An Exploration of Yan Yuan’s Atheist Thought

As an important Enlightenment thinker of the late Ming and early Qing dynasties, Yan Yuan’s thought contains rich atheist and anti-religious content. However, scholarly research on Yan Yuan’s atheist thought still suffers from major deficiencies. On the one hand, academic studies of Yan Yuan’s atheism have mostly concentrated on his critique of Buddhism and Daoism, while neglecting the aspect of Yan Yuan’s atheism that criticizes the religious character of Song-Ming Neo-Confucianism. For instance, Wang Ditang believes that Yan Yuan’s “atheist thought is mainly directed against religion, that is, against Buddhism and Daoism, and especially against Buddhism. He uses relatively plain and accessible language and arguments to sharply satirize and expose the absurdity and harm of religion, exhorting people not to believe in religion and to break away from religion, ‘calling people back from the path of delusion.’” In fact, Yan Yuan’s atheism is not merely opposed to the religious thought of Buddhism and Daoism; it is even more opposed to a religiousized Confucianism, especially Cheng-Zhu Neo-Confucianism. It could even be said that Yan Yuan’s atheism is primarily directed against the religiousized Cheng-Zhu Neo-Confucianism, and because he attributes the religiousization of Song-Ming Neo-Confucianism to Cheng-Zhu’s absorption of Buddhist and Daoist religious thought, his atheism also takes on the appearance of opposing Buddhist and Daoist theistic thought.

作为明末清初重要的启蒙思想家，颜元的思想具有丰富的无神论及反宗教的内容。但是学界对颜元无神论思想的研究还存在很大的不足。一方面，学界对于颜元无神论的研究多是集中在他对于佛道两家的批判，却忽视了颜元无神论对宋明理学宗教性批判的一面。如王棣堂便认为，颜元的“无神论思想主要是反对宗教，即反对佛教和道教，特别是反对佛教。他运用比较通俗易懂的语言和论证，辛辣地讽刺和揭露宗教的无稽和危害，规劝世人不要相信宗教，脱离宗教，‘唤人于迷途而返’”。实际上，颜元的无神论不仅仅是反对佛道两家的宗教思想，更是反对宗教化的儒家思想，尤其是程朱理学。甚至可以说，颜元的无神论主要反对的是宗教化的程朱理学，而又由于他将宋明理学的宗教化归因到程朱对佛道宗教思想的吸收上，因此他的无神论又呈现出反对佛道有神论思想的面貌。

On the other hand, academic research on Yan Yuan’s atheist thought has also not been grounded in his theory of qi as the fundamental substance [1]1 Qi (气) is a fundamental concept in Chinese philosophy, often translated as “material force,” “vital energy,” or “psychophysical stuff.” Yan Yuan’s “theory of qi as the fundamental substance” (气本论) holds that qi is the primary substance of reality, in opposition to the Neo-Confucian view that principle (理, li) is primary. and his thought of practical learning [2]2 “Practical learning” (实学) refers to a current in late Ming and early Qing Confucianism that emphasized concrete, practical knowledge and action over abstract metaphysical speculation.. As a result, scholarship has been unable to comprehensively grasp Yan Yuan’s atheist thought, and naturally has not given it a high evaluation. For example, Wang Yousan believes that “Yan Yuan’s atheism did not provide anything new in theory.” If we do not proceed from Yan Yuan’s theory of qi as the fundamental substance and his thought of practical learning, and do not discuss his atheist thought from the perspective of anti-religion, it will be difficult to grasp the essence of Yan Yuan’s atheist thought, and also difficult to understand how Yan Yuan criticized the religious tendency of Cheng-Zhu Neo-Confucianism. Therefore, this article proposes to examine his atheist thought as a whole, starting from his theory of qi as the fundamental substance and his thought of practical learning.

另一方面，学界对颜元无神论的研究，也没有建立在颜元气本论与实学思想基础之上。如此便导致学界不能全面的把握颜元的无神论思想，学界对颜元的无神论思想自然也不会有很高的评价。如王友三便认为“颜元的无神论，在理论上没有提供什么新东西”。如果不从颜元的气本论和实学思想出发、不从反宗教的角度出发来论述颜元的无神论思想，我们便很难把握颜元无神论思想的本质，也很难理解颜元是如何批判程朱理学的宗教倾向。因此，本文主张从他的气本论思想和实学思想出发，整体地考察他的无神论思想。

I. Materialist Theory of Qi as the Fundamental Substance

一、唯物主义的气本论

Yan Yuan’s critique of religious theology first manifests as a materialist theory of qi as the fundamental substance. Whether the original substance of the world is principle (li) or material force (qi) was the focal point of debate in Song-Ming Neo-Confucianism, and also the focal point of struggle between theism and atheism. The Cheng brothers [3]3 The Cheng brothers, Cheng Hao (程颢, 1032–1085) and Cheng Yi (程颐, 1033–1107), were foundational figures in Song Neo-Confucianism. absorbed the ontological thought of Buddhism and regarded “principle” as the original substance of the world. “There is only one principle under heaven,” “Nothing under heaven is more real than principle.” Mr. Zhou Guitian believes that this thought originates from Buddhism: “It is quite similar to Buddhist doctrine, only replacing ‘Buddha-nature’ with ‘principle.’ This shows that they also absorbed Buddhist thought.” Therefore, we can regard the theory of principle as the fundamental substance in Song-Ming Neo-Confucianism as the religiousization of Confucianism. Master Zhu [4]4 “Master Zhu” refers to Zhu Xi (朱熹, 1130–1200), the most influential synthesizer of Song Neo-Confucianism. inherited this theory of principle as the fundamental substance from the Cheng brothers; he also regarded “principle” as a metaphysical original substance, while regarding “material force” as physical. He even believed that even if there were no material “material force,” “principle” could still exist independently. For instance, he said: “Even if mountains, rivers, and the earth were all to collapse, principle would still be right here.” Thus he pushed the “principle” belonging to humans into a transcendent world, falling into the rut of idealism, and from then on Confucianism fell into the shadow of a sacred “principle.” This theory of principle as the fundamental substance attempted to regard “principle” as supremely good, and attributed the source of evil to “material force,” that is, the human body or “disposition and talent,” thereby realizing the religious transformation of Confucianism by suppressing the actual existence of humans.

颜元对宗教神学的批判首先展现为唯物主义气本论。世界的本原是理还是气，这是宋明理学争论的焦点，也是有神论与无神论斗争的焦点。二程吸收佛教的本体论思想，而将“理”视为世界的本原。“天下只有一个理”,“天下无实于理”。周桂钿先生认为，这种思想来源于佛学，“这跟佛家说法颇相似，只不过把‘佛性’改为‘理’。这说明他们也吸收了佛教思想”。因此我们可以将宋明理学的理本论视为儒学的宗教化。朱子则是继承了二程的这种理本论思想，他也将“理”视作形而上的本原，而又将“气”视为形而下的。他甚至认为，即便没有作为物质的“气”,“理”也是可以独自存在的。如他说：“且如万一山河大地都陷了，毕竟理却只在这里。”于是他便将属于人的“理”推向彼岸世界，陷入唯心主义的窠臼之中，儒学自此便陷入神圣之“理”的阴影之中。这种理本论企图将“理”视作至善的，并将恶的来源归结为“气”也即人的身体或“情才”,如此便以压抑人的现实存在的方式实现儒学的宗教化转变。

In order to criticize the Buddhist- and Daoist-influenced Cheng-Zhu Neo-Confucianism, Yan Yuan established a theory of qi as the fundamental substance opposed to the Cheng-Zhu theory of principle as the fundamental substance. Yan Yuan opposed Master Zhu’s view of “principle” as existing apart from material force, and stood on a materialist position, holding that the original substance of the universe is “material force,” and that “material force” is the first cause that generates all things. On the basis of this thought, Yan Yuan gave a materialist explanation of the formation of all things in the world. He believed that the original substance of the universe is the “Supreme Ultimate” (taiji) material force, and that “the Supreme Ultimate initiates yin and yang, and yin and yang generate the five phases” [5]5 The five phases (五行, wuxing) are wood, fire, earth, metal, and water — categories used in Chinese cosmology to describe the processes of change.. The “Supreme Ultimate” material force contains the two forces of yin and yang, and the two forces of yin and yang in turn generate the five phases. He further believed that the material force of yin and yang and the five phases is divided into clear material force and turbid material force. Clear material force generates gaseous or liquid substances, such as heaven, clouds, mist, and water. Turbid material force generates solid substances, such as earth, mountains, the sun, moon, and stars: “The clear part of the material force of yin and yang and the five phases is qi; the turbid part is form. Qi is all heaven; form is all earth. There is earth within heaven, such as mountains and trees emerging from the earth and entering the qi, and meteors that fall and become stone, and the sun, moon, and stars that all emerge from beneath the earth. There is heaven within earth, such as caves, wells, and springs that enter beneath the earth, penetrating form, and the rising vapors that form clouds and mist, and the growth of plants.” After these natural conditions were formed, various living things such as “flying creatures, swimming creatures, moving creatures, and plants” came into being through the interaction of heaven and earth. “The interaction and transformation of heaven and earth give birth to the myriad things; the categories of flying, swimming, moving, and plant life cannot be fully distinguished; the ingenuity of their forms and functions is inexhaustible.” Although his explanation of the generation of the universe above is of a simple nature, this explanation dealt a great blow to the then-popular idealist thought of Buddhism, Daoism, and Cheng-Zhu. Because this materialist theory of qi as the fundamental substance both opposed the transcendent world of “principle” and affirmed the positive significance of “material force,” that is, the real world.

为了批判佛道化的程朱理学，颜元建立起与程朱理本论相反的气本论思想。颜元反对朱子将“理”看作脱离气存在的观点，而站在唯物主义的立场上，认为宇宙的本原是“气”,“气”才是生成万物的第一因。以这种思想为基础，颜元对世界万物形成作出唯物主义的解释。他认为，宇宙的本原是“太极”之气，而“太极肇阴阳，阴阳生五行”,“太极”之气包含阴阳二气，阴阳二气又生出五行。他又认为，阴阳五行之气又分为清气和浊气，清气生成气态或者液态的物质，如天、云雾、水等。而浊气则生成固态的物质，如地、山、日月星辰等，“阴阳五行之清焉者，气也；浊焉者，形也。气皆天也，形皆地也。有天中之地，若山树出地上入气中，及星陨皆成石，日月星辰皆出地下是也。有地中之天，若穴井泉脉入地下，通形中，及蒸蒸成云雾，发生草木者是也”。在形成这些自然条件后，“飞潜动植”等各种生物在天地交感中便得以产生了。“天地交通变化而生万物，飞潜动植之族不可胜辨，形象运用之巧不可胜穷。”虽然以上他对宇宙生成的解释具有朴素的性质，但是这种解释却对当时流行的佛道及程朱的唯心主义思想造成很大的冲击。因为这种唯物主义气本论思想既反对彼岸的“理”世界，同时也肯定“气”也即现实世界的积极意义。

It is precisely from the standpoint of the theory of qi as the fundamental substance that Yan Yuan first criticized the Buddhist- and Daoist-influenced Cheng-Zhu Neo-Confucianism. He opposed the religious view of pushing “principle” into a transcendent world. Yan Yuan believed that “principle” must be the principle within material force: “Is there material force without principle? Is there principle without material force?” “Principle” is not, as Master Zhu believed, something that can exist apart from “material force” or above “material force”; it must be the principle within material force, dependent on material force. Therefore, he asked rhetorically: “If there were no material force, where would principle attach itself?” If there were no “material force,” then “principle” would not exist, let alone that “pure and empty” world of “principle.”

正是站在气本论的立场上，颜元首先对佛道化的程朱理学进行批判。他反对将“理”推向彼世的宗教观点，颜元认为“理”必须是“气”中的道理，“天下有无理之气乎?有无气之理乎?”“理”并不是如朱子所认为的那样，是可以脱离“气”或者高于“气”而存在的，它必须是“气”中之理，是依附于“气”的。因此，他反问道：“不知若无气质，理将安附?”如果没有“气”,那么“理”也就不存在了，何况那个“净洁空阔”的“理”世界。

On the one hand, Cheng-Zhu Neo-Confucianism established a “pure and empty” world of “principle,” regarding “principle” as supremely good; on the other hand, it attributed the source of evil to “material force.” In this way, it constructed a transcendent religious world to negate the actual existence of humans, so that humans are forever in a process of being perfected. In response to this view, Yan Yuan further refuted: “If one says that material force is evil, then principle is also evil; if one says that principle is good, then material force is also good. For material force is the material force of principle, and principle is the principle of material force; how can it be said that principle is purely good while material force is partially evil?” This view powerfully countered the Cheng-Zhu idealist view of “principle” as good and “material force” as evil, and affirmed the actual existence of humans.

程朱理学一方面建立起“净洁空阔”的“理”世界，将“理”视为是至善的，另一方面又将恶的来源归结为“气”。如此便建构了一个彼世的宗教世界来否定人的现实存在，于是人永远处于一个待完善的过程之中。对于这种观点，颜元进而反驳道：“若谓气恶，则理亦恶，若谓理善，则气亦善。盖气即理之气，理即气之理，乌得谓理纯一善而气质偏有恶哉!”这一观点有力地回击了程朱“理”善“气”恶的唯心主义观点，并肯定了人的现实存在。

Furthermore, Yan Yuan also used his materialist theory of qi as the fundamental substance to criticize the Buddhist and Daoist religious thought that regards the world as “empty” and “still.” He believed that the original substance of the world can only be “material force,” and the world can only be a world of ceaseless movement of “material force”; therefore, the world cannot be “empty” and “still.” “If there are sun and moon, there cannot but be shining; if there are mountains and rivers, there cannot but be flowing and standing; if there are ears and eyes, there cannot but be seeing and hearing. The Buddha cannot make heaven without sun and moon, cannot make earth without mountains and rivers, cannot make humans without ears and eyes; how can he achieve emptiness! The Dao cannot make the sun and moon not shine, cannot make mountains and rivers not flow and stand, cannot make ears and eyes not see and hear; how can it achieve stillness!” The sun, moon, mountains, and rivers have always existed; Buddhists cannot turn mountains, rivers, sun, and moon into nothingness; the sun, moon, mountains, and rivers are always in motion; Daoists cannot stop the motion of the sun, moon, mountains, and rivers. Therefore, he denounced Buddhism as “demons and ghosts”: “Since Emperor Ming of the Han [6]6 Emperor Ming of the Han (汉明帝, r. 58–75 CE) is traditionally credited with introducing Buddhism to China. went west to welcome the demonic ghosts that teach the world death into our celestial dynasty, their name is Buddha. ‘The five aggregates are all empty’ [7]7 The “five aggregates” (五蕴, skandhas) are the five components that, in Buddhist doctrine, constitute a sentient being: form, sensation, perception, mental formations, and consciousness. The phrase “the five aggregates are all empty” is a key Buddhist teaching from the Heart Sutra. NOTES: none — this is to kill the mind and all the internal organs; to regard the ears, eyes, mouth, and nose as thieves — this is to kill the physical body.”

此外，颜元还以唯物主义的气本论思想批判佛道将世界视作“空”和“静”的宗教思想。他认为，世界的本原只能是“气”,而世界也只能是“气”运动不息的世界，因此世界不可能是“空”与“静”的。“有日月则不能无照临，有山川则不能无流峙，有耳目则不能无视听；佛不能使天无日月，不能使地无山川，不能使人无耳目，安在其能空乎!道不能使日月不照临，不能使山川不流峙，不能使耳目不视听，安在其能静乎!”日月山川一直都是存在的，佛教徒并不能将山川日月变成虚无，日月山川一直都在运动，道教徒也不能让日月山川的运动停滞。因此，他大骂佛教是“妖鬼”:“自汉明帝乃西迎以死教天下之妖鬼，入我天朝，其号曰佛。五蕴皆空，是死其心及诸脏腑也；以耳目口鼻为贼，是死其身形也。”

Proceeding from the theory of qi as the fundamental substance, Yan Yuan formed a materialist epistemology of “seeing principle in affairs.” Marx held that all human ideas come from experience and are reflections of reality. Yan Yuan likewise believed that so-called “principle” is merely the “principle” within “physical constitution” (气质), that is, within matter; therefore, principle or nature can only be known within physical constitution. “Without physical constitution there is no nature; without physical constitution nature cannot be seen.” In this way he maintained a materialist epistemology. He held that human knowledge is always knowledge of external things: “Knowledge has no substance; it takes things as its substance, just as the eye has no substance and takes shapes and colors as its substance. Hence, though the human eye is clear, if it does not see black or white, its clarity has no use; though the human mind is spiritual, if it does not play with this or that, its spirituality has no application.” On the basis of this epistemology, he criticized the Cheng-Zhu school of principle [8]8 The Cheng-Zhu school (程朱学派) refers to the rationalist Neo-Confucian tradition founded by the brothers Cheng Hao (程颢, 1032–1085) and Cheng Yi (程颐, 1033–1107) and systematized by Zhu Xi (朱熹, 1130–1200). It holds that principle (理) is the transcendent, universal pattern underlying all things. for separating “affairs” and “physical constitution” in order to know “principle,” and held that this line of thought had departed from the teachings of Confucius and Mencius. “Confucius only taught people to practice affairs; when they saw principle in affairs, they had already penetrated both above and below. This is the point at which Confucius’s learning and the Cheng-Zhu school’s learning part company.” On the basis of this epistemology, he rejected the concept of ghosts and spirits together with Cheng-Zhu learning, holding that these ideas were all abstruse doctrines divorced from “affairs” and “qi”: “When Zilu asked about serving ghosts and spirits, he must have had some kind of empty, ethereal thought in mind, not a question about sacrificial rites. Looking at his subsequent question about death, we can see that our Master, governing men by men, spent his days discussing the six virtues, six practices, and six arts [9]9 The six virtues (六德), six practices (六行), and six arts (六艺) are categories of Confucian education. The six arts are rites, music, archery, charioteering, writing, and mathematics; the six virtues and six practices are moral categories from the Zhou li (Rites of Zhou). with his disciples, with no time to spare for the dark and hidden. The Song Confucians cast aside the Confucian enterprise of the school of Confucius and loved to discuss many things that cannot be seen or heard.”

从气本论出发，颜元又形成了“事中见理”的唯物主义认识论。马克思认为，人的一切观念都来自经验，也都是现实的反映。颜元也认为，所谓“理”只是“气质”也即物质中的“理”,因此只能在“气质”中才能认识“理”或“性”。“非气质无以为性，非气质无以见性。”如此便保持了一种唯物主义的认识论。他认为，人的认识都是关于外在事物的认识，“知无体，以物为体，犹之目无体，以形色为体也。故人目虽明，非视黑视白，明无由用也；人心虽灵，非玩东玩西，灵无由施也”。在这种认识论的基础上，他批评程朱理学脱离“事”与“气质”而认识“理”的做法，并认为他们的这一思想脱离了孔孟之学。“孔子则只教人习事，迨见理于事，则已彻上彻下矣。此孔子之学与程朱之学所由分也。”以这种认识论为基础，他对鬼神观念和程朱理学放在一起加以否定，认为这些认识都是脱离了“事”与“气”的玄虚之学：“季路之问事鬼神，当必有一种玄空之想，非问祭祀意也。观下面问死，可知吾夫子以人治人，惟日与弟子讲习六德、六行、六艺之不暇，何遑道及幽冥?宋儒抛却孔门儒业，好讲许多不可见闻事。”

Proceeding from the materialist epistemology of “seeing principle in affairs,” Yan Yuan further criticized the Buddhist and Daoist doctrine of reincarnation. He held that the idea of reincarnation in hell also separates itself from “qi” and “affairs,” and is therefore something human beings cannot know: “The theory of reincarnation in hell was never mentioned at all by the sages of our Celestial Dynasty. When Zhong Zilu [10]10 Zhong Zilu (仲子路, 542–480 BCE) was a disciple of Confucius, known for his courage and directness. The reference is to Analects 11.12, where Confucius rebukes Zilu’s question about serving ghosts and spirits. once asked about serving ghosts and spirits and about death, he was cut off and given no answer.” He held that this idea of reincarnation in hell was merely empty talk and evil talk; being false knowledge, it was not only useless but harmful to people. What people can do is to proceed from their physical constitution and exhaust what they are capable of: “If one does not exhaust the principle of living men, how can one have leisure to inquire into the way of ghosts! Therefore, is there no hell? The gentleman does not speak of it.” Yan Yuan also denied the existence of immortals and Buddhas from the standpoint of materialist reflection: “Moreover, how many immortals and how many Buddhas have you seen become? It is all baseless, shadowy talk.”

颜元又从“事中见理”的唯物主义认识论出发，批评佛道的轮回思想。他认为地狱轮回思想也是脱离“气”与“事”的，因此是人不可能认识到的：“地狱轮回之说，我天朝圣人全未道及。仲子路才一问事鬼神，问死，便截断不与言。”他认为，这种地狱轮回的思想只是虚言、邪言，既是虚假认识，对人也是百害而无一用。人能做的便是从人的气质出发，尽人所能做的：“舍生人之理而不尽，暇问鬼道乎!故地狱无之乎?君子不道也。”颜元又从唯物主义反映论出发，否定仙佛的存在：“况你们见成了多少仙，多少佛?尽是无影妄谈。”

In sum, Yan Yuan’s theory of qi as the fundamental substance, on the one hand, displays his grasp of the laws of the generation and transformation of the cosmos; on the other hand, it also displays his profound critique of the religious thought of Buddhism, Daoism, and the Cheng-Zhu school of principle. Using the theory of qi as the fundamental substance as a weapon, he negated the Cheng-Zhu school’s practice of pushing “principle” into an otherworldly realm, and further negated the idealist thought of Buddhism and Daoism that regards the world as “empty” and “still.” His atheist thought greatly advanced the cause of atheism in China and also promoted the modern transformation of Confucianism.

总之，颜元气本论思想一方面展现了他对宇宙生成变化规律的掌握，另一方面，也展现出了他对佛道两教和程朱理学宗教思想的深刻批判。他以气本论为武器，否定了程朱理学将“理”推向彼世的做法，也进一步否定了佛道两教将世界视为“空”“静”的唯心主义思想。他的无神论思想大大推动了中国无神论事业的发展，也促进了儒学的近世转变。

II. The Practice View of “Personally Putting One’s Hand to Doing the Thing”

二、“犯手实做其事”的实践观

Proceeding from the theory of qi as the fundamental substance, Yan Yuan focused on actual human beings rather than abstract principle, and thereby established a practice view of “personally putting one’s hand to doing the thing.” We know that Engels held that the critique of religious theology ultimately returns man to himself, to the human body and to reality; thus, in a letter to Marx, he wrote: “We must proceed from the ‘I,’ from the empirical, corporeal individual… As long as the foundation of ‘man’ is not the empirical man, he always remains a phantom image.” Only the body is the foundation of human practice, not some lofty, abstract principle. When the external, abstract sacred idol is overthrown, man returns to himself and realizes that the sacred, lofty principle does not lie in an otherworldly realm but within man himself. Man then shifts his focus from the illusory sacred thing to actual life.

由气本论出发，颜元注重现实的人而不再是抽象的理，并由此建立起“犯手实做其事”的实践观。我们知道，恩格斯认为宗教神学的批判最终是让人回归到自身之中，回到人的身体与现实之中，因此他在给马克思的信中便说：“我们必须从‘我’,从经验的、肉体的个人出发……只要‘人’的基础不是经验的人，那末他始终是一个虚幻的形象。”只有身体才是人的实践的基础，而不是那个高悬的抽象的道理。当外在于人的抽象的神圣偶像被打倒之后，人便回归自身，认识到原来那个神圣的高悬的理并不在彼岸的世界，而是在人的自身之中。人于是也会将关注点从虚无缥缈的神圣之物转移到现实生活当中。

In fact, it was precisely from the materialist theory of qi as the fundamental substance, after criticizing the worldviews of the Cheng-Zhu school and of Buddhism and Daoism, that Yan Yuan demanded that people return the focus of life’s practice to the human body itself: “Form and color are heavenly nature; only the sage can fulfill that form. It is clear that if a man cannot become a sage, it is because he fails this form; when a man reaches sagehood, he has fully realized this form. This form is none other than what is called physical constitution. To say that the means of becoming a sage has evil in it would lead people to despise and loathe their physical constitution.” He disagreed with the Song-Ming school of principle’s view that physical constitution is the source of “evil”; he held that the human body itself is perfect and is the basic basis for human conduct and practice, even for attaining sagehood. Only by personally engaging in the practice and training of the body can a person finally become a sage. Hence he also said, “With ears, eyes, mouth, nose, four limbs, and hundred bones one can have the body of a sage”; that is, ears, eyes, mouth, nose, four limbs, and hundred bones are all the basic basis for a person to become a sage or worthy. Therefore, people should affirm the role of the body in moral practice, rather than negating the body or physical constitution as the Song-Ming school of principle did.

实际上，颜元正是从唯物主义气本论出发，在批判程朱理学和佛道之学的世界观之后，要求人们将生活实践的焦点回归到人的肉身之中，“形色，天性也，惟圣人然后可以践形。明乎人不能作圣，皆负此形也，人至圣人乃充满此形也；此形非他，气质之谓也。以作圣之具而谓其有恶，人必将贱恶吾气质”。他不同意宋明理学将气质视作是“恶”的来源的观点，他认为，人的身体本身便是完善的，也是人行为实践以至于成圣的基本依据。人只有躬身于对身体的实践与训练最终才能成为圣人。所以他又说，“以耳目、口鼻、四肢、百骸可为圣人之身”,也就是说耳目、口鼻、四肢、百骸都是人成圣成贤的基本依据，因此，人应当肯定人的身体在道德实践中的作用，而不是如宋明理学家们一般否定人的身体或气质。

He strongly opposed Zhu Xi’s idea that “physical constitution harms our nature,” holding that this idea of Zhu Xi’s was clearly influenced by Buddhism and Daoism, setting up an illusory “spiritual nature” outside the human body in order to suppress man’s actual nature. “Since the Wei and Jin dynasties, Buddhism and Daoism have run rampant. They have, outside the physical form, fabricated a kind of empty, illusory spiritual nature, and outside rites and music, fabricated a kind of closed-eye, quiet-sitting cultivation. The Buddhists speak of ‘entering concentration’; the Confucians say our Way also has ‘entering concentration.’ The Daoists speak of ‘inner elixir’; the Confucians say our Way also has ‘inner elixir.’ Borrowing the texts of the Four Masters and the Five Classics, they practice the affairs of the Śūraṅgama Sūtra and the Cantong qi [11]11 The Śūraṅgama Sūtra (楞严经) is a Mahayana Buddhist scripture; the Cantong qi (参同契) is a Daoist alchemical text attributed to Wei Boyang (魏伯阳, 2nd century CE). Yan Yuan accuses Confucians of borrowing these texts while pretending to follow the Confucian classics., regarding personally practicing affairs as coarse traces, and thus regarding qi, bone, blood, and flesh as extraneous. Thereupon they begin to take nature and destiny as essential and the physical form as a burden, and even dare to impute evil to physical constitution, passing this on without realizing its error. Even a worthy like Zhu Xi had the saying ‘physical constitution harms our nature.’” Because Buddhism and Daoism value the otherworldly realm, in their practice they negate the “physical form” and advocate experiencing this “spiritual nature” outside the body through “quiet sitting.” The Cheng-Zhu school of principle was also influenced by Buddhism and Daoism; they too held that there is a supremely true and good “heavenly principle” outside the human body, and used this “heavenly principle” to negate man’s actual existence, discarding the human body as the source of “evil.” He criticized the Cheng-Zhu school’s practice as “rashly discussing the sages and worthies without knowing their error,” holding that they had departed from the Way of Confucius and Mencius. Insofar as Yan Yuan affirmed the value of man himself and opposed using heaven to suppress man, his thought possesses an important enlightenment significance.

他强烈反对朱子“气质为吾性害”的思想，认为朱子的这一思想明显是受到佛道的影响，在人的身体之外设置一个虚幻的“性灵”以压制人的现实本性。“魏、晋以来，佛老肆行，乃于形体之外别状一空虚幻觉之性灵，礼乐之外别作一闭目静坐之存养。佛者曰‘入定’,儒者曰吾道亦有‘入定’也。老者曰‘内丹’,儒者曰吾道亦有‘内丹’也。借四子、五经之文，行楞严、参同之事，以躬习其事为粗迹，则自以气骨血肉为分外，于是始以性命为精，形体为累，乃敢以有恶加之气质，相衍而莫觉其非矣。贤如朱子，而有‘气质为吾性害’之语”。佛道两家因为重视彼岸世界，所以在他们的功夫实践中，更多的是否定人的“形体”,而主张以“静坐”方式来体验这一在人身体之外的“性灵”。而程朱理学家们也受到了佛道两教的影响，也认为人的身体之外有一至真至善的“天理”,并以这一“天理”来否定人的现实存在，将人的身体作为“恶”的来源来加以摒弃。他批评程朱的做法是“妄议圣贤而不知其非”,认为他们脱离了孔孟之道。从颜元肯定人自身的价值、反对以天来压制人这一方面来说，颜元的这种思想具有重要的启蒙意义。

Proceeding from this view of the body, Yan Yuan advocated a pragmatic attitude toward practice. Yan Yuan held that the human body itself is good, and therefore there is no need to posit a heavenly principle (天理) outside the human body to be experienced; rather, by taking the human body as the foundation, training and exercising it, one can become a sage or worthy. Hence he also advocated a doctrine of practical learning (实学) grounded in the human body, which can be summarized as “to set one’s hand to and actually do the thing” (犯手实做其事). He opposed Zhu Xi’s interpretation of “investigating things” (格物) as “exhausting principle” (穷理) and Wang Yangming’s interpretation of “investigating things” as “rectifying the mind” (正心), holding instead that the “investigating things” of the *Great Learning* should be understood as practicing in affairs. Thus Yan Yuan reinterpreted the character “ge” (格) in “investigating things” from the *Great Learning*. “I say it should be like the ‘ge’ in the historical records’ phrase ‘to ge a fierce beast with one’s hands’ or ‘to ge and kill it with one’s hands’—it means the sense of setting one’s hand to, pounding, kneading, and manipulating, which is precisely the teaching of the Confucian Six Arts.” He held that “ge” means practice, and “investigating things” means personally practicing the various affairs of the Confucian Six Arts and other learning. He believed that only through practice can one truly understand the principle of a given matter: “If one wishes to know ritual, it is better to kneel, bow, rise, move, advance, and retreat, to hold jade and silk, to arrange the stands and vessels, than to speculate idly, read aloud, or listen with the ears—what is called attaining knowledge of ritual is truly located here; if one wishes to know music, it is better to dance with hands and feet, to strike and beat, to blow on bamboo, to sing poems with the mouth, than to speculate idly, read aloud, or listen with the ears—what is called attaining knowledge of music is truly located here. The same holds for all principles.” Thus he affirmed the role of practice in human cognition. Although Yan Yuan held that what was to be practiced remained largely the Confucian Six Arts, he also extended the content of practice to military affairs, agriculture, economics, and other fields. “The Way of our Master Confucius is the Way that unifies mind, body, and affairs; the learning of our Master Confucius is the learning of ‘to learn and at times to practice it.’ Practicing ritual, practicing music, practicing archery and charioteering, practicing writing and mathematics, extending even to military affairs, agriculture, finance, grain, water, fire, crafts, and forestry—there is nothing that is not learned and practiced, hence it is said, ‘Learn broadly.’” In this way he expanded the content of practice, truly transforming Confucianism from abstruse and empty learning into learning for ordering the world and benefiting the people.

从这种对身体的看法出发，颜元主张一种务实的实践态度。颜元认为，人的身体本身便是善的，因此并不需要在人的身体之外悬设一天理来加以体验，而是认为以人的身体为基础，训练与发挥人的身体便可以成圣成贤。所以他又主张一种建立在人的身体之上的实学思想，这种实学思想可以用“犯手实做其事”来加以概括。他反对朱子将“格物”解释为“穷理”和王阳明将“格物”解释为“正心”的观点，而是认为应当将《大学》的“格物”解释为在事中实践。如此，颜元对《大学》“格物”的“格”重新进行解释。“元谓当如史书‘手格猛兽’之‘格’、‘手格杀之’之‘格’,乃犯手捶打搓弄之义，即孔门六艺之教，是也。”他认为“格”便是实践的意思，而“格物”也是对儒家六艺之学等各种事务进行亲身实践。他认为只有通过实践才能真正地认识关于某事的道理：“如欲知礼，凭人悬空思悟，口读耳听，不如跪拜起居，周旋进退，捧玉帛，陈远豆，所谓致知乎礼者，斯确在乎是矣；如欲知乐，凭人悬空思悟，口读耳听，不如手舞足蹈，搏拊考击，把吹竹，口歌诗，所谓致知乎乐者，斯确在乎是矣，推之万理皆然。”如此便是肯定实践在人的认识中的作用。虽然颜元认为，所要实践的更多的仍然是儒家的六艺之学，但是他又将所要实践的内容延伸到军事、农业、经济等方面。“吾夫子之道，合身心事物而一之之道也；吾夫子之学，‘学而时习之’之学也。习礼、习乐、习射御、习书数，以至兵、农、钱、谷、水、火、工、虞，莫不学且习也，故曰‘博学之’。”如此便扩展了实践的内容，使儒学真正的从玄虚之学向经世致用之学转变。

Starting from this view of practice as “setting one’s hand to and actually doing the thing,” he criticized Cheng-Zhu Neo-Confucianism, Buddhist and Daoist thought, and fatalistic determinism from three aspects.

由这种“犯手实做其事”的实践观出发，他分别从三个方面对程朱理学、佛道思想以及命定论展开批判。

(1) He opposed the Cheng-Zhu Neo-Confucian idea of “preserving heavenly principle and extinguishing human desire,” affirming people’s actual desires. Yan Yuan held that since humans have bodies, they necessarily have desires; this is an inevitable phenomenon determined by physical constitution (气质). “Birds have males and females, beasts have males and females, insects and gnats have yin and yang. How can humans, as the most spiritual of all things, alone be without feelings? Therefore, the relationship between man and woman is a great desire of humans, and also their true feelings and utmost nature. Do you not stir in thought? To wish to return to proper relations is also one’s original mind.” From this starting point, he affirmed people’s actual interests, holding that any interest that accords with righteousness and morality is worthy of affirmation. “For rectifying righteousness, one then seeks benefit; for clarifying the Way, one then calculates achievement.” He criticized the Cheng-Zhu Neo-Confucians who “entirely do not seek benefit or calculate achievement” as “rotten Confucians,” advocating the use of practical learning to change this atmosphere of disregarding utility. “Benefit within righteousness is what the gentleman values. Later Confucians actually said, ‘Rectify righteousness without seeking benefit’—this is excessive! The Song people delighted in using this to embellish their empty and useless learning. I once corrected this bias, changing it to: ‘Rectify righteousness in order to seek benefit; clarify the Way in order to calculate achievement.’”

(1)他反对程朱理学“存天理灭人欲”的思想，肯定人的现实欲望。颜元认为，人有身体，便必然有欲望，这是气质规定的必然现象。“禽有雌雄，兽有牝牡，昆虫蝇蜢亦有阴阳。岂人为万物之灵而独无情乎?故男女者，人之大欲也，亦人之真情至性也。你们果不动念乎?想欲归伦，亦其本心也。”由此出发，他肯定人的现实利益，认为只要合于道义的利益都是值得肯定的。“盖正谊便谋利，明道便计功”,他批评“全不谋利计功”的程朱理学家们是“腐儒”,主张以实学改变这种不重功利的风气。“义中之利，君子所贵也。后儒乃云‘正其谊，不谋其利’,过矣!宋人喜道之以文其空疏无用之学。予尝矫其偏，改云：‘正其谊以谋其利，明其道而计其功’。”

(2) He advocated personally practicing various “statecraft” (经世) studies, and thereby criticized Cheng-Zhu Neo-Confucianism as “empty” learning and Buddhist and Daoist thought as useless learning. Yan Yuan attributed the fall of the Ming dynasty to the Cheng-Zhu school’s “valuing culture and despising military affairs”: “Zhu Xi valued culture and despised military affairs… The legacy of this continues to this day: men in scholar’s garb are ashamed to be ranked with military men; if a scholar carries a bow and arrow out of doors, the villagers are all startled; even if a son or younger brother practices riding and archery in military dress, his father and elder brother regard him as worthless. If this continues without reversal, the whole realm will become weak and enfeebled—when will there be an end?” He held that Zhu Xi abandoned the practical Six Arts of Confucius and Mencius, instead promoting bookish study, textual research, and quiet-sitting experience—“half a day of quiet sitting, half a day of reading.” Yan Yuan criticized them for departing from the Confucian and Mencian practical attitude of “seeking the real,” saying that “what they learned all lost the practical learning of Confucius.” This kind of abstruse and empty learning greatly influenced social atmosphere and ultimately caused “the whole realm to become weak and enfeebled.”

(2)他主张对各种“经世”之学加以亲身实践，并由此批评程朱理学为“虚”学，批评佛道思想为无用之学。颜元将明朝的灭亡归结到程朱理学的“重文轻武”上：“朱子重文轻武……其遗风至今日，衣冠之士羞与武夫齿，秀才挟弓矢出，乡人皆惊，甚至子弟骑射武装，父兄便以不才目之。长此不返，四海溃弱，何有已时乎?”他认为，朱子舍弃了孔孟的六艺实学，而提倡读书考据和静坐体验，“半日静坐，半日读书”。颜元批评他们脱离了孔孟“求实”的实践态度，“所学俱失孔子实学”。这种玄虚之学很大地影响了社会的风气，并最终使得“四海溃弱”。

He also criticized Daoist thought: “It cannot be used for riding in carriages or for practical application; even if it achieves longevity, it is but a moth in the space between heaven and earth. What are called true persons (真人), perfected persons (至人), and the Supreme One (太上) cannot be extended to the realm and the state; moreover, they steal the qi of heaven and earth to prolong their existence, refine the essence of the five elements to preserve themselves—what need does the universe have for such a Supreme One! And if everyone were to attain this quietist immortal fruit, the human way would be cut off—could heaven and earth tolerate it?” He held that Daoist thought only pursues one’s own longevity but is of no benefit to society or the state as a whole. Hence he vehemently denounced the true persons sought by Daoism as “demons among humans” and “thieves of heaven and earth,” not only unhelpful to society but actually harmful.

他又批评道教思想“不可以服乘致用，虽长寿亦两间一蠹。曰真人，曰至人，曰太上，而不可推之天下国家，方且盗天地之气以长存，炼五行之精以自保，乾坤中亦何赖有此太上也!且人人而得此静极之仙果也，人道又绝矣，天地其能容乎?”他认为，道教思想只是追求自己的长生，但对整个社会国家并没有助益。由此他大骂道教所追求的真人是“人中妖”和“天地之盗”,非但对社会没有助益，反而有害。

(3) Proceeding from the view of practice as “setting one’s hand to and actually doing the thing,” Yan Yuan also opposed the religious thought of fatalistic determinism. Yan Yuan advocated a philosophy of “activity” (动): “When one body is active, that body is strong; when one family is active, that family is strong; when one state is active, that state is strong; when the whole realm is active, the whole realm is strong.” He emphasized the exertion of human subjective initiative and opposed viewing human life from a fatalistic perspective. When someone asked him whether human fortune and misfortune are determined by fate, he replied: “No. A seedling in the ground may yield five pecks or one picul—this is like a person’s fate in life. If one then fertilizes it with manure, moistens it with rain and dew, what was five pecks can become one picul; if one not only fails to fertilize and moisten it but instead harms it with pests, breaks it, and lets cattle trample it, what was one picul may by luck yield five pecks, or even not a single grain. How can life’s fate be fixed… Great good and great evil are certainly not confined by fate; it depends on the person.” He held that through exerting human subjective initiative, human fortune and misfortune can all be transformed, and therefore no fatalistic determinism exists.

(3)从“犯手实做其事”实践观出发，颜元又反对天命论的宗教思想。颜元主张“动”的哲学，“一身动则一身强，一家动则一家强，一国动则一国强，天下动则天下强”。他注重发挥人的主观能动性，反对以命定的观点来看待人生。当有人问他，人的祸福是命定的吗?他回答道：“不然。地中生苗或可五斗，或可一石，是犹人生之命也，从而粪壤培之，雨露润之，五斗者亦可一石；若不惟无所培润，又从而蟊贼之，摧折牧放之，一石者幸而五斗，甚则一粒莫获矣。生命亦何定之有……大善大恶固非命可囿也，在乎人耳。”他认为，通过发挥人的主观能动性，人的吉凶祸福都是可以转变的，因此并不存在什么命定论。

In sum, after using the theory of qi as fundamental substance (气本论) to break the religious thought of the Cheng-Zhu school’s principle as fundamental substance (理本体), Yan Yuan demanded a return to the human physical body, and starting from the human physical body, emphasized exerting human initiative and stressed a philosophy of “activity.” He opposed the Cheng-Zhu school’s idealist practice of quiet sitting to experience heavenly principle, holding that only through practice can one recognize and grasp heavenly principle. This thought emphasizing practice greatly advanced Chinese philosophy’s emergence from the shadow of religious theology, and at the same time reveals points of communicability and dialogue between Confucianism and Marxist philosophy.

总之，颜元在以气本论打破程朱理学的理本体的宗教思想之后，要求回归到人的肉身之中，并要求从人的肉身出发，注重发挥人的主动性，强调一种“动”的哲学。他反对程朱理学以静坐体验天理的唯心主义做法，认为只有在实践中才能认识天理、把握天理。这种强调实践的思想，大大促进中国哲学走出宗教神学的阴影，同时也使我们看到儒学和马克思主义哲学之间的可沟通交流之处。

III. The Significance of Yan Yuan’s Atheist Thought

三、颜元无神论思想的意义

Yan Yuan’s atheism manifests in two aspects: on the one hand, he took the theory of qi as fundamental substance as his theoretical basis to criticize the worldviews of the Cheng-Zhu school’s principle as fundamental substance and of Buddhism and Daoism; on the other hand, he took the practical learning of “setting one’s hand to and actually doing the thing” as his theoretical basis to criticize the quiet-sitting practice of the Cheng-Zhu school and the practical thought of Buddhism and Daoism. Both aspects display the religious-critical orientation of Yan Yuan’s atheist thought. Overall, Yan Yuan’s atheist thought has two main contributions.

颜元的无神论展现为两个方面：一方面他以气本论为理论根据，对程朱理本论和佛道的世界观进行批判，另一方面则是以“犯手实做其事”的实学思想为理论根据，对程朱的静坐思想和佛道的实践思想进行批判。这两方面都显示出颜元无神论思想宗教批判的面向。总的来说，颜元的无神论思想具有两方面主要的贡献。

(1) It made an important contribution to Confucianism’s liberation from the influence of Buddhism and Daoism and from its religious character. Yan Yuan held that Song-Ming Neo-Confucianism was precisely the Buddhification and Daoification of Confucianism, and that it was precisely the Cheng-Zhu Neo-Confucians’ Buddhification and Daoification and religionization of Confucianism that led to the situation where “every person is a Chan Buddhist, every family engages in empty talk,” and thereby caused the fall of the Ming dynasty. Hence Yan Yuan demanded a settling of accounts with Song-Ming Neo-Confucianism: “One must break one part of Cheng and Zhu before one can enter one part of Confucius and Mencius.” Yan Yuan used the theory of qi as fundamental substance as a weapon to break the world of “principle” established by the Cheng-Zhu Neo-Confucians, making an important contribution to Confucianism’s liberation from its religious character. It is precisely because “ancient Chinese atheists represented by Yan Yuan devoted themselves to making corrections from within Confucianism that they to a certain extent prevented the religionization of Confucianism.”

(1)为儒学摆脱佛道两家的影响和摆脱其宗教性做出了重要贡献。颜元认为宋明理学便是儒学的佛道化，他认为正是程朱理学家们将儒学佛道化与宗教化，才导致“人人禅子，家家虚文”情况出现，并由此导致了明朝的灭亡。因此颜元要求展开对宋明理学的清算：“必破一分程、朱，始入一分孔、孟。”而颜元则是以气本论为武器，打破程朱理学家们建立起来的“理”世界，为儒学摆脱其宗教性做出了重要贡献。也正是因为以颜元为代表的“中国古代无神论者致力于从儒学内部进行修正，一定程度上阻止了儒学的宗教化”。

(2) He made an important contribution to the shift of Confucianism from the abstruse learning that emphasized quiet-sitting experience toward practical learning that emphasized practice. The Song-Ming Neo-Confucians objectified the value belonging to human beings and sanctified the principles belonging to human beings into a “Heavenly Principle” (天理) external to human beings. In this way, the “principle” concerning human beings became an abstruse “pure and empty” world of “principle.” “As for principle, it is merely a pure and empty world.” [19]19 Zhu Xi, *Classified Conversations of Master Zhu* (朱子语类), juan 1. “Principle” is sacred, and it can exist apart from actual human beings; thus, the “principle” belonging to human beings was pushed to the other shore, and “principle” was used to negate the human body and actual existence. They believed that only through methods such as “quiet-sitting” to experience the Heavenly Principle could people achieve inner transcendence and realize unity with “principle.” Yan Yuan, starting from an emphasis on bodily practical learning, on the one hand criticized Cheng-Zhu for pushing the principle belonging to human beings to the other world, and on the other hand demanded attention to the human body and actual practice. In this way, he steered the development of Confucianism from the “abstruse” learning that emphasized quiet-sitting experience toward practical learning that emphasized practice, playing a corrective role in the development of Confucianism.

(2)为儒学由注重静坐体验的玄虚之学转向注重实践的实学做出了重要贡献。宋明理学家们将关于人的价值对象化，将属于人的道理神圣化为外在于人的“天理”。如此，关于人的“理”便成了玄虚的“净洁空阔”的“理”世界。“若理，则只是个净洁空阔底世界”。“理”是神圣的，而且是可以脱离现实的人而存在的，如此便把属于人的“理”推向彼岸，并以“理”否定了人的身体和现实存在。他们认为，人只有通过“静坐”等体验天理的方式，才能实现内在的超越，实现与“理”的合一。颜元则是以注重身体实学出发，一方面批评程朱将属于人的理推向彼世的做法，另一方面则是要求注重人的身体和现实实践。如此，便将儒学的发展从注重静坐体验的“虚”学导向注重实践的实学，对儒学的发展具有纠偏的作用。

However, Yan Yuan’s atheism still had an incomplete aspect. On the one hand, he criticized the religiosity of Confucianism and the religious thought of Buddhism and Daoism; but on the other hand, superstitious elements remained in Yan Yuan’s thought, such as his devout prayer to the Lord on High: “Every night I silently pray to the Lord on High and the spirits of the former sages.” [20]20 Yan Yuan, *Chronicle of Yan Xizhai’s Words and Deeds* (颜习斋先生言行录), juan 2. In addition, Yan Yuan’s qi-based ontology (气本论) still had remnants of idealism and a tendency toward agnosticism; he also still carried out his critique of religion from within Neo-Confucianism. Therefore, he advocated freeing people from the bonds of religion through moral cultivation, without seeing the important role of the development of productive forces in transforming people’s ideas. Of course, these points do not detract from Yan Yuan’s major contribution to advancing the cause of atheism in China. Yan Yuan was able to recognize the harm of the religionization of Confucianism and its transformation into Buddhism and Daoism, and he consciously took up the banner of atheism, criticizing the Cheng-Zhu school’s religionization of Confucianism, embodying the spirit of responsibility of ancient Chinese atheists.

但是，颜元的无神论仍然具有不彻底的一面。他一方面批判儒学的宗教性，批判佛道两家的宗教思想，但另一方面颜元的思想中却也残存着迷信的因素，如他也会虔诚地对上帝进行祷告：“每夜默祷上帝并前圣之灵。”另外，颜元的气本论仍然具有唯心主义的残留和不可知论的倾向，他也仍然是从理学内部来进行宗教批判，因此他又主张通过道德修养来将人从宗教的束缚中解脱出来，没有看到生产力的发展对于人的观念转变的重要作用。当然，这些并不妨碍颜元在推进中国无神论事业发展中的重大贡献。颜元能够认识到儒学宗教化和佛道化的危害，并能自觉扛起无神论的大旗，批判程朱对儒学宗教化的做法，体现了中国古代无神论者的担当精神。

IV. Conclusion

四、结论

In summary, Yan Yuan’s atheism was in fact a critique of the religious thought of the Cheng-Zhu school, Buddhism, and Daoism. He opposed the Cheng-Zhu school’s practice of turning Confucianism into something Buddhist, Daoist, and religious, and further criticized the religious thought of Buddhism and Daoism. The typical characteristic of religion is to objectify and sanctify the essence belonging to human beings, and to set up a sacred thing external to human beings in opposition to them, thereby negating people’s actual life. Marx gave a penetrating explanation of the phenomenon of religious alienation: “In religion, people turn their empirical world into an essence that exists only in thought, in imagination, an essence that confronts them as something alien.” [21]21 Karl Marx, “The German Ideology,” in *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, vol. 3, p. 170. Yan Yuan deeply recognized the harm of the Cheng-Zhu school’s principle-based ontology (理本论) and the religious thought of Buddhism and Daoism; therefore, he resolutely raised the banner of atheism, using qi-based ontology and the practical learning of “doing things with one’s own hands” as weapons to critique religion. Yan Yuan’s critique of Cheng-Zhu Neo-Confucianism and Buddhist and Daoist religious thought was ultimately aimed at liberating people from the bonds of theology, pulling people’s focus from heaven back down to the human world, thereby promoting a renewed affirmation of people’s self-worth. Therefore, Yan Yuan’s atheist thought has important enlightenment significance.

综上所述，颜元的无神论实际上是对程朱和佛道的宗教思想进行批判，他反对程朱将儒学佛道化、宗教化的做法，又进而批评佛道两家的宗教思想。宗教的典型特征便是将属于人的本质对象化、神圣化，并以一个外在于人的神圣物来与人对立，人的现实生活也因此被否定。马克思对宗教的异化现象有过精辟的说明：“在宗教中，人们把自己的经验世界变成一种只是在思想中的、想象中的本质，这个本质作为某种异物与人们对立着。”颜元深刻地认识到程朱理本论思想和佛道宗教思想的危害，因此他坚决举起无神论的大旗，以气本论和“犯手实做其事”的实学思想为武器进行宗教批判。颜元对程朱理学和佛道宗教思想的批判终究是要将人从神学束缚中解放出来，并将人的关注点从天上拉回到了人间，由此促进人们对自我价值的重新肯定，因此颜元的无神论思想具有重要的启蒙意义。

(Author’s bio: Xu Jiulin, doctoral student at the Institute of Chinese Thought and Culture, Northwest University)

（作者简介：徐久琳，西北大学中国思想文化研究所博士研究生）

Online editor: Tongxin

网络编辑：同心