ignoring the potential conceptual difference between these terms. Third, it does not pay attention to a possible difference between the two stages of the process.
The Part C explains the relationships between Taiyi and the world. It re-introduces the Water, imbuing it with a new function: it is now said to serve as a kind of abode for Taiyi, rather than being an active part of genesis. As well, it stresses the idea of cyclicity of Taiyi’s performance (slips 6 and, probably, 7), and the direct connection of the Primary Source with myriad things wanwu萬物 (slip 7). Finally, expanding on the encompassing domination of the principles of the universal functioning, the text says that “this is what Heaven cannot kill, Earth cannot bury, yin and yang cannot bring about completion” (slips 7-8), omitting the “spirits and illuminated” shen ming神明, which precede yin陰 and yang陽 in the cosmogony of the first part.
The scrutiny of the content of these eight slips of the Taiyi sheng shui suggests its internal inconsistency. The most pertinent details are the metamorphoses of the Water’s image through the three parts, and promotion of the yin-yang pair in the last one. Being typical for nearly all early Chinese works, some degree of inconsistency is usually assumed to be a result of their composite nature. While this explanation is acceptable for the Taiyi sheng shui as well, the comparison of the cosmogony of the slips 1-4 and the following discussion on the slips 4-8 suggests that the changes are not merely stylistic but may imply deeper conceptual differences.
By omitting Water from the genesis and contracting the first three steps of the Part A into “Heaven and Earth are what was produced by Taiyi” in Part B (slips 5-6), the text significantly modifies the nature of he cosmogonic process. Thus, the first step of the genesis in Part B strongly resembles the division of Primordial Chaos into Heaven and Earth, which is at odds with a more sophisticated system of the Part A. Next, the omission of “spirits and illuminated” and giving the priority to the yin-yang pair (Part C) makes the text much closer to the cosmological approach of the 3rd century BCE, where “spirits and illuminated” are completely absent from the cosmogonic accounts, and moreover, no elements intervene between “Heaven and Earth” and yin-yang in the relevant context.[2]Or in other words, while the cosmogony of the Part A does not fit into the yin yang theoretical mold,[3]the Part C (slips 7-8) cl

好的中国历史故事书

early does.
Thus, moving from the beginning to the end of the slips 1-8, we get two conceptually different pictures. While the former is highly original, the latter systematically eliminates most original features of the Part A, and brings the discussion into conformity with the Primordial Chaos dissolution and the yin-yang theoretical framework – the cosmological approach, shared by nearly all the texts of the 3rd century BCE.[4]To better illustrate my point, I shall continue with the analysis of two central elements of the Taiyi sheng shui cosmogony, Taiyi and Water.
The genesis was initiated by an entity, named “Taiyi.” It generates Water, then completes two basic elements of the cosmos, Heaven and Earth, and then does not participate in further generations. A lion’s share of scholarly discussion of the Taiyi sheng shui is focused on the identification of this Primary Source, or Primary Cause. In the most general terms, the problem may be reduced to the question of whether Taiyi of the Taiyi sheng shui is an abstract principle, or it refers to a highly venerated deity, mainly associated with the Chu religious tradition, the Polar star, its spirit, and the cult of this spirit.
To which extent Taiyi may be regarded as an abstraction remains a question. But while the written sources of the 4th century BCE or earlier are silent about the abstract meaning of Taiyi by that time, the Chu cult of Taiyi seems to be better attested, for example, by the Baoshan包山divination texts, roughly contemporary to the Guodian manuscript, and by other archeological findings of the last fifty years. Of course, this is not enough to prove the identification of Taiyi of the Taiyi sheng shui with this deity, but assuming that the cult of Taiyi existed by the time of composing of this cosmogony, the term “Taiyi” should have religious connotations for the contemporary reader. Besides, although the text does not refer straightforwardly to this cult, the Taiyi sheng shui cosmogony seems to be linked with the astrological practices shushu數術, later developed in a system of divination known as “Taiyi and Nine Palaces” Taiyi jiu gong太一九宮. This link also supports the religious interpretation of Taiyi (at least, to some extent), since these shushu were rooted in various religious and shamanistic practices (fangshu 方術, wushu 巫術) that included the worship of the Polar Star and Taiyi, its spirit.
While the Western scholars prefer the religious interpretation of Taiyi in this text, most Chinese scholars tend to regard Taiyi as an abstract principle, going further and identifying it with the Laozi’s concept of Dao道. The simplest way to put an counter-argument forward is to point that the text itself does not say “Dao” but “Taiyi” at the beginning of the genesis. Nevertheless, since “Dao as the Primary Source” is one of the most important and most obvious examples of the commonly accepted premises in the 3rd century BCE, let us look closer on the identification of these two terms.
In general, three kinds of arguments are presented in defense of this thesis. The first one is “bibliographical”: quite a number of texts of the 3rd century BCE employ Taiyi and Dao as the parallel or semantically close terms, or even explicitly identify them as the same (e.g., Xunzi荀子, “Li lun” 禮論; Zhuangzi莊子, “Tainxia” 天下; Liji禮記, “Li yun” 禮運; Lüshi chunqiu呂氏春秋, “Da yue” 大樂). But even if correct for the 3rd century, this identification should not necessarily remain valid for the previous one – especially given the fact that no clear textual parallel was found between the Taiyi sheng shui cosmogony and any of these texts.
The second argument is “structural.” Since both terms occupy the place of Primary Source, it was concluded that they should be the same thing. This statement, however, is based on two problematic premises: first, that all early Chinese cosmogonic discourse necessarily takes its source from the Laozi, and second, that the cosmogonic models of the two texts are isomorphic. Of these two, the first one can be contested,[5]as I am doing here, while the second one is simply wrong: none of the Laozi’s cosmogonic passages may be regarded as structurally identical to the Part A of the Taiyi sheng shui. Instead, it would be much more accurate to argue that the semantic fields of Dao and Taiyi overlap to the extent that both are conceived of as the primary source of the world, while their connotative fields should be quite different.
The last one is “textual.” It is pointed out that, though the text of the Laozi does not contain the compound “taiyi” (“da yi”), it frequently mentions the terms “tai” 大(“da”) “great” and “yi” 一 “One” referring to Dao, so their combination cannot but refer to the same concept as well. Three objections should be made with this respect. First, the term “great” is applied by the Laozi to a number of objects besides Dao (the best example is the Laozi, 25, where Dao, Heaven, Earth and King are equally referred to as being “great”; moreover, in the relevant passage of the Guodian Laozi A fragments Dao is not even the first in the list). Next, the relationships between Dao and “the One” in the Laozi are somewhat ambiguous; noteworthy, this ambiguity comes out in the cosmogonic context (Laozi, 42). Finally, and still more important is that the term “Dao” occurs in our manuscript five times (Taiyi sheng shui, slips 9, 10 and 11; the Guodian La

中国历史上三位老师的故事

ozi C, slips 3 and 4). It never appears as related to cosmogony neither being linked to Taiyi, but rather designates the natural way of things or/and the normative way of human activities. We may thus conclude that the text deliberately uses the term “Taiyi” to name the Pr

中国历史故事手绘头像

imary Source, and that this cosmogony was composed before the “Dao as the Primary Source” became a commonly shared presumption, and before Taiyi and Dao became synonyms in the cosmological context.
Thus, the identification of Taiyi as the Laozi’s Dao is imprecise. But at the same time, the slip 7 in the last section of the text reads:
the mother of myriad things. Waning and waxing, it takes itself to be the guideline of Myriad things
萬物母；一缺一盈，以己為萬物經。
Whether or not the expressions “mother of myriad things” wanwu mu萬物母 and “guideline of Myriad things” wanwu jing萬物經 refer to Taiyi,[6]they sound quite consistent with the text of Laozi (e.g., Laozi 1, 25, 52). Additionally, the last section of the text writes that Taiyi “acts through the seasons” xing yu shi行於時 (slip 6), which can be interpreted as naturalness and spontaneity, evoking the immediate association with Dao. Besides, the relations of Taiyi and Water as they appear in the expansion (“Taiyi hides itself in the Water” Taiyi cang yu shui大一藏於水, slip 6) may be regarded as spiritually close to those of Dao and water in the Laozi (e.g., Laozi, 8). Again, none of these details directly ensues from the initial cosmogonic argument.
The metamorphoses of Water are probably the most striking example of the changing approach from the beginning to the end of the slips. The original cosmogony tells us that it was the first element produced by Taiyi, and that it took an active part in the genesis by assisting Taiyi to create Heaven.
Given the pivotal importance of Water in the genesis in Part A, its elimination in the summary of Part B is surprising. A possible solution is provided in the slip 6: “Taiyi hides itself in the Water.” Water is no more a participant, but a kind of abode for Taiyi, probably akin to aura, or a space for its creative activity. Several attempts were made to align Water’s image of the Part A with that of the Part C. Pang Pu suggested that the ope

夸父追日是中国历史故事吗

ning sentence means “Taiyi transformed itself into water” Taiyi hua sheng shui大一化生水; the Water is thus treated to be a kind of physical incarnation of the abstract principle Taiyi, or the conditions “where Grand One is in its unmanifest state.” Alternatively, Chen Songchang argued for the reading “Taiyi was born in water” Taiyi sheng yu shui大一生於水. The obvious flaw of these readings of the text is that they create new difficulties for explaining the second step of the cosmogonic process, where “Water came back and joined Taiyi; thereby, Heaven was completed” (slip 1), which clearly sees Water and Taiyi as two different entities.
Originality of the conception of the initial stage of cosmogonic process as presented by the Taiyi sheng shui gave rise to different theories. Pang Pu suggested that “Taiyi” was probably added to the original water-based cosmogony (“Water genesis theory” shui cheng lun水生論). Although this “Water genesis theory” apparently has no precedents in the extant sources,[7]his observation makes sense in the context of my approach, since it implies that the text was built as to modify an early approach and bring it into line with the dominating discourse.
Like in the case of Taiyi, the Taiyi sheng shui is the single instance in the early Chinese literature of the active participation of Water in the cosmogonic process; yet unlike Taiyi, it has no counterpart in later cosmogonic or cosmological accounts. An array of hypotheses was proposed to explain its presence in the text. Some scholars indicate on the natural conditions of the Chu state, rich in water, with rainy climate. Reading the text astrologically, it was taken for Milky Way, the Celestial River. The Water may indicate the Northern sector of heaven, for those who would connect the text to the Five Elements wuxing五行 theory;[8]this also may be proposed as explanation for the “Taiyi hides itself in the Water” passage. Sarah Allan connects it to the idea of prima materia. This point, however, is misleading, in my view: Water is not a material but an actor in this cosmogony.[9]As well, she suggests the possible link with the flood myth.
Water as a metaphor or as a source of inspiration and emulation is an important concept in many Warring States texts, particularly the Laozi. Water is praised for its natural softness and the way it “acts” in the world; in this sense it is compared to Dao. In addition, water-related metaphors are commonly used in the cosmogonic and cosmological accounts in descriptions of Primordial Chaos. None of these aspects corresponds to the Water and the cosmic dimension of its creative function in Part A of the Taiyi sheng shui. Water appears here neither as a metaphor nor as a hint to the Primordial Chaos: its participation in the genesis is active, and it is not “primordial” but is generated by Taiyi. In the Part C, though, the picture changes: the phrase “Taiyi hides itself in the Water” allows both metaphorical and chaos-related reading, which leads several scholars to read the Taiyi sheng shui cosmogony as related to the model of Primordial Chaos dissolution.
To summarize: the text of the Taiyi sheng shui is composed of two distinct sections that apparently present different intellectual layers: the initial cosmogonic argument in the Part A (slips 1-4) and the following discussion in the Parts B and C (slips 4-8). The inconsistency in the depiction of genesis in the two parts suggests that the text was created to accommodate two conceptually different approaches, or, perhaps, to bring a very peculiar approach of the Part A into a line with the more broadly accepted approach. The initial cosmogonic argument presents a sophisticated generative chain, which may be related to earlier religious traditions and which allows religious interpretation of the Primary Source, Taiyi. This section has no parallels in the received texts. Yet the discussion in the Parts B and C eliminates most original features of the original cosmogony: the image of “Taiyi” becomes closer to Dao, “Water” loses its generative function, peculiarity of creation of “Heaven and Earth” is eliminated, “spirits and illuminated” are omitted altogether and are submerged within the yin-yang pair. As a result, the model we get can be directly associated with the well-known conceptions of Primordial Chaos and the yin-yang theoretical frameworks. On the textual level, the wording of the last sections is also much closer to the language of other pre-Qin texts, than that of the Part A.
The materials at hand do not allow, however, establishing a chronological priority of the cosmogony of the Part A of Taiyi sheng shui or of those ideas that influenced its modification. We cannot state priority of either Taiyi or Dao in getting the status of the Primary Source. Likewise, was the water, for instance, accepted as the metaphor of the Primordial Chaos because of the “watery nature” of the latter, or the conception of Primordial Chaos took its shape under the influence of the idea that Water preceded Heaven and Earth, and therefore the Chaos got the “watery” image, is currently a question of chicken and egg. But as we know that during the following century after the Guodian manuscript of Taiyi sheng shui was written down Taiyi lost much of its religious connotations and transformed into the parallel term for Dao, Water became a metaphor in the cosmogonic context, “spirits and illuminated” faded away from the cosmogonic accounts, while the importance of yin-yang increased drastically,[10]the hypothesis that the slips 1-8 of Taiyi sheng shui bear the traces of deliberate redaction seems to be accurate, or at least plausible.
To conclude, the Taiyi sheng shui testifies to the existence of an independent cosmogonic model in the 4th century BCE, the modification of which indicates a step in the direction of creating the uniform cosmogonic discourse.
（編者按：[1]I am extremely grateful to Prof. Chen Wei for the help and invaluable consultations during the work on this text, and to Prof. Yuri Pines for reading and commenting on the draft of this presentation.
[2]Importance of the yin-yang pair in the cosmogonic discourse of the 3rd century BCE is clearly seen in the commentaries to Zhouyi (e.g. Xici zhuan繫辭傳); Laozi, 42; Lüshi chunqiu呂氏春秋, “Da yue” 大樂. Absence of the shen ming in the cosmogonic accounts of the pre-Qin sources can be best demonstrated by those texts where both “Heaven and Earth” and “yin-yang” appear in the relevant context of creation of Myriad things; see for instance, Xunzi荀子, “Li lun” 禮論; Li ji禮記, “Yue ji” 樂記, “Li yun” 禮運.
[3]Yin and yang probably mean no more than “shadow” and “light” in the Part A.
[4]The counter-argument can be made that what I treat as “inconsistency” can actually be explained by shifting the subjects of discussion from the world genesis in the first section to the functioning of the already created world in the last one (as implied, for instance, by Harper, 2001: 8). But my point is still different, however: putting the philosophical interpretation of the text’s content aside, I argue that while the cosmogony of the slips 1-4 cannot be reduced to any of the known instances, the explanation of the slips 6-8 sounds quite consistently with the common views of the 3rd century BCE. Besides, this counter-argument does not explain the inconsistency of the initial cosmogonic argument and its summary.
[5]Historically speaking, we have no particular reason to give such credit to the text of Laozi: the earliest materials, associated with this text, were unearthed from the same tomb in Guodian as the Taiyi sheng shui was, so their dating is about the same. Moreover, the cosmogonic issue occupies a minor place in the Guodian Laozi fragments, while the Laozi, 42 (the ultimate example of the Laozi’s cosmogonic approach) is absent from these manuscripts.
[6]This depends on whether or not we read the slips 6 and 7 continuously; the option that this description refers to anything else but Taiyi is also possible. In that case we should admit that whether the slip 7 (and 8) does not belongs to this cosmogonic account, or the text introduces another term to define the source of Myriad things.
[7]Some scholars note the similarity of the Water’s image in the Taiyi sheng shui and the Guanzi管子, “Shui di”水地 chapter. However, the “Shui di” chapter has nothing to do with the cosmogony, and just praises the water for its role in the world and its significance in the life of Myriad things.
[8]With this respect, an interesting parallel may be drawn with the “Hong fan洪範” chapter of the Shang shu, which starts to list the elements with the water.
[9]In the early Chinese cosmogonic accounts, the idea of prima materia is linked to the idea of qi氣, or “primordial qi” yuan qi元氣, its polarization and subsequent division into two halves, which were to become Heaven and Earth (see for instance, Guanzi, “Neiye” 内業; Huainanzi, “Tainwen” 天文). The concept of qi does not appear at all on the slips 1-8, while the slip 10, which reads: “Below is the soil, so it is called ‘Earth.’ Above is qi, so it is called ‘Heaven.’ ” Xia tu ye, er wei zhi di. Shang qi ye, er wei zhi tian. 下，土也，而謂之地。上，氣也，而謂之天. The term qi is clearly employed in the sense of “air” and it does not occur again in the manuscript. This witness for the Taiyi sheng shui was not familiar with the conception of “primordial qi” or the “qi transformation” qi hua氣化 theory.
[10]Many of these features (e.g. Taiyi, shenming, Water) would be restored by the Han cosmogonic discourse; see for instance, the Huainanzi, Yan Zun’s嚴遵 commentary on the Laozi, a number of Zhouyi’s weishu緯書. (责任编辑：admin)

原文出处：http://his.newdu.com/a/201711/05/514250.html

以上是关于再論《太一生水》中宇宙生成論的結構及想法的介绍，希望对想了解历史故事的朋友们有所帮助。

本文标题：再論《太一生水》中宇宙生成論的結構及想法；本文链接：http://gazx.sd.cn/zggs/26756.html。