[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"guanxue-ren-zaiwo":3},{"slug":4,"topic":5,"name":6,"aliases":7,"school":10,"era":11,"oneLiner":15,"summary":16,"tags":17,"infobox":22,"sections":43,"quotes":62,"related":89,"seo":100},"zaiwo","ren","宰我",[8,9],"宰予","子我","ru",{"from":12,"to":13,"label":14},-551,-479,"生卒不详，系于孔门时代","敢于诘问礼制的孔门言语科弟子","宰我即宰予，字子我，是孔门言语科弟子。他善辩敢问，曾从功用与情感两面辩论三年之丧，也因昼寝受孔子严责，在质疑与受教之间形象鲜明。",[18,19,20,21],"孔门十哲","言语","三年之丧","礼",[23,26,29,31,34,37,40],{"label":24,"value":25},"姓","宰",{"label":27,"value":28},"名","予",{"label":30,"value":9},"字",{"label":32,"value":33},"生卒","不详",{"label":35,"value":36},"国籍","鲁国（传统说）",{"label":38,"value":39},"身份","孔门弟子",{"label":41,"value":42},"师承","孔子",[44,47,50,53,56,59],{"heading":45,"md":46},"生平","宰我，姓宰，名予，字子我，早期文献未载确切生卒。《史记·仲尼弟子列传》称其“利口辩辞”，与《论语》所列言语科地位相合。他在孔门中的可考活动多为问答，包括三年之丧、仁者是否投井及昼寝受责。其籍贯、仕齐与死亡记载均存疑。",{"heading":48,"md":49},"师承与孔门","《论语·先进》把宰我与子贡列在“言语”一科。他不像颜回那样默然体会，而常以尖锐设问检验老师主张。孔子并不压制提问，却会追究提问者能否承担话语背后的实践要求。宰我的名字因此常与严厉批评相连，但“言语”科的列名说明孔门仍承认其表达和论辩才能。《孟子·公孙丑上》又把宰我、子贡、有若列为“智足以知圣人”的弟子，并载宰我对孔子的高度赞叹，保存了不同于《论语》责备场面的尊师侧面。",{"heading":51,"md":52},"主要事迹","宰我认为三年之丧一年即可：君子三年不习礼乐，礼乐或将废坏，旧谷吃完、新谷已登，钻燧取火也已轮换一周。孔子没有先作抽象论证，而问他在父母丧期食稻衣锦是否心安；宰我答“安”，孔子便让他依所安而行。宰我退出后，孔子才向门人说明，孩子三年后才脱离父母怀抱，三年之丧是报答共同养育之恩。这场冲突使制度功用、内心安不安与亲情根源同时显现。\n\n另一章说“宰予昼寝”，孔子斥为朽木、粪土之墙，并由此把识人方法从听言信行改为听言观行。“昼寝”通常解作白日睡眠，后世也有其他训释；无论细节如何，孔子的重点都在言行必须相验。",{"heading":54,"md":55},"思想主张","宰我没有独立著作，其思想更适合从问题意识理解。他质疑三年之丧过久，诉诸礼乐教育的连续、农时更替和生活秩序，代表一种从制度功效衡量礼的思路。孔子的回应则把礼追溯到不忍与报亲之情。两者的张力不是简单的“重礼”与“反礼”，而是礼制期限应如何由公共功能和人情根源共同说明。\n\n他又问：若有人告诉仁者井中有“仁”，仁者是否会跟着下井？其中利用“仁”字也可指人的语义设置困局。孔子回答君子可以被引到井边，却不可使之陷入井中；可以用合情的话欺骗，却不能用无理之说愚弄。这表明仁并非不加判断地救人，德行必须与知辨相配。宰我的设问虽屡受纠正，却促使孔子说清原则的适用边界。",{"heading":57,"md":58},"文献中的形象","《论语》对宰我着墨不多，却保留明显张力：他有言语之才，也因昼寝令孔子改变察人方法；他敢讨论礼制，也被批为“不仁”；他设置智辩难题，又得到不失分寸的回答。若只摘取“朽木不可雕”，容易把他简化为顽劣学生；与四科评价和《孟子》的尊师之言合看，则可见一个善辩、好问而在言行关系上不断受教的弟子。\n\n《史记》称宰予任齐国临淄大夫，参与田常之乱而被灭族，孔子以之为耻。但《史记·田敬仲完世家》相关人物是阚止，字亦为子我，故后世多怀疑《仲尼弟子列传》混淆二人。宰我的结局应存疑，不能径据此定论。",{"heading":60,"md":61},"后世流变","宰我后来列入孔门十哲，在孔庙从祀体系中受封赠，明代通称“先贤宰子”。礼教叙述常把他问丧作为反例，把昼寝训诫浓缩成“朽木不可雕”的成语；现代讨论则较重视其问题意识。两种取向都不能脱离文本：先秦的宰我既非礼制理论的成熟反对者，也不只是负面人物，而是以诘问参与孔门教学的言语科弟子。",[63,70,76,82],{"text":64,"source":65,"note":66,"classic":67},"朽木不可雕也，粪土之墙不可杇也，于予与何诛？","《论语·公冶长》","孔子因宰予昼寝严加责备，并由此强调观察实际行为。",{"slug":68,"volume":69},"lunyu",5,{"text":71,"source":72,"note":73,"classic":74},"君子三年不为礼，礼必坏；三年不为乐，乐必崩。","《论语·阳货》","宰我以礼乐可能废坏为由，质疑三年之丧期限过长。",{"slug":68,"volume":75},17,{"text":77,"source":78,"note":79,"classic":80},"君子可逝也，不可陷也；可欺也，不可罔也。","《论语·雍也》","孔子答宰我关于井中有仁的设问，说明仁者救人仍须有判断。",{"slug":68,"volume":81},6,{"text":83,"source":84,"note":85,"classic":86},"以予观于夫子，贤于尧舜远矣。","《孟子·公孙丑上》","《孟子》所载宰我之言，以极高评价表达对孔子的尊崇。",{"slug":87,"volume":88},"mengzi",3,[90,92,94,97,98],{"topic":5,"slug":91},"kongzi",{"topic":5,"slug":93},"zigong",{"topic":95,"slug":96},"ming","li",{"topic":95,"slug":5},{"topic":95,"slug":99},"sannianzhisang",{"title":101,"description":102,"keywords":103},"宰我——宰予问三年之丧与昼寝受责 | 儒家百科","宰我是谁，孔子为何说朽木不可雕？本词条依据《论语》《孟子》《史记》介绍宰予的言语科地位、三年之丧辩论与井中有仁之问，并说明其仕齐遇祸记载可能混淆阚止。",[6,8,9,104,105,20,18,106],"宰予昼寝","朽木不可雕","言语科"]