On the Relationship Between Life and Death in Fang Yizhi’s Philosophy and Its Transcendence

Abstract

The question of how to properly understand and proactively respond to life and death is a fundamental human concern and a core topic in both philosophical and religious studies. Seventeenth-century Chinese philosopher Fang Yizhi (1611–1671) held a unique perspective on this issue, yet his insights have received little scholarly attention. Employing a methodology of textual comparison and logical analysis, this study systematically examines Fang Yizhi’s discourse on life and death. Grounded in the framework of the “Unity of Heaven and Humanity,” (tianren heyi 天人合一) he utilized dialectical modes of thought such as “primary and complementary” (zhengyu 正余) and “inverse causality” (fanyin 反因) to view life and death as categories that are not only mutually antithetical but also capable of mutual transformation. He further substantiated this view with a Confucian-style ontological grounding. Furthermore, this paper outlines the methods he proposed for the liberation of those lost in the sea of life-and-death anxiety. The findings underscore the enduring relevance of Fang Yizhi’s philosophy of life and death in addressing modern existential anxieties and encouraging a more positive and proactive approach to life.

1. Introduction

1.1. Fang Yizhi: A Polymath and His Era

Fang Yizhi (1611–1671), also known by his courtesy name Mizhi, was a prominent philosopher and thinker from Tongcheng during the transition from the Ming to the Qing dynasty. A true polymath, he conducted profound research in a vast array of fields, including astronomy, geography, ritual and music, mathematics, painting, and medicine. His extensive works, such as Tongya (通雅) and Wuli Xiaoshi (物理小識), are masterpieces of scholarly inquiry, demonstrating a commitment to empirical truth with detailed discussions on various subjects from physics and philology to medicine. In his philosophical works, including Yiyu (易余), Dongxi Jun (東西均), and Yaodi Paozhuang (藥地炮莊), he created sophisticated philosophical concepts and constructed a rigorous ideological system. The historian Hou Wailu praised him as a “great encyclopedist philosopher of China” (Hou 2011, p. 485), characterizing his academic work as a “union of natural science and philosophy” (Hou 2011, p. 622).

1.2. The Late Ming Philosophical Context: Intersecting Ideological and Social Crises

The issue of life and death features prominently in Fang Yizhi’s philosophical writings, a focus that was a direct response to the specific social and intellectual contexts of his time. Socially, the suicide of the Chongzhen Emperor plunged the question of sacrificial loyalty (xunguo 殉國) into intense public debate, forcing Ming scholar-officials to confront the question of whether they should die for their fallen dynasty. The subsequent Ming-Qing transition, marked by the Manchu conquest and the imposition of policies like the queue hairstyle and Manchu-style clothing, caused immense psychological trauma for Ming loyalists who championed the distinction between Chinese and “barbarian” cultures, which further intensified the debate over martyrdom.

Intellectually, the syncretism of Confucianism and Buddhism in the late Ming era led to a cross-pollination of concerns, making the discussion of life and death no longer the sole domain of Buddhist thought. Within this syncretic atmosphere, many scholars began to incorporate the transcendence of death or the complete resolution of the life-and-death problem into the meaning of Confucianism. A profound reflection on death and the conquest of the fear of death became important aspects of late-Ming Confucianism and essential elements in many scholars’ visions of an ideal life (Lü 2015, p. 64).

As a culminating figure of late-Ming philosophy, Fang Yizhi’s profound reflections on life and death were rooted not only in his deep concern for the issues of his era but also in his personal experience of existential crises. His life was inextricably linked to the fate of the Ming dynasty, and he faced at least three moments of life-or-death decision. The first occurred in Beijing in 1644 when the rebel army captured the city. Fang mourned the Chongzhen Emperor and was captured, subjected to torture, and nearly killed (Fang 2017, p. 229). His second crisis came in Nanjing, where he was falsely accused of complicity with the enemy by political rivals in the Southern Ming court, forcing him into a period of exile in Lingnan. The third took place in Guangxi in 1650 when he was captured by Qing forces. Refusing to surrender, his resolve moved the Qing general, who instead advised him to become a monk. Fang accepted this proposal, shaved his head, and entered the Buddhist order (Qian 2006, p. 127).1 In each instance, whether by active choice or passive acceptance, Fang Yizhi chose to live. His reasons for doing so ranged from the loyalty of “preserving his body to serve the nation” to the filial piety of “fulfilling his duty as a son,” as well as the academic purpose of compiling his father’s teachings and his own life’s work. This liminal experience of wandering between life and death allowed Fang to grasp the subtle workings of existence and to articulate a new path for those lost in the labyrinth of life-and-death anxiety.

1.3. A Survey of Existing Scholarship

Early Western scholarship on Fang Yizhi, particularly in the English-speaking world, has primarily focused on his scientific thought and his reception of Western learning. Joseph Needham introduced Fang’s scientific ideas from Wuli Xiaoshi (物理小識) in his work Science and Civilisation in China (Needham 1962, p. 309). Willard J. Peterson is a leading authority on Fang Yizhi’s engagement with Western knowledge, having systematically examined his attitudes and the extent of his assimilation of Western thought through his Ph.D. dissertation and subsequent works, including the monograph Bitter Gourd: Fang I-chih and the Impetus for Intellectual Change (Peterson 1979) and his paper From Interest to Indifference: Fang I-chih and Western Learning (Peterson 2011). To date, however, Western scholarship has not yet paid sufficient attention to Fang Yizhi’s religious thought, especially his unique views on life and death.

In contrast, Chinese scholarship on Fang Yizhi has been more comprehensive and has produced a considerable body of work. Regarding the topic of life and death specifically, Liu Yuanqing has illuminated the diachronic changes in Fang’s perspective (Liu 2011). Yang Ziping has focused on the philosophy of life and death in Fang’s Dongxi Jun (Z. Yang 2013). Wu Qing has dissected the influence of the I Ching Studies, Buddhism, and Confucianism on Fang’s views on life and death (Wu 2022). Zhang Zhaowei has systematically explored Fang’s philosophy of life and death by examining his “medicinal tree” (yaoshu 藥樹) concept, combining intellectual and philosophical history (Zhang 2022). Wu Genyou, through a comparison with Liu Zongzhou and his disciples, as well as with Wang Fuzhi, highlighted Fang’s stance of neither dying easily nor clinging to life, choosing instead to preserve culture during the dynastic transition (Wu and Fu 2024). While these studies are of great academic value, they have not adequately explored Fang Yizhi’s discussion of the life–death relationship itself, or the methods he proposed for transcending it. These topics, which form the most distinctive and core aspects of his philosophy, have been regrettably overlooked. This paper seeks to excavate and systematically organize these neglected elements of his thought.

2. The Truth of the Life–Death Relationship and the Correct Attitude Towards It

For human beings, life and death are a sequence of physiological phenomena. From the moment of birth, every person is cast under the shadow of death, and no one can escape the cycle of life and death. When life and death become a topic of reflection, it signals the beginning of a philosophical inquiry into this phenomenon, from which a person’s outlook on life and death gradually takes shape. Fang Yizhi believed that such understanding begins with the desire for life, and even for longevity. The satisfaction of this desire brings joy, while its frustration brings suffering. The preference for life and aversion to death, coupled with the alternation of pleasure and pain, thus becomes the norm of human existence. Out of this love for life and hatred of death, people tend to view life and death as two mutually exclusive and conflicting events.

2.1. A Critique of Three Attitudes Toward Life and Death

Fang Yizhi categorized people’s attitudes toward life and death into three types: the bustling seekers (yingying zhe 營營者), those who are mindful out of fear (youwei er jinxin zhe 由畏而儘心者), and those who are determined through knowledge (youzhi er dingzhi zhe 由知而定志者), as in

Table 1. Fang Yizhi’s Classification and Critique of Life-and-Death Attitudes.

Attitude	Characteristics and Motivation	Fang Yizhi’s Critique
Bustling Seekers	Pursue fame and pleasure; avoid death out of fear.	Refuse to confront death; their life is lived in a state of “unawareness,” no different from that of an animal.
Mindful from Fear	Follow rules out of fear of external punishment (political or religious).	Their behavior is not rooted in genuine faith but in passive obedience, lacking autonomous thought or true understanding.
Determined through Knowledge	Use philosophical theories (equalizing, obliterating, etc.) to cope with death.	Their deliberate coping methods reveal they are still bound by the emotion of “loving life and hating death”.

. He believed that all three types, while differing in degree, were trapped in the cycle of life and death and unable to be truly free.

First are the “bustling seekers” who are consumed by the pursuit of wealth, fine food, and luxury. For them, the more they accumulate, the more they have to forsake at the moment of death, which intensifies their fear. Consequently, these individuals consider death a taboo, actively avoiding any discussion of it. Fang Yizhi contended that without confronting death, one cannot truly reflect on life. A life lived in such “unawareness” is no different from that of an animal. These “bustling seekers,” indulging in the comforts of life while refusing to contemplate death, are merely dragging their own corpses toward their inevitable end (苟決華腴，營營相逐，如是乎忌諱生死，不聞生死之言，而日拖尸以趨死) (Fang 2016, p. 178).

Second are those who are “mindful out of fear”. Their adherence to rules is largely based on self-interest rather than pure faith, stemming from an aversion to negative consequences like political punishment or religious retribution. Fang Yizhi said:

By confronting them with the promise of rewards and the threat of punishment, and by terrifying them with the six realms of existence, the common people tremble when they hear thunder and pray when they see a god. The Hell King (Pi Sha of Avīci Hell) still saves those who are enslaved by wealth, lust, power, and a tenacious clinging to life, by terrifying them with death.

臨之以罪福，聳之以六道，故小民聞雷則顫，見神則禱。毗沙無間2，猶以怖死，陰救殉財、漁色、誇權、憑生之生死。

(Fang 2016, p. 179)

While their behavior might appear more restrained than the “bustling seekers,” it is merely a byproduct of their “love of life and hatred of death”. They passively accept the solutions designed by elites, lacking autonomous thought or genuine self-awareness. While Fang Yizhi did not endorse the “fear” exhibited by these individuals, he did acknowledge the effectiveness of this expedient approach in forcing them to face life and death.

Finally, there are those who are “determined through knowledge”. They reject religious solace, choosing instead to find peace with death through philosophical means. Fang Yizhi said:

Those who overcome it with reason say: “To exist is also a joy, to perish is also a joy,” which is equalizing life and death; “to be is to gather, to be nothing is to disperse,” which is obliterating life and death; “to establish a name that does not decay and becomes even more radiant after one perishes,” which is lightening life and death; “to be content with the given time and await one’s destiny, as no effort can do anything,” which is accepting life and death. Equalizing, obliterating, lightening, and accepting are called the “Four Victories.”3

其勝之以理者曰：存亦樂，亡亦樂，是齊生死也；聚則有，散則無，是泯生死也；名立不朽，没而愈光，是輕生死也；安時俟命，力不可爲，是任生死也。齊、泯、輕、任，謂之「四勝」。

(Fang 2016, p. 179)

Yet, in Fang’s view, these “Four Victories” also lack a genuine, embodied understanding of life and death. In their attempts to overcome death anxiety, they invent various theories to console themselves. This deliberate method of coping reveals that they are still constrained by the emotion of “loving life and hating death”.

Through an in-depth analysis of Fang Yizhi’s critique of these three mentalities, we can find the core of his argument: regardless of whether people choose to escape, fear, or rationalize death, they all fail to engage in a direct, real dialogue with the issue of life and death. This lack of personal, authentic, and direct engagement is the common fundamental flaw in all these attitudes. The problem is not merely with external doctrines or belief systems but with an internal, deep-seated psychological state—the inability to break free from the shackles of “loving life and hating death”.

2.2. The True Nature of the Life–Death Relationship and the Path to Correction

To refute the misguided attitude of “loving life and hating death,” Fang Yizhi drew on a wealth of classical allusions. He contrasted individuals who died for their moral integrity, such as Gong Sheng (龔勝), Guan Longfeng (關龍逄), Bigan (比干), and the brothers Boyi (伯夷) and Shuqi (叔齊), with those who clung to life (Fang 2016, p. 181). He argued that the only true measure of a life’s value is not its duration, or “fulfilling one’s heavenly lifespan” (quanqi tiannian 全其天年), but its moral integrity, or “fulfilling one’s heavenly virtue” (quanqi tiande 全其天德). To die for one’s moral integrity is in harmony with the Heavenly Way and possesses greater value than a mediocre, long life. This redefines the value of life from a personal survival issue to a matter of cosmic and ethical significance. Death, when accepted with dignity for the sake of righteousness, can serve as the ultimate proof of a person’s moral integrity, its meaning far transcending mere survival.

Fang Yizhi believed that life and death in our experience are two opposing poles. He stated: “The empty and the full, motion and stillness, yin and yang, form and qi, the Dao and the vessel, day and night, darkness and light, life and death—all things in heaven and earth, past and present, are dual” (虚实也，动静也，阴阳也，形气也，道器也，昼夜也，幽明也，生死也，尽天地古今皆二也) (Fang 2016, pp. 67–68). Life and death are mutually complementary, or mutually inverse causes. Viewing them as categories that are both opposed and capable of mutual transformation is not only an insight into the laws of nature but also has a practical dimension. Although people cannot directly experience death, they can infer its characteristics from its opposite, which is to “know death through life” (yisheng zhisi 以生知死) (Fang 2024, p. 1). Death is an inevitable event. As Heidegger stated, “death, as the end of Dasein, is Dasein’ s ownmost possibility——non-relational, certain and as such indefinite, not to be outstripped. Death is, as Dasein’ s end, in the Being of this entity towards its end (Heidegger 1962, p. 303). The consciousness of “I will inevitably die” and “I do not know when I will die” permeates our lives and shapes our entire mode of being. When one genuinely grasps the immediacy of death and the possibility of its ever-present potentiality, one can break free from the state of the common person and return to an authentic mode of being, reshaping one’s life. This is what Fang Yizhi called “governing life through death” (yisi zhisheng 以死治生) (Fang 2024, p. 1). “Knowing death through life” can cure a life lived in vain, and “governing life through death” can prevent a senseless death. Fang Yizhi’s revelation of the relationship between life and death provided a preliminary theoretical solution to the problem of “living in vain and dying senselessly” that plagued his contemporaries.

3. How to Cultivate the Correct Attitude Toward Life and Death: From Transcendence to Return

The empirical interpretation of life and death from a naturalistic standpoint has its limitations. It fails to adequately explain why the moral value of “fulfilling one’s heavenly virtue” is higher than “fulfilling one’s heavenly lifespan”. Only by delving into the ontological realm can we establish the ultimate value of “fulfilling one’s heavenly virtue”. This requires transcending the duality of life and death to grasp their ultimate ground. The demands of both theory and practice compelled Fang Yizhi to open up the “transcendent dimension” of the life–death problem. This transcendent existence, from the perspective of its function, is the state of “being free from life and death” (wu shengsi 無生死), and from the perspective of its substance, it is the “ultimate ground of life and death” (shengsi zhigu 生死之故).

In Yiyu, Fang Yizhi provided a richer interpretation of Zhuangzi’s philosophy of nourishing life. He said:

Those of the Han dynasty, who regarded Zhuangzi’s mournful cries about life and death as an extreme fear of death, how could they know that he used this very fear of death to guide people toward nourishing life? How could they know that he used the nourishing of life to guide people toward nourishing the master of their life?… From the perspective of one who has “concocted” Zhuangzi’s thought, it is also about nourishing the solemn and ceaseless creativity, and nourishing the master within the master that is the embodiment of this creativity.

漢人以莊子嗷嗷生死為畏死之甚者，夫安知其即以畏死誘人之養生乎？安知其即以養生誘人養其生之主乎？…自炮莊者言之，亦養其於穆之生生耳，亦養其行生即於穆之主中主耳。

(Fang 2024, pp. 55–56)

Zhuangzi’s nourishing of life is not merely about nurturing the physical body and pursuing longevity; more importantly, it is about nourishing the master (zhu 主) of one’s life. In Fang Yizhi’s view, this kind of nourishing life encompasses two dimensions: the physical life (xingxia 形下) and the metaphysical master (xingshang 形上), which are in distinction yet not separate (xiangji buli 相即不離). It not only fulfills the requirement of fully nurturing natural life but also perfects the vital activities in which the master is manifested. Fang Yizhi’s new interpretation of nourishing life implies a two-way interaction between transcendence and natural world, an interaction that manifests as the mutual rotation between life and death and the state of being free from life and death, which can be divided into two steps: transcending life and death, and returning to life and death.

3.1. Opening a Third-Party Perspective: Transcending Life and Death

The impetus for transcending life and death arises from their “function”. In the course of their lives, if scholars can genuinely experience the rotation of life and death, recognizing that it is no different from the alternation of day and night, they can then obliterate the distinction between them. The state of “being free from life and death” means that the scholar’s understanding has shed the limitations of subjective factors like desire and preference, and has returned to the truth of the life–death relationship. This return cancels the categories of life and death, representing a preliminary form of transcendence.

Through the “primary and complementary” or “inverse principle” modes of thought, one can similarly deduce the state of “being free from life and death” from the concept of life and death itself. After stepping outside the opposition of life and death, the scholar can, from a third-party perspective, view life and death as a single whole. This inversion of life and death marks the shift from empiricism to speculative philosophy.

The state of “being free from life and death” breaks through the boundaries of life and death, opening a new horizon. However, for this transcendent existence to be effective in people’s real lives, its reality must be confirmed. Therefore, it is necessary to go one step further, building upon the state of “being free from life and death” to establish the transcendent substance, which is the “ultimate ground of life and death”. Although life and death are opposites, they share the same ultimate ground. This ground is the fundamental basis for the Great Flow of Transformation (dahua liuxing 大化流行), and on this more fundamental level, the opposition between life and death is dissolved. In this regard, the relationship between life, death, and the ultimate ground of life and death can be seen as a special expression of the relationship between yin (陰), yang (陽), and the Dao (道) in the philosophy of life and death. To truly know this ultimate ground is to no longer be attached to life and death, wealth and poverty, or love and hate, and to be able to move freely in any situation.

The root cause of people’s “living in vain and dying senselessly” lies in a muddled view of life and death and a lack of a clear standard of value. As the fundamental reality, the “ultimate ground of life and death” possesses an inherent moral value, capable of providing substantial support for a correct view of life and death; it is what “makes a person a person”. Fang Yizhi inherited Wang Yangming’s view that the Heavenly Principle (tianli 天理) serves as the “ultimate ground of life and death,” and he provided a richer, more systematic articulation. He believed that the “ultimate ground of life and death,” could be Principle (li 理), qi (氣), or Mind (xin 心); these were merely different names for the same thing (Fang 2016, p. 322).

Grasping the ultimate ground of life and death marks a revolutionary shift in the subject’s existence. It makes the subject aware that there is a third, transcendent entity beyond life and death, enabling them to view life and death with equality and to escape the confines of “loving life and hating death”. However, since humans are ultimately unable to escape life and death, one cannot remain in a passive state of mere “non-attachment”. One must return to the cycle of life and death, bringing with them the understanding of its ultimate ground, and actively finding peace within it.

3.2. Returning to Life and Death: Experiencing Them Anew with a New Understanding

However, lingering in the transcendent state of “being free from life and death” can lead to the flaw of being vague and detached, and can even be used to justify “indulgence” and “living in vain and dying senselessly” (xusheng langsi 虚生浪死). To resolve this issue, Fang Yizhi applied such I Ching propositions as “the one is within the two” (yizai erzhong 一在二中) and “the non-oppositional is within the oppositional” (wuduidai zai duidai zhong 無對待在對待中) to his philosophy of life and death. Creatively drawing on the text of the Zhuangzi, he proposed the idea that “to live well is to die well,” (shansheng ji shansi 善生即善死) which unifies the seemingly contradictory concepts of “being neither born nor to die” (busheng busi 不生不死) and “living well” (shan wusheng 善吾生) (Fang 2011, p. 208).

This marks the transition of his philosophy from a simple binary opposition to transcendence and, finally, to a higher-level integration, embodying a classic philosophical dialectical structure. The first stage is the binary opposition of loving life and hating death (thesis); the second is the transcendence of being free from life and death (antithesis); and the third is the integration of living well is dying well (synthesis).

He believed that the transcendent substance (the One) is not separate from the phenomenal world (the Two) but is immanent within it. The ultimate ground of life and death is within the cycles of life and death, and as such, “one who is free from life and death cannot escape the cycles of dying to be born and being born to die” (無生死者不能逃生而死、死而生之輪) (Fang 2024, p. 53). From the perspective of “the One within the Two,” the problem of the separation between the ultimate principle and its application—a separation caused by attachment to the state of “being free from life and death”—is theoretically resolved. The idea of “living well is dying well” thus transcends all common views and becomes the ultimate form of a philosophy of life and death.

A person who truly understands life and death can attain the state of being free from life and death without abandoning them. As Fang Yizhi said, “Life and death are always accompanied by this state of being free from life and death that penetrates and is present throughout, yet this state of being free from life and death can never do away with the process of life and death” (生生死死，皆有此無生死者貫其中而緣其間焉，然而無生死者，終不能廢此生死死生之緣貫也) (Fang 2024, p. 53). By unifying the ultimate ground of life and death with the cycle of life and death, one can achieve a holistic understanding of life and death, and even of all things in the universe, thereby realizing the ideal state of the “Unity of Heaven and Humanity”. The sage is one who “is free from life and death yet undertakes the great task of life and death” (無生死而大生死之事者) (Fang 2024, p. 55).

3.3. The Difference Between Fang Yizhi’s View of Transcendence and the Christian View

Fang Yizhi’s discussion of life and death reveals a Confucian view of transcendence, which differs significantly from the Christian perspective, as in

Table 2. Fang Yizhi’s Confucian Transcendence vs. Christian Salvation.

Philosophical Concept	Fang Yizhi’s View	Christian View
Nature of the Transcendent	The “ultimate ground of life and death” or “Heavenly Principle” (tiandao 天道); an impersonal, cosmic foundation inherent in all things.	God, an external, personal creator outside of all things.
Purpose of Transcendence	To correct a flawed understanding of life and death, thereby enabling a more morally meaningful life in the present world.	To save humanity from sin and restore it to God’s eternal world in the afterlife.
Means of Liberation	“Self-salvation” (zijiu 自救), achieved through the subject’s own spiritual discipline and cultivation (gongfu 工夫).	“Other-salvation”(tajiu 他救), achieved through faith in God and the sacrifice of Christ.

. This comparison helps to more clearly understand the uniqueness of his thought.

First, their understanding of the transcendent being differs. In Christianity, God is a personal being, and His relationship with all things (including humans) is that of creator and created. In contrast, Fang Yizhi’s “ultimate ground of life and death” is the Confucian Heavenly Principle, which is an impersonal existence immanent in all things and serves as the basis for their perpetual generation. The Heavenly Way is directly connected to human nature, which is inherent in the human mind, thereby providing support for mind-centered practice.

Second, the goals for seeking transcendence are different. Christianity emphasizes the afterlife, seeing death as the ultimate human limitation. Fang Yizhi, however, prioritizes this life, arguing that humans have life and death just as heaven has day and night, a similarity rather than a limitation. The purpose of transcending life and death is to correct our subjective understanding, which is clouded by selfish desires, so we can better understand and cope with them.

Finally, the methods for achieving transcendence are different. Christianity is a religion of “other-salvation,” while Fang Yizhi’s philosophy advocates for “self-salvation”. For a Christian, faith in God is the only prerequisite for being saved by Him, meaning transcendence is achieved through an eternal “Other”—God.4 Fang Yizhi, however, inherited the consistent Confucian stance of grounding the possibility of transcendence in the subject’s own efforts and moral-spiritual cultivation.

4. Concrete Methods for Liberation from Life and Death

Fang Yizhi pointed out that the unity of the “ultimate ground of life and death” with the cycle of life and death is a process of “penetration”. He stated: “To unify is to penetrate. It can be called transcendence, transformation, fullness, or emptiness. The non-oppositional is within the oppositional, but one must personally perceive this non-oppositional” (統也者，貫也，謂之超可也，謂之化可也，謂之塞可也，謂之無可也。無對待在對待中，然不可不親見此無對待者也) (Fang 2016, p. 143). The premise for unifying the oppositional and the non-oppositional is the personal perception of the non-oppositional, which in turn requires one to break the hold of the oppositional. Accordingly, only by conquering life and death can one personally perceive their ultimate ground, and only by personally perceiving this ultimate ground can one unify it with the cycle of life and death. Therefore, the primary task of life-and-death spiritual discipline is to conquer life and death.

4.1. Dispelling the Preference for Life and the Aversion to Death Through the Experience of Peril

In Fang Yizhi’s view, to conquer life and death, one must practice “peril” (xian 險). He wrote: “The other person says: To let go is to conquer; to empty is to let go; to put oneself in peril is to empty. This is merely a skill to guide people away from life and death” (彼曰舍之則勝、空之則舍、險之則空，此自一誘生死之術耳) (Fang 2024, p. 57). He illustrates this with allusions from the Zhuangzi, comparing the frightened archer Lie Yukou (列禦寇) with the ease of a plasterer working on a high tower or a moss gatherer on a precipitous cliff. These artisans were not enlightened people; they simply became “accustomed to peril” through their daily work, and over time, they “forgot about life and death”.

Based on this, Fang Yizhi proposed the spiritual discipline of “practicing peril to unify gradual and sudden awakening” (xikan tong dunjian 習坎統頓漸) (Fang 2016, p. 184). “Practicing peril” comes from the I Ching’s hexagram Kan (“Gorge” or “Peril”), which signifies extreme difficulty (Huang and Zhang 2018, pp. 351–52). In such a difficult situation, scholars must be diligent and earnest in their practice. Over time, they may, at a certain moment, grasp a higher principle and transcend life and death. Inheriting the fundamental views of Zhu Xi’s and Wang Yangming’s theories of mind, Fang Yizhi believed that the Mind encompasses both Principle and qi. In his view, the cycle of life and death and its ultimate ground are unified in a single mind, and therefore the problem of life and death can only be thoroughly understood by focusing on the Mind. Correspondingly, the subtle Dao Mind (daoxin 道心) and the perilous human mind (renxin 人心) are, in essence, a single mind; the subtlety of the Dao Mind can only be revealed within the peril of the human mind. For a person in distress, only through the liminal experiences of “double peril (chongxian 重险),” “great exceeding that sends away death (daguo songsi 大过送死),” and “being placed on death ground to achieve life (zhizhisidi er housheng 置之死地而后生),” can they perceive the Dao Mind and know the ultimate ground of life and death, thereby transcending them.

4.2. Using “Fire” to Burn Away the Mind’s Distinctions

The second method is “burning” (shao 燒). Fang Yizhi placed special emphasis on the element of “fire” (huo 火) within the Five Phases (wuxing 五行), seeing it not merely as a material element but as a metaphor for the ultimate principle of ceaseless generation and transformation. He referred to the painful situations people face in life as “being burned,” but argued that this “burning” can also be a “torch of wisdom” (huiju 慧炬) that helps people cast off their burdens.

The most ultimate method for being free from worldly burdens and the threat of life and death is to “burn the mind” (shaoxin 燒心). This is equivalent to “exhausting the mind” (jinxin 盡心), a term Fang Yizhi philologically connected to “ashes” (jin 燼), thereby imbuing the concept of “exhausting” with the meaning of “reducing to ashes”. Through this “burning,” the mind’s desires, concepts, and other distinctions cease to exist, enabling one to achieve a state of great freedom and unhindered movement. In his chapter on “Exhausting the Mind,” Fang Yizhi also detailed various methods used in Chan Buddhism to “burn people’s minds” to exhaustion (Fang 2016, pp. 116–17).

However, Fang Yizhi also saw the potential pitfall of this method. An over-reliance on “emptiness” could lead to a nihilistic “scorched bud and dead ash” (jiaoya huisi 焦芽灰死) state, which he cautioned against (Fang 2016, pp. 108–9). He believed that true emptiness is not a final, absolute state, but a means to eliminate false distinctions so that one can re-enter the real world with a non-attached, non-dual understanding, thereby achieving the state of “living well is dying well”.

4.3. A Simultaneous Focus on the Investigation of Things and Self-Vigilance

The final method Fang Yizhi proposed—the “investigation of things” (gewu 格物) and “self-vigilance” (shendu 慎獨)—reflects his inheritance of traditional Neo-Confucian thought. Regarding the investigation of things, he put forth the idea of the “reciprocal practice of investigation and realization” (gezhi jiaojian 格致交踐), where the distinction between the subject and the object gradually dissolves. The mind and life-and-death are a pair of subject and object, but in the course of reciprocal practice, they merge into a seamless whole, so that one “forgets the object” (wang qige 忘其格) and “forgets the subject” (wang qixing 忘其形), until there is “no thing to investigate” (wuwu kege 無物可格) (Fang 2024, p. 41). The state of being free from life and death (wu shengsi 無生死) and the cycle of life and death (shengsheng sisi 生生死死) are thus unified.

Regarding the discipline of self-vigilance, Fang Yizhi believed that true self-vigilance is not a detached state of passive meditation, but a tempering of the mind by overcoming various dangers and difficulties. He particularly valued the state of “illness” (ji 疾) as the most profound method from the Confucian tradition. Unlike a fleeting moment of courage in battle or the temporary purification of a ritual, illness represents a continuous, inescapable proximity to death. With the constant reminder of “illness,” a person can neither relax nor retreat, and is thus able to discard all “idle thoughts,” allowing the mind to achieve a state of true emptiness. This emptiness, revealed by illness, is not a nihilistic state but one where liberation and responsibility coexist.5

In Dazongshi Zongpao (大宗師總炮), Fang Yizhi summarized his final solution: “Use self-vigilance when the mind is unaroused to incinerate its substantiality; use the investigation of things when it is aroused to incinerate its emptiness” (慎獨未發，以炮其實；格物中節，以炮其虛) (Fang 2011, p. 97). He argued that the realization of “living well and dying well” depends equally on the “investigation of things” and “self-vigilance”. By holding to vigilance and awe in this life, one fulfills one’s human duty and simultaneously conceals the empty within the substantial, the sudden within the gradual, and awakening within learning. This is the solution Fang Yizhi proposed for the problem of life and death, which embodies his pursuit of “unification” and demonstrates his thought’s syncretic nature.

5. Conclusions

Within the intellectual framework of the “Unity of Heaven and Humanity,” Fang Yizhi, based on his correct understanding of the objective world and his dialectical modes of thought, viewed life and death as a natural, balanced category, thereby correcting the popular preference for life and aversion to death. To further validate this perspective, he introduced the transcendent ontological concept of the “ultimate ground of life and death,” which provides a firm foundation for his “living well and dying well” philosophy. Fang Yizhi argued that the purpose of transcending life and death is not to escape them but to better understand and cope with them. This orientation requires that the “ultimate ground of life and death” be realized within the lived experience of life and death. He provided a series of practical methods, including “practicing peril,” “burning the mind,” and the “reciprocal practice of investigation and realization and self-vigilance,” to help people achieve this unity.

Drawing upon the Confucian tradition and creatively absorbing intellectual resources from both Buddhism and Daoism, Fang Yizhi offered a systematic theory and a set of effective solutions to address the human weakness of clinging to life and fearing death, as well as the contemporary flaw of “living in vain and dying senselessly”. His philosophy provides a distinctively Confucian solution to contemporary death anxiety and continues to hold significant relevance today.