孔子（前551-前479)在天人關係問題上，以「天」為人 事的最高主宰；在「命」的問題上，孔子以「亡之，命矣夫！」說出 了面對死亡的態度；顏淵（前521-前490)死，孔子言：「天喪予！ 天喪予！」子夏（前507-?)亦嘗對司馬牛言：「死生有命，富貴在 天。」孔子以「天」為人之「命」的主宰者。孟子（前372-前289) 論「命」，言：「莫非命也，順受其正；是故知命者，不立乎巖牆之 下。盡其道而死者，正命也；桎梏死者，非正命也。」以「殀壽不 貳，修身以俟之，所以立命也。」說明人的生命，乃源自天命，自我 修身立業，不以人為之事去傷害自己的生命；孟子的立論，是強調 從生到死之過程中，將生命轉化為參贊天地化育之功能的，面對死 亡問題應當安心等候天命。荀子（前298-?) —方面認為人「明於天 人之分」的目的，在於了解天、地、人的原則，以盡人之能；同時， 亦認為：「遇不遇者，時也；死生者，有命也。」境遇、死生皆為時 運與命所決定，因此主張「自然生死論」，接受人所面對生死的必然 結果。及至東漢，承繼以儒家思想為主的王充（27-96)，於論「命」 與孔、孟多所出入，主張「命」由「稟氣而成」、「氣成而形立」， 人一生命運的吉凶、禍福、窮達、貧富、貴賤以至於壽天、生 死……等，皆為初稟之氣所決定，而非人之善性潔行所能改變，於 是形成了他徹底命定論的思想。本文將從：一、命的形成及其表 候；二、三命說與王充論命；三、時與命：遭遇幸偶；四、王充的 國命論；五、命定論的偏失等五個面向作一探究，以期對王充「命」 論思想有扼要的理解。

On the relationships between heaven and men, Confucius considered heaven to be the supreme dominator of human matters. On the issue of “而ng”（命，destiny), Confucius expressed his attitude toward death by saying, “It is killing him. It is the appointment of Heaven, alas!” When Yan Yuan passed away, Confucius said, “Alas! Heaven is destroying me! Heaven is destroying me! ” Zi Xia also told Si-Ma Niu, “Death and life have their determined appointment; riches and honors depend upon Heaven.” Confucius saw “heaven” as the dominator of human beings’ “ming”（destiny). Mengzi discoursed on “ming,” saying, “There is an appointment for everything. A man should receive submissively what may be correctly ascribed thereto. Therefore, he who has the true idea of what is Heaven’s appointment will not stand beneath a precipitous wall. Death sustained in the discharge of one's duties may correctly be ascribed to the appointment of Heaven. Death under handcuffs and fetters cannot correctly be so ascribed.” He also said, “When neither a premature death nor long life causes a man any double-mindedness, he waits in the cultivation of his personal character for whatever issue; this is the way in which he establishes his Heaven-ordained being.” Mengzi meant to explain that men’s life originate from the mandate of heaven and one should cultivate his personal character and establish his career without harming his own life through artificial manipulation; Mengzi’s argument put emphasis on how, during the process from birth to death, to transform life into something capable to assist the transforming and nourishing powers of Heaven and Earth as well as how one should wait peacefully for his heavenly mandate in the face of death. Xunzi believed the purpose of understanding the different roles of heaven and men was to understand the principles of heaven, earth and men so as to exert one’s capacity; in the mean time, he also assumed, “Whether one meets or does not meet [with opportunities] depends on time; life and death depends on fate.” Meeting with opportunities along with life and death were all results of lot and destiny; therefore, Xunzi argued for the “theory of natural life and death,” that is, the acceptance of the inevitable consequences of life and death. In the Eastern Han Dynasty, Wang Chong, mostly a successor of Confucianism, distinguished himself in many ways from Confucius and Mengzi by his theory of “ming” (destiny). In his argumentation, “ming” was “accomplished by chi,” and “form was made as chi was accomplished;” the good luck and bad luck, fortune and misfortune, humbleness and success, poverty and wealth, nobleness and lowness, longevity and premature death, life and death and so on in one’s life were all determined by heaven’s gift and unchangeable by men’s good nature or noble behaviors. Such an argumentation formed his thought of total determination by fate. Here we try to understand Wang Chong’s thought on “ming” succinctly by inquiring the following five aspects: first, the formation and signs of “ming,” second, the theory of san-ming (three destinies) and Wang Chong’s theory of ming; third, time and destiny, that is, hitting on good chances, fourth, Wang Chong’s theory about the destiny of the state, and fifth, the flaws of the theory of fate determination.