“The Metaphor of Firewood and Fire”: Zhuangzi’s View of Life and Death and Its Atheist Thought

The “metaphor of firewood and fire” originates from the end of the chapter “The Secret of Nurturing Life” in the *Zhuangzi*: “The tinder is exhausted as fuel for the fire, but the fire is transmitted, and one does not know its end.” It is an important proposition in Zhuangzi’s philosophy, and interpretations by scholars of the *Zhuangzi* are numerous, diverse, and difficult to unify. The mainstream view holds that this metaphor refers to the relationship between form and spirit. Through an examination of the main thrust of *Zhuangzi* thought and a careful review of the interpretations of *Zhuangzi* scholars across the ages, the author believes that the “metaphor of firewood and fire” is in fact a representation of Zhuangzi’s view of life and death, and that it contains atheist thought.

“薪火之喻”出自《庄子·养生主》篇末，“指穷于为薪，火传也，不知其尽也”，是庄子哲学的重要命题，《庄》学家的解读可谓众说纷纭、驳杂难统，主流观点认为此喻所指乃形神关系。通过考究《庄子》思想主旨，爬梳历代《庄》学家的解读，笔者认为，“薪火之喻”实为庄子对其生死观的一种表征，且包含了无神论思想。

I. Multiple Misreadings of the “Metaphor of Firewood and Fire”

一、“薪火之喻”的多种误读

What exactly does Zhuangzi’s “metaphor of firewood and fire” mean? This is an unresolved puzzle in the history of *Zhuangzi* scholarship. The crux of the issue lies in understanding the objects to which “firewood” and “fire” refer. The various interpretations of the “metaphor of firewood and fire” are indeed mixed. To summarize, the main ones are as follows:

庄子“薪火之喻”到底为何义，这在《庄》学史上是一个难解之谜，问题的关键在于对“薪”与“火”所喻指对象的理解上。诸家对“薪火之喻”的诠解可谓驳杂，概括而言，主要有以下几种：

First, comparing “firewood and fire” to the relationship between form and spirit. This is the most popular view in the history of *Zhuangzi* scholarship. However, the “spirit” in the form-spirit relationship must be defined. “Spirit” has both a purely spiritual meaning and a meaning of a substantial soul. Pan Guiming believes that the boundary between these two meanings of “spirit” in the traditional form-spirit relationship is blurred, and “relatively speaking, the meaning of a substantial soul seems to be used more often.” Therefore, those who compare “firewood and fire” to form and spirit draw on both meanings of “spirit,” but the latter is more common. Those who take the purely spiritual meaning of “spirit” say that the “metaphor of firewood and fire” refers to the cultivation of the master of nurturing life, i.e., “spirit.” For example, Wang Xiaoyu says: “Spirit resides in form just as fire resides in firewood… One who nurtures life must take spirit as the master and form as the guest.” Interpreting Zhuangzi’s “metaphor of firewood and fire” from the perspective of nurturing form and spirit clearly takes the purely spiritual meaning of “spirit,” referring to the cultivation of human spirit. Compared with those who take the purely spiritual meaning of “spirit,” those who regard “spirit” as the soul are more numerous. Scholars of the Qing dynasty such as Lin Yunming, Liu Fengbao, and Wang Xianqian, and modern scholars such as Xuan Ying, Wang Shumin, Wu Linbo, and Guan Feng all hold this view. For instance, Wang Xianqian says: “Though the form passes away, the spirit endures forever… Firewood has an end, but fire is inexhaustible.” Guan Feng also says: “The firewood is exhausted but the fire is transmitted; the soul is immortal.” This takes the meaning of “spirit” as a substantial soul, interpreting Zhuangzi’s “metaphor of firewood and fire” as meaning that the human body perishes but the soul does not.

一者，以“薪火”比拟形神关系，这是《庄》学史上最为流行的说法。不过，形神之“神”须加规范，“神”有纯粹精神义，亦有实体灵魂义。潘桂明认为传统形神关系中的“神”之二义界限模糊，“相对而言，作为实体性灵魂的含义似乎更多地被使用”，故将“薪火”比拟形神者对“神”之二义皆有所取，但以后者居多。取“神”之纯粹精神义者，谓“薪火之喻”为养生之主即“神”之修养，如王孝鱼说：“神寓于形就如同火寓于薪……养生者必须以神为主，以形为宾。”从形神养生的角度解释庄子的“薪火之喻”，显然是取“神”之纯粹精神义，言修养人之精神。相比取“神”之纯粹精神义，将“神”视为灵魂者则更多，清代学者林云铭、刘凤苞、王先谦，近代学者宣颖、王叔岷、吴林伯、关锋等均持此说。如王先谦说：“形虽往，而神常存……薪有穷，火无尽。”关锋也说：“薪尽火传，灵魂不死。”此谓“神”之实体灵魂义，是将庄子“薪火之喻”理解为人之肉体消亡而灵魂不灭。

Second, comparing “firewood and fire” to the relationship between “life” and “knowledge.” This results from comparing the opening and closing sentences of the chapter “The Secret of Nurturing Life.” The chapter begins with “My life has a limit, but knowledge has no limit.” Those who connect this comparison of “life” and “knowledge” with the “metaphor of firewood and fire” include Xi Tong and Liu Wu. Xi Tong says: “The tinder is exhausted in aiding the firewood; that which has a limit. The fire is transmitted; that which has no limit. This is a metaphor to illustrate the meaning at the beginning of the chapter.” Liu Wu also says: “Firewood is a metaphor for life, fire is a metaphor for knowledge, and the transmission of fire by firewood is a metaphor for using life to follow knowledge.” This interprets the “metaphor of firewood and fire” as the finitude of life versus the infinitude of knowledge.

二者，以“薪火”比拟“生”与“知”的关系，这是将《庄子·养生主》首尾文句对照而观的结果。《养生主》篇首言“吾生也有涯，而知也无涯”，此“生”与“知”之比对，将其与“薪火之喻”相联系者有奚侗、刘武等人。奚侗说：“指之穷于助薪，有涯者也；火之传也，无涯者也，此设譬以申篇首之义。”刘武也说：“以薪喻生，以火喻知，以薪传火喻以生随知。”此谓“薪火之喻”为生命之有限与知识之无限。

Third, comparing “firewood and fire” to the relationship between “form” and “nature.” Hanshan Deqing and Zhong Tai hold this view. Hanshan says: “Though the form transforms, the nature endures forever, just as the firewood is exhausted but the fire remains.” Zhong Tai also says: “The tinder is exhausted in the firewood, but in the fire it is transferred, and can be transmitted without end. The beginning says ‘one can exhaust one’s years,’ and this says ‘one does not know its end.’ What is exhausted is the years; what is not exhausted is nature.” This interprets the “metaphor of firewood and fire” as the relationship between “form” (the physical body) and “nature” (human innate nature).

三者，以“薪火”比拟“形”与“性”的关系，憨山德清与钟泰持此说。憨山说：“言形虽化，而性常存，如薪尽而火存。”钟泰亦云：“指在薪则穷，在火则移，可传于无尽也。始云‘可以尽年’，此云‘不知其尽’，是尽者年而不尽者性。”此谓“薪火之喻”为“形”（身形）与“性”（人之本性）的关系。

Fourth, the “metaphor of firewood and fire” compares to the transmission of the cultural Way. This view corresponds to the contemporary meaning of “passing the torch,” referring to the transmission of a master’s teachings to disciples. For example, Qian Mu says: “‘Fire’ is merely a phenomenon with form, like what people today call ‘civilization’ or ‘culture,’ or it can be said to be an abstract ‘Way.’” This interprets the “metaphor of firewood and fire” as the unceasing transmission of culture.

四者，“薪火之喻”比拟文化之道的流衍，此说与“薪火相传”之今义相符，谓师徒传授之业。譬如钱穆说：“‘火’，仅一有形象之作用，乃如今人所谓之‘文明’‘文化’，或可说是一抽象之‘道’。”此谓“薪火之喻”为文化传承之生生不息。

Looking at the four views above, we believe that none of them is Zhuangzi’s original meaning. First, the reason why comparing “firewood and fire” to the form-spirit relationship is favored by many *Zhuangzi* scholars is not based on an interpretation of the *Zhuangzi* text itself, but is very likely influenced by the form-spirit debate of the Han, Wei, and Six Dynasties period. [1]1 The Han, Wei, and Six Dynasties period (roughly 2nd century BCE to 6th century CE) was a time of intense philosophical and religious debate in China, including disputes between Confucianism, Daoism, and the newly-arrived Buddhism, with the nature of the soul and its relation to the body a central topic. Starting with the Eastern Han atheist philosopher Huan Tan, Zhuangzi’s “metaphor of firewood and fire” was borrowed by both proponents and opponents of the extiction of the soul, becoming involved in the ideological debate on form and spirit. It became a theoretical weapon for proponents of the immortality of the soul (Buddhist believers) represented by Huiyuan and Zheng Xianzhi to oppose the extictionists. [2]2 Huiyuan (334–416 CE) was a prominent Buddhist monk who argued for the immortality of the soul; Zheng Xianzhi (364–427 CE) was a scholar-official who also defended the idea of an enduring spiritual substance. From then on, the “metaphor of firewood and fire” became linked with the form-spirit relationship, influencing numerous interpreters of the *Zhuangzi*. Among them, the fact that some scholars directly used the Buddhist view of form and spirit to explain the “metaphor of firewood and fire” is the most powerful proof. Lu Xixing, explaining “firewood” and “fire,” says: “Firewood is a metaphor for the four elements, fire is a metaphor for the primordial spirit.” Jiao Hong directly states: “According to Buddhist scriptures, there is an explanation of this: ‘The transmission of fire through firewood is like the transmission of spirit through form.’” Second, Zhuangzi’s “metaphor of firewood and fire” appears after the fable of “Qin Shi mourning Lao Dan” in “The Secret of Nurturing Life,” and should be related to Zhuangzi’s concept of life and death. Zhuangzi regards the life and death of Lao Dan as “timely” and “compliant,” intending to explain the natural principle of life and death. How could he then, at the end of the chapter, use “the firewood is exhausted but the fire is transmitted” to advocate the idea of the immortality of the spirit or the indestructibility of the soul? Third, some *Zhuangzi* scholars interpret Zhuangzi’s “metaphor of firewood and fire” as a metaphor for “form” and “nature,” or “life” and “knowledge.” This view is also difficult to sustain. On the one hand, “nature” and “form” are not opposites or parallel things. Human nature, in its essence, is an attribute of human life, so “nature” is the “nature” of “form,” not an independent existence. That is, “nature,” as a spiritual attribute of humans, must reside in “form.” On the other hand, the relationship between “life” and “knowledge” originally means the finitude of life versus the infinitude of knowledge. While connecting this with the “metaphor of firewood and fire” recognizes the “finitude” of “life” and “firewood” and the “infinitude” of “knowledge” and “fire,” this view has nothing to do with life and death, nor with nurturing life. Finally, Qian Mu’s interpretation of the “metaphor of firewood and fire” as the transmission of the cultural Way has significance for cultural history, but it is far from Zhuangzi’s original meaning. The chapter “The Way of Heaven” says: “The men of old died along with what could not be transmitted. So what you are reading, sir, is nothing but the dregs of the ancients!” This shows that Zhuangzi did not value cultural transmission. As Liu Wu rightly says: “Rhetoricians throughout history have all used ‘passing the torch’ as a metaphor for the transmission from teacher to disciple. This error has been passed down for a long time.”

纵观上述四种观点，我们认为它们皆非庄子之本义。首先，以“薪火”比拟形神关系之所以受到众多《庄》学家的青睐不是基于对《庄子》文本的解读，而很大可能是受汉魏六朝形神之辩的影响。自东汉无神论哲学家桓谭起，庄子的“薪火之喻”被神灭论者与神不灭论者所借用，卷入到形神之辩的思想论争中，成为以慧远、郑鲜之为代表的神不灭论者（佛教信众）对抗神灭论者的理论武器。自此，“薪火之喻”与形神关系勾连起来，影响了为数众多的解《庄》者。其中，部分学者直接以佛教的形神观解释“薪火之喻”就是最为有力的证明，陆西星释“薪”“火”时说：“薪喻四大，火喻元神”，焦竑则直言：“按佛典有解此者曰：‘火之传于薪，犹神之传于形’”。其次，庄子“薪火之喻”是在《养生主》“秦失吊唁老聃”寓言故事之后，当与庄子的生死理念有关。庄子视老聃之生死为“时也”与“顺也”，意在说明生死自然的道理，又怎会在篇末以“薪尽火传”宣扬精神不死或灵魂不灭的思想呢！再次，有些《庄》学家将庄子的“薪火之喻”理解为是对“形”与“性”、“生”与“知”的喻指，此说显然也难以成立：一方面，“性”与“形”不是对立或并列之物，人之本性究其根本是人之生命的属性，故“性”乃是“形”之“性”，而非独立存在，即“性”作为人的精神属性，必寓于“形”之中；另一方面，“生”与“知”的关系，本义是指生命的有限与知识的无限，将其与“薪火之喻”相联系虽然看到了“生”与“薪”的“有尽”、“知”与“火”的“不尽”，但此说与生死无干，与养生亦无涉。最后，钱穆将“薪火之喻”当作文化之道的流衍，有文化史的意义，但与庄子本义相距甚远。《天道》篇说：“古之人与其不可传也死矣，然则君之所读者，古人之糟粕已夫！”可见庄子并不看重文化传承。诚如刘武所言：“历来修辞家，均以薪传为师弟传受之喻，谬误相承，由来已久。”

Based on the above analysis, interpreting the “metaphor of firewood and fire” in terms of “form” and “spirit,” “form” and “nature,” “life” and “knowledge,” or the transmission of the cultural Way are all misreadings of Zhuangzi’s original meaning.

综合上述所辨，以“形”与“神”、“形”与“性”、“生”与“知”、文化之道的传承诠解“薪火之喻”都是对庄子原义的误读。

II. The “Metaphor of Firewood and Fire” and Zhuangzi’s View of Life and Death

二、“薪火之喻”与庄子生死观

In the pre-Qin period, the most detailed discussion of the issue of life and death is first attributed to Zhuangzi. At the end of the chapter “The Secret of Nurturing Life,” through the fable of “Qin Shi mourning Lao Dan,” Zhuangzi clarifies his view on human life and death, and this view of life and death is precisely the reasonable explanation for the “metaphor of firewood and fire.”

先秦时期，论生死问题较详实者，首推庄子。庄子在《养生主》篇末通过“秦失吊唁老聃”的寓言阐明了他对人之生死的看法，而此种生死观正是对“薪火之喻”的合理解释。

According to Zhuangzi: When Lao Dan died, the crowd wept bitterly. Qin Shi called them “those who flee from Heaven and violate their true nature, those who incur the punishment of Heaven.” He said: “When he came, it was because the Master was timely; when he went, it was because the Master was compliant. Be at peace with the times and dwell in compliance, and sorrow and joy cannot enter. The ancients called this ‘the release from the hanging.’” Here, Zhuangzi puts forward the concept of life and death as natural, compliant, and transformative. Zhuangzi advocates that in facing human life and death, one should comply with the transformation of Heaven and Earth and nature. Since life is “timely” and death is “compliant,” people should “be at peace with the times and dwell in compliance,” accepting life and death with equanimity. Only in this way can one achieve the state of “release from the hanging,” where “sorrow and joy cannot enter.” “Release from the hanging” means liberation. Xuan Ying says: “People suffer from life and death as if hanging upside down. Forgetting life and death, then one is released from the hanging.” The so-called “forgetting life and death” does not mean that people truly forget life and death, but rather emphasizes that people living in the real world can avoid being troubled by the suffering of life and death, overcoming the fear that death brings to people on a spiritual level. That is, through “forgetting life and death,” one achieves a transcendence of life and death. As for how to achieve “forgetting life and death,” Zhuangzi proposes the idea of the “metaphor of firewood and fire,” which is to embed individual life and death into the transformation of the universe and nature through the “transformation of things” in life and death, thereby dissolving the fear of death at the individual level. That is to say, the essence of Zhuangzi’s “metaphor of firewood and fire” is “the process of integrating the individual life (the small self) into the entire universe (the great self), attaining the ideological realm of ‘Heaven and Earth are born together with me, and the ten thousand things are one with me’ (from ‘The Equality of Things’), replacing the actual death of the living individual with the unceasing generation and transformation of the great cosmos, and ultimately achieving the spiritual state of ‘forgetting life and death’ at the personal level, i.e., the state of ‘release from the hanging’ where ‘sorrow and joy cannot enter.’”

据庄子所言：老聃死，众人啼哭，秦失称他们为“遁天倍情，遁天之刑”，并说：“适来，夫子时也；适去，夫子顺也。安时而处顺，哀乐不能入也，古者谓是帝之县解。”在这里，庄子提出了生死自然、顺适而化的生死观念。庄子主张面对人的生死，应当顺应天地自然之化，既然生为“时”，死为“顺”，那么人就该“安时而处顺”，坦然接受生与死，只有这样才可实现“哀乐不能入”的“县解”境界。“县解”即“悬解”，宣颖说：“人为生死所苦，犹如倒悬，忘生死，则悬解矣。”所谓“忘生死”并非指人真正地忘掉生死，而是强调生存于现实世界的人可以不为生死之苦所扰，在精神层面上克服死亡带给人的恐惧，即通过“忘生死”进行生死超越。至于如何做到“忘生死”，庄子提出“薪火之喻”的主张，即通过生死“物化”的形式将个体生死寓于宇宙天地之化中，从而消解个体层面的死亡恐惧。也就是说，庄子“薪火之喻”的实质是“将个体生命（小我）融入整个宇宙（大我）的过程，达到‘天地与我并生，而万物与我为一’（《齐物论》）的思想境界”，是通过宇宙大化的生生不息取代生存个体的现实死亡，最终实现个人精神层面的“忘生死”，即“哀乐不能入”的“悬解”境界。

Scholars of the *Zhuangzi* in both ancient and modern times have touched upon the transcendent meaning of life and death in Zhuangzi’s “metaphor of firewood and fire.” Lin Xiyi said: “This is a metaphor for life and death. Firewood has a time when it is exhausted, yet the fire in the world is transmitted without end, and one never sees it exhausted.” Lin Xiyi proposed that “firewood has exhaustion” refers to the life and death of the individual, while “transmitted without end” refers to “the fire in the world,” carrying the implication of the continuation of collective life. Although Lin’s theory did not elevate Zhuangzi’s “metaphor of firewood and fire” to the level of the great transformation of the cosmos, it nonetheless broke away from the traditional idea of “firewood and fire” as a metaphor for form and spirit, using the infinity of collective life to analogize “the fire is transmitted without end.” Submerging individual life within collective life, thereby enabling the individual to achieve a spiritual transcendence of life and death—this is a further understanding of Zhuangzi’s “metaphor of firewood and fire.” However, merely understanding the “metaphor of firewood and fire” as a relationship of transformation between individual life and collective life is insufficient; such an understanding cannot find a basis in Zhuangzi’s thought. Therefore, to understand the meaning of life and death in Zhuangzi’s “metaphor of firewood and fire,” it is necessary not only to further elevate collective life to the level of the great transformation of the cosmos but also to seek ideological support from the text of the *Zhuangzi*.

对于庄子“薪火之喻”的生死超越义涵，古今《庄》学家有所论及。林希逸说：“此死生之喻也，薪有穷尽之时，而世间之火，传而不绝，未尝见其尽。”林希逸提出“薪有穷尽”是指个体生死，而“传而不绝”是指“世间之火”，带有群体生命延续的意蕴。林氏之说，虽然没有将庄子“薪火之喻”上升至宇宙大化的高度，但毕竟从传统的“薪火”喻形神思想中跳了出来，以群体生命的无限比喻“火传而不尽”。将个体生命寓于群体生命之中，从而实现个体对生死的精神超越，这是对庄子“薪火之喻”的进一步理解。不过，仅仅是将“薪火之喻”理解为个体生命与群体生命间的转换关系是不够的，此种理解无法在庄子思想中找到根据。故对庄子“薪火之喻”的生死义涵的理解不仅需要进一步将群体生命提升至宇宙大化的高度，而且也需要从《庄子》文本中寻得思想依据。

Zhuangzi never explicitly spoke of collective life, but he placed great emphasis on the transformation of life within the cosmos. This mutual transformation among life forms, Zhuangzi called “the transformation of things.” [3]3 “The transformation of things” (物化, *wuhua*): A key concept in the *Zhuangzi* referring to the spontaneous and continuous transformation of all things in the cosmos into one another, often illustrated by the famous story of Zhuangzi dreaming he was a butterfly. Although “the transformation of things” is the spontaneous movement of things ( *Autumn Floods* : “The birth of things is like a galloping horse… they certainly transform themselves”), it is not directed at the individual but at the entire cosmos and earth. This can be known from Zhuangzi’s statements: “Though heaven and earth are great, their transformation is uniform” ( *Heaven and Earth* ) and “the ten thousand things all transform” ( *Supreme Joy* ). Hence, Zhuangzi never connected individual life with collective life; instead, he connected individual life with the great transformation of the cosmos. This is precisely where the fundamental meaning of the “metaphor of firewood and fire” lies. On this, Shi Xingtong said: “The form has an end, but the master has no end. Form succeeds form, transformation after transformation is inexhaustible, just like the transmission of fire by firewood—how could there be an end?” Shi Xingtong’s “form succeeds form” refers to the cycle of individual life, while “transformation after transformation is inexhaustible” refers to the ceaseless generation of the great transformation of the cosmos. Li Cunshan also said: “‘The finger is exhausted by the firewood’ refers to the end of individual life; ‘the fire is transmitted, without end’ refers to the continuation of the great transformation of the cosmos.” Individual life is submerged within the great transformation of the cosmos; through the “immortality” of the great transformation of the cosmos, the individual life achieves “non-perishing.” In this process of transcending life and death, although the individual life has already perished, because the individual life and the great transformation of the cosmos are united as one, as long as the great transformation of the cosmos does not cease, the individual life can also be “long-lasting.” Therefore, the “metaphor of firewood and fire” is in fact Zhuangzi’s way of submerging individual life and death within the great transformation of the cosmos, thereby transcending life and death. However, the inevitability of death determines that the transcendence of life and death cannot be realized in the real, empirical world; it can only exist in the spiritual world of the transcending subject, or rather, only within the subject’s mind. Zhuangzi’s “metaphor of firewood and fire” is likewise. As Li Zhengang said, “Zhuangzi points out the contradiction between the finitude of ‘form’ and the infinitude of the great transformation of the cosmos, emphasizing that the mind transcends the limitation of ‘form’ and conforms to the infinite nature of life.” This is a reasonable interpretation of Zhuangzi’s “metaphor of firewood and fire.”

庄子从未明言群体生命，但却十分注重宇宙间的生命转化。此种生命间的相互转化，庄子称之为“物化”。“物化”虽然是事物自为的运动（《秋水》：“物之生也，若骤若驰……夫固将自化”），但却不是针对个体而言的，是就整个宇宙天地来说的，这从庄子所谓“天地虽大，其化均也”（《天地》）与“万物皆化”（《至乐》）的论述中就可得知。故而，庄子不曾将个体生命与群体生命联系，而是将个体生命与宇宙大化联系起来，这正是“薪火之喻”的根本喻义之所在。对此，释性通说：“形有尽而主无尽也，形形相禅，化化无穷，正如薪火之传，何有极尽。”释性通所谓“形形相禅”是指个体生命的循环往复，“化化无穷”则是说宇宙大化的生生不息。李存山也说：“‘指穷于为薪’是指个体生命的结束；‘火传也，不知其尽也’是指宇宙大化的继续。”个体生命寓于宇宙大化之中，通过宇宙大化的“不死”实现个体生命的“不亡”，在这个生死超越的过程中，个体生命虽然已经消亡，但由于个体生命与宇宙大化合为一体，故只要宇宙大化不息，则个体生命也可“长久”。因此，“薪火之喻”实是庄子将个体生死寓于宇宙大化之中，并以此方式进行生死超越。不过，死亡的必然性决定了生死超越不可能在现实的经验世界中实现，只能存于超越主体的精神世界中，或者说仅限于主体的心中，庄子的“薪火之喻”亦是如此。恰如李振刚所说，“庄子点破‘形’之有限性和宇宙大化之无限性的矛盾，强调心灵超越‘形’的限制，契合无限的生命本性。”这是对庄子“薪火之喻”的合理诠释。

However, how could Zhuangzi connect individual life and death with the great transformation of the cosmos through “the transformation of things”? This is related to the essence of “the transformation of things.” In the chapter *Fables* , Zhuangzi says, “The ten thousand things all have seeds, and they succeed one another in different forms.” Cheng Xuanying’s *Subcommentary* states: “The multitude of things, receiving their endowment from creation, receive one kind of qi but have different forms and substances; they move and flow in succession, replacing one another.” This reveals the essence of “the transformation of things”: the reason different life forms in the cosmos can transform is fundamentally that their life essence belongs to the same “qi.” Qi is the basic material element constituting heaven, earth, and the ten thousand things, including human life and death. At the cosmic ontological level of qi, the ten thousand things can all be reduced to “the One.” In *Knowledge Wanders North* , Zhuangzi says: “If life and death are companions, then the ten thousand things are one… ‘The whole world is one qi.’” “The whole world is one qi” indicates that qi is the material substance of all things in the cosmos; the essence of any thing is qi. Hence, the essence of Zhuangzi’s “transformation of things” is “transformation of qi.” It is precisely because of the existence of the qi of heaven and earth that Zhuangzi could, through the form of “the transformation of things,” connect individual life and death with the great transformation of the cosmos, achieving a spiritual state of “immortality” (infinity) where “life and death are companions.”

然而，庄子何以能够以“物化”联系个体生死与宇宙大化呢，这与“物化”的本质有关。庄子于《寓言》篇说“万物皆种，以不同形相禅”，成玄英《疏》云：“夫物芸芸，禀之造化，受气一种而形质不同，运运迁流而更相代谢。”这是对“物化”本质的揭橥，宇宙间的不同生命形态之所以可以转化，究其根本在于它们的生命本质同属于“气”，“气”是构成天地万物，包括人之生死的基本物质元素，在“气”的宇宙本体层面，万物皆可归于“一”。《知北游》中，庄子说：“若死生为徒，故万物为一……‘通天下一气耳’。”“天下一气”说明“气”是宇宙万物的物质本体，任何事物的本质皆为“气”，故庄子“物化”的本质就是“气化”。正是由于天地之“气”的存在，庄子才可能以“物化”的形式将个体生死与宇宙大化贯通为一，实现精神层面“死生为徒”的“不死”(无限)状态。

Some scholars in the history of *Zhuangzi* studies have also mentioned taking the cosmic ontology of qi as the key to understanding Zhuangzi’s “metaphor of firewood and fire.” Lu Xixing said: “In the great framework, one qi is chaotic and indistinct, continuing without interruption, like fire being transmitted when it encounters firewood.” Guo Songtao also said: “The qi that comes and goes in the great void, humans obtain it to live, just like firewood transmitting fire.” Therefore, qi is not only the substance of the ten thousand things in the cosmos but also the material basis constituting the great transformation of the cosmos. The transformation of forms (“the transformation of things”) among different things must all proceed within the scope of qi. Hence, Zhuangzi relies on qi to submerge individual life and death within the great transformation of the cosmos, thereby transcending life and death.

将“气”的宇宙本体性作为理解庄子“薪火之喻”的关键所在，《庄》学史上也有学者提及。陆西星说：“在大匡廓中，一气混芒，嗣续不绝，喻如火相得薪则传。”郭嵩焘也说：“太虚来往之气，人得之以生，犹薪之传火也。”所以“气”不仅是宇宙万物的本体，也是构成宇宙大化的物质基础，不同事物间的形化（“物化”）都须在“气”的范围内进行，故庄子实是依靠“气”才将个体生死寓于宇宙大化之中，从而超越生死的。

At this point, the ideological essence of the “metaphor of firewood and fire” has become clear: through the form of “the transformation of things,” which takes qi as its ontological basis, Zhuangzi submerges individual life and death within the great transformation of the cosmos, transforming the finitude of individual life into the infinitude of cosmic transformation at the spiritual level of the human being, thereby achieving the transcendence of life and death for the existing individual.

至此，“薪火之喻”的思想实质已经明晰：庄子通过以“气”为本体基础的“物化”形式将个体生死寓于宇宙大化之中，将个体生命的有限性在人之精神层面上转化为宇宙之化的无限性，以此实现存在个体的生死超越。

III. The Atheist Thought in the “Metaphor of Firewood and Fire”

三、“薪火之喻”的无神论思想

After clarifying the ideological essence of Zhuangzi’s “metaphor of firewood and fire,” we find that the view of life and death Zhuangzi expresses through this metaphor contains a strong atheist color, rather than, as Buddhist believers of the Wei and Jin dynasties claimed, Zhuangzi’s “metaphor of firewood and fire” propagating the theory of the indestructibility of the spirit that asserts the existence of the soul. Some scholars believe that Zhuangzi’s atheist thought inherits and develops Laozi’s atheist thought. This is not only reflected in “the philosophical discourse of the *Zhuangzi* taking the Way as its guiding principle, but also more concretely presented in Zhuangzi’s elaboration on issues of ghosts and spirits, immortals, and life and death.” In fact, the core essence of Zhuangzi’s atheist thought is mainly concentrated in his understanding of the problem of human life and death, especially embodied in two aspects: the naturalness of life and death and the negation of the concept of the soul. Both of these aspects can be glimpsed in Zhuangzi’s “metaphor of firewood and fire.” The fundamental distinction between atheist thought and theist thought lies in its negation of the concept of the soul. The concept of the soul is the foundation of all religious theories. The atheist insistence that there is no soul is not only an affirmation of the inevitability and finality of human (individual) death but also implies a thorough negation of the existence of ghosts and spirits. In Zhuangzi’s view of life and death, the inevitability and finality of individual death are manifested through the concept of the naturalness of life and death, while the thorough negation of the existence of ghosts and spirits is reflected through the denial of a reified “spirit” (the “spirit” in the Wei-Jin debate on form and spirit, whose essence is the immortal and indestructible soul).

在明晰庄子“薪火之喻”的思想实质后，我们发现庄子通过“薪火之喻”所要表达的生死观中蕴含着浓厚的无神论色彩，而不是像魏晋佛教信徒所说的那样，庄子的“薪火之喻”是在宣扬灵魂存在的神不灭论。有学者认为庄子的无神论思想是对老子无神论思想的继承与发扬，这不仅体现为“《庄子》以道为纲的哲学论述，更具体呈现于庄子在鬼神问题、神仙问题和生死问题诸方面的阐述”。实际上，庄子无神论思想的核心要旨主要集中于他对人之生死问题的理解层面，尤其体现在生死自然与对灵魂观念的否定两个方面，而这两个方面在庄子的“薪火之喻”中都可得以管窥。无神论思想区别于有神论思想的根本在于它对灵魂观念的否定，灵魂观念是一切宗教理论的基础，无神论者坚持没有灵魂存在的观点不仅是对人（个体）之死亡必然性与断灭性的肯定，而且也意味着对鬼神存在观念的彻底否定。在庄子的生死观中，个体死亡的必然性与断灭性是通过生死自然的观念体现出来的，而对鬼神存在观念的彻底否定则是通过否定实体化的“神”（魏晋形神之辩中的“神”，其本质就是永生不灭的灵魂）反映出来。

On the one hand, “the metaphor of firewood and flame” embodies Zhuangzi’s concept of life and death as natural. As discussed above, what Zhuangzi means by “the fingers are exhausted in serving as firewood” refers to the death of the actual individual life; this is Zhuangzi’s affirmation of the fact that the individual must die, which is in fact the concept that life and death are natural. That is to say, Zhuangzi believes that living individuals in the real world inevitably have death as surely as they have life, and there is no possibility of immortality or reincarnation. In “The Nourishment of Life” [《养生主》], Zhuangzi rebukes those who weep at the death of Lao Dan [老聃] as “fleeing from Heaven and doubling one’s emotions.” Cheng Xuanying’s [成玄英] commentary states: “To flee from the principle of Heaven and double one’s worldly emotions, to let grief and joy lodge in the heart, and to suffer mental distress.” What Cheng Xuanying calls “worldly emotions” refers to the common human feelings of delight in life and aversion to death, while what he calls “the principle of Heaven” refers to the natural principle of life and death, i.e., knowing that human life and death are the result of the natural operation of Heaven and Earth. The chapter “The Great Ancestral Teacher” [《大宗师》] says: “Life and death are fate; they are like the constancy of day and night—Heaven.” According to Zhuangzi, human life and death are like the alternation of day and night between Heaven and Earth; both are “fate” and both are “Heaven.” “Heaven” means nature, so “Autumn Floods” [《秋水》] says: “Oxen and horses have four feet—this is called Heaven.” Since the phenomena of human life and death are both natural, then as surely as humans have life, they must also have death; this is an acknowledgment of the inevitability of death. Moreover, because Zhuangzi holds that human life and death are purely natural, this determines that the existence of the individual life is not only finite but also limited to the present life, with no possibility of rebirth such as the Buddhist concept of reincarnation. Although Zhuangzi has the idea of transcending life and death through “transformation of things” [物化], “transformation of things” no longer pertains to the individual life but rather to the ceaseless generation of the entire cosmic transformation. Therefore, while affirming the inevitability of death, Zhuangzi also affirms the finality of individual death. The inevitability and finality of human death embody Zhuangzi’s concept of life and death as natural, and also contain his negation of the idea of a substantive soul; this is a typical atheist thought.

一方面，“薪火之喻”体现出庄子生死自然的观念。如前文所说，庄子所谓“指穷于为薪”是指现实个体生命的死亡，这是庄子对个体之必死事实的肯定，实际上就是死生自然的观念。也就是说，庄子认为现实世界中的生命个体有生必然有死，不存在永生或轮回转世的可能。《养生主》中，庄子指责那些为老聃死亡而哭泣的人是“遁天倍情”，成玄英《疏》曰：“夫逃遁天理，倍加俗情，哀乐经怀，心灵困苦”。成玄英之谓“俗情”当指常人乐生恶死之情，而所说“天理”是指生死自然之理，即知晓人之生死乃是天地自然运作的结果。《大宗师》篇云：“死生，命也，其有夜旦之常，天也。”依庄子，人的生死犹如天地之间的昼夜交替一般，皆为“命”，皆为“天”。“天”者，自然也，故《秋水》曰：“牛马四足，是谓天。”既然人之生死现象皆为自然，那么人之有生的同时，也必然有死，这是对死亡必然性的认可。此外，由于庄子认为人之生死纯属自然，这就决定了个体生命的存在不仅有限，而且只限于当世，没有像佛教所谓轮回转世那样的再生可能，虽然庄子具有通过“物化”超越生死的观念，但“物化”已不再是针对生命个体，而是就整个宇宙大化的生生不息来说的。因此，庄子在肯定死亡必然性的同时，又肯定了个体死亡的断灭性。人之死亡的必然性与断灭性是庄子生死自然理念的体现，也包含着他对实体性灵魂观念的否定，是典型的无神论思想。

On the other hand, “the metaphor of firewood and flame” embodies Zhuangzi’s negation of the “spirit” [神] in the sense of a soul. Zhuangzi’s saying “the flame is transmitted, and one does not know its end” is a description of the perpetual regeneration of the great cosmic transformation; “the firewood is exhausted but the flame is transmitted” places individual life and death within the great cosmic transformation, thereby transcending individual death through the concept of “transformation of things” based on the substance of “qi” [气], and achieving the eternity of life. In this process of transcending life and death, we find that Zhuangzi in fact negates the existence of a substantivized “spirit,” i.e., a direct negation of the concept of the existence of a soul. As the Japanese scholar Fukunaga Mitsuji [福永光司] states, “Zhuangzi believes that life is immortal; what Zhuangzi refers to is not the immortality of the so-called soul or religious eternal life… The immortal thing is the tendency of change itself, not the individual within change. The flame in the text represents the tendency of change itself, symbolizing the continuously flowing character of the Dao.” What Fukunaga Mitsuji calls “the tendency of change itself” is in fact the great transformation and circulation of the cosmic Heaven and Earth, i.e., the ceaseless generation and continuation of life in the universe. Compared to the phenomena of life and death of individual lives, the continuation of the great transformation and circulation will never be extinguished, and this kind of life continuation is not individual but pertains to the whole of cosmic life. Therefore, there is no soul that dominates and serves as the subject of individual reincarnation.

另一方面，“薪火之喻”体现出庄子对灵魂义的“神”的否定。庄子说“火传也，不知其尽也”是对宇宙大化之永续再生的描述，“薪尽火传”是将个体生死寓于宇宙大化之中，通过以“气”为本体基础的“物化”观念从而超越个体的死亡，实现生命的永恒。在这个超越生死的过程中，我们发现庄子其实是对实体化之“神”存在的否定，也就是对灵魂存在观念的直接否定。诚如日本学者福永光司所说，“庄子认为生命不灭，庄子所指并非所谓灵魂的不灭或是宗教性的永生……不灭之物乃是这变化的趋势本身，而非变化之中的个体。文中的火代表变化的趋势本身，象征着道的不断流动的特征。”福永光司所谓“变化的趋势本身”其实就是指宇宙天地的大化流行，即宇宙间生生不息的生命延续，相比生命个体的生死现象，大化流行的延续是不会断灭的，而此种生命延续并非是个体性的，而是就宇宙生命整体而言的，所以其中并没有主导且充当个体轮回转世之主体的灵魂存在。

In view of the fact that most previous Zhuangzi scholars have interpreted Zhuangzi’s “metaphor of firewood and flame” as the view that “the form is exhausted but the spirit is not extinguished,” we hold that there is absolutely no substantivized “spirit” in the philosophical thought of Zhuangzi’s “metaphor of firewood and flame.” The use of “firewood and flame” to analogize the relationship between form and spirit began with the Eastern Han materialist philosopher Huan Tan [桓谭], who in his chapter “Removing Obscuration” [《祛蔽》] of *New Discourses* [《新论》] says: “The spirit dwells in the physical form, just as the flame burns the candle.” Huan Tan used Zhuangzi’s “firewood and flame” to analogize the human physical form and “spirit” (actually referring to the soul), merely changing “firewood” to “candle.” From then on, “the metaphor of firewood and flame” became linked to the relationship between form and spirit, later serving as a theoretical weapon in the Wei-Jin period debates on form and spirit. For example, Huiyuan [慧远] says: “The transmission of flame from firewood is like the transmission of spirit from form.” This is the use of “the metaphor of firewood and flame” by proponents of the theory that the spirit is not extinguished. However, based on the text of the *Zhuangzi*, “the metaphor of firewood and flame” does not refer to the relationship between form and spirit, but rather speaks of the transformative relationship between individual life and death and the great cosmic transformation at the level of “transformation of things.” In Zhuangzi’s thought, the essence of “transformation of things” is “transformation of qi”; “the transformation of qi in life and death” determines the transformation of life forms, which is no longer the continuation of the individual’s form and spirit, but the regeneration and existence of another type of life form. Guo Songtao [郭嵩焘] once explained Zhuangzi’s “metaphor of firewood and flame” in terms of the circulation of “qi.” Liu Xiaogan [刘笑敢] holds that this explanation “generally conforms to the characteristics of Zhuangzi’s thought; in essence, Zhuangzi believes that human life is like the gathering of qi, and human death is like the dispersal of qi. Zhuangzi does not have any idea of the immortality of the soul or the non-extinction of the spirit.” “Qi” serves as the material basis of “transformation of things”; explaining human life and death through the gathering and dispersal of qi means that form and spirit are not separate but are one, and there is no “spirit” independent of “form.” When “form” is exhausted, “spirit” also perishes along with it. This “spirit” contains pure spirit but more often refers to a substantivized soul. On this point, Wang Zhongling [王锺陵] also says: “Since the circulation of life across various forms is realized through the method of transformation of things, there is therefore no spirit separate from form within it. It is a concrete and direct transformation of the living thing, and there is no transfer of a spiritual entity. Zhuangzi scholars have often erred here.” Investigating the root, “transformation of things” is a circulation of “qi” throughout the cosmic Heaven and Earth; the transformation between “living things” is a repeated reenactment of the gathering and dispersal of “qi.” In this process, there is certainly no place for a “spirit separate from form,” i.e., an immortal soul. It is precisely on this basis that we say Zhuangzi’s “metaphor of firewood and flame” in fact completely negates the existence of a substantivized “spirit,” i.e., negates the existence of the soul. This is also a manifestation of the atheist thought in Zhuangzi’s view of life and death.

鉴于以往多数《庄》学家将庄子“薪火之喻”解释为“形尽而神不灭”的观点，我们认为庄子“薪火之喻”的哲学思想中绝无实体化之“神”的存在。以“薪火”比拟形神关系始于东汉唯物主义哲学家桓谭，他在《新论·祛蔽》篇中说：“精神居形体，犹火之然烛矣”。桓谭将庄子“薪火”比拟人之形体与“精神”（实指灵魂），不过是将“薪”更言为“烛”而已。自此，“薪火之喻”与形神关系勾连，后来成为魏晋形神之辩的理论攻讦武器。如慧远说：“火之传于薪，犹神之传于形。”这是神不灭论者对“薪火之喻”的利用。不过，立足于《庄子》文本，“薪火之喻”并不是指形神关系，而是在言个体生死与宇宙大化在“物化”层面上的转化关系。在庄子那里，“物化”的实质是“气化”，“气化生死”决定了生命形态的转换，这就不再是个体之形神的延续，而是另类生命形态的再生与存在。郭嵩焘曾以“气”的周流解释庄子的“薪火之喻”，刘笑敢认为此说“大体符合庄子的思想特点，要之，庄子认为人生如气之聚，人死如气之散，庄子并没有灵魂不死或精神不灭一类的思想”。“气”充当了“物化”的物质基础，由“气”之聚散解释人之生死，也就意味着形神并非分离，而是一体的，不存在独立于“形”的“神”，“形”尽的同时“神”也随之消亡，此“神”义含纯粹精神，更多则是指实体化灵魂。关于此义，王锺陵也说：“生命跨越各种形式的周流，既然是通过物化的方式来实现的，因此这当中就不存在一种离形之神，它是生命物的具体的、直接的转换，并不存在一种精神性的东西的转移。《庄》学家们多失误于此也。”究其根本，“物化”是一种“气”在宇宙天地间的周流，“生命物”间的转换是“气”之聚散的反复重演，在这个过程中当然不会有“离形之神”，也就是永生灵魂的一席之地。正是基于此，我们才说庄子的“薪火之喻”实际上彻底否定了实体化之“神”的存在，即否定了灵魂的存在，这亦是庄子生死观中的无神论思想的体现。

Conclusion

结 语

In summary, “the metaphor of firewood and flame” has been subject to many misinterpretations in the history of Zhuangzi studies. Its original meaning is that Zhuangzi uses the form of “transformation of things” to connect the relationship between individual life and death and the great cosmic transformation, speaking in terms of transcending life and death. Zhuangzi’s “metaphor of firewood and flame” contains atheist thought, mainly manifested in two aspects: life and death are natural, and “human life and death are the result of changes in qi, negating the existence of an immortal soul.” Zhuangzi’s “metaphor of firewood and flame” was widely cited in the debates on form and spirit during the Han, Wei, and Six Dynasties periods, serving as a theoretical weapon in the debates, and its atheist thought was also distorted. This part of the content requires separate discussion; limited by the main theme of this article, we will not elaborate here.

总之，“薪火之喻”在《庄》学史上存在诸多误读，其原义当是庄子以“物化”的形式沟通个体生死与宇宙大化的关系，是就生死超越而言的。庄子“薪火之喻”蕴含无神论思想，主要体现为生死自然与“人的生死是气变化的结果，否定了存在永生不死的灵魂”两个方面。庄子“薪火之喻”在汉魏六朝形神之辩中被广泛引用，作为论辩的思想武器，其无神论思想也被曲解。关于此部分内容，我们另需探讨，限于本文主旨，兹不赘述。

Online Editor: Rainbow

网络编辑：彩虹