经曰∶天有四时五行，以生长收藏，以生寒暑燥湿风。人有五脏化五气，以生喜怒思忧
恐，是即所谓五志也。此五志之化由乎五脏，而五脏之化由乎五行。故在心为喜，心主火也
；在肝为怒，肝主木也；在脾为思，脾主土也；在肺为忧，肺主金也；在肾为恐，肾主水也
。此五志各有分属，本不可以混言者也。且人有此生，即有此志，使无此志，生亦何为，是
生之与志，本不能离，亦不可离。而人于食息之常，孰不以五志为生，亦孰不以五志为用，
而未闻以五志之动皆为火也。第或以用志失宜，则未免有伤脏气，故在《内经》则但言五脏
之伤，各有所属，五气之伤，各有所病，亦未闻以五志之伤皆云火也。而五火之说，乃始于
刘河间，云五志所伤皆热也。丹溪述河间而衍之曰∶五志之动，各有火起。刘宗浓又述丹溪
而衍之曰∶大怒则火起于肝，醉饱则火起于胃，房劳则火起于肾，悲哀动中则火起于肺，心
为君主，自焚则死矣。自三子之说行，则似乎五行悉化而为火，理岂然乎！
余尝察五志所伤之人，但见其憔悴日增，未见其俱为热病也。即因志动火者，非曰必无
，但伤气者十之九，动火者十之一，又岂五志皆能动火乎！而矧以怒动肝气者，最易伤脾，
脾伤者，不可以言火也，醉饱能动胃火，胃强者固自无恙，脾弱而致病者，不可以言火也。
房劳本动肾火，精去而阳亢者，可以火言，精去而气亦去者，不可以言火也。外如五志之伤，
则无非伤气败阳之证，尚可谓之火乎。无火治火，则无有不败者矣。三卷中辨丹溪第二条下
仍有一论，当互阅之。
《内经》说：天有四季和五行，用来生长、繁荣、收敛、收藏，从而产生寒、暑、燥、湿、风。人有五脏化生五气，从而产生喜、怒、思、忧、恐，这就是所谓的“五志”。这五志的化生源于五脏，而五脏的化生源于五行。所以在心表现为喜，因为心主火；在肝表现为怒，因为肝主木；在脾表现为思，因为脾主土；在肺表现为忧，因为肺主金；在肾表现为恐，因为肾主水。这五志各有其所属的脏腑，本来不可以混为一谈。况且人有了生命，就有这些情志，如果没有这些情志，活着又是为了什么呢？所以生命与情志，本来就不能分离，也不应该分离。而在人们日常饮食呼吸中，谁不把五志当作生命的表现，谁不把五志当作功能作用呢？却从未听说五志的发动都是火邪。只是如果运用情志不当，就难免会损伤脏气，所以在《内经》中只说五脏的损伤各有其所属的脏腑，五气的损伤各有其导致的疾病，也从未听说五志的损伤都说是火邪。而“五火”的说法，是从刘河间开始的，他说五志所伤都是热证。朱丹溪阐述刘河间的观点并加以发挥说：五志的发动，各自都有火起。刘宗浓又阐述朱丹溪的观点并加以发挥说：大怒则火起于肝，醉酒饱食则火起于胃，房事过度则火起于肾，悲哀触动内心则火起于肺，心为君主之官，如果自焚就会死亡。自从这三人的学说流行以来，似乎五行全都化而为火，道理难道是这样吗！
我曾经观察被五志所伤的人，只见他们日渐憔悴，并未见到他们都患热病。即使是因情志激动而起火的，并非绝对没有，但损伤正气的大概占十分之九，动火的大概只占十分之一，这哪里能说五志都能动火呢！况且因为愤怒触动肝气的人，最容易损伤脾胃，脾胃受损的，就不能说是火邪；醉酒饱食能引起胃火，胃气强盛的自然安然无恙，但如果因为脾弱而致病，就不能说是火邪。房劳过度本来会扰动肾火，精气耗损而阳气亢盛的，可以用火来解释，但如果精气耗损而元气也随之衰败的，就不能用来说火。此外，像五志的损伤，无非是损伤正气、败坏阳气的证候，还能说是火邪吗？对于没有火邪的情况却用清火的方法治疗，就没有不导致败坏的。第三卷中辨析朱丹溪第二条下面还有一篇论述，应当互相参考阅读。
The *Neijing* (Inner Canon) states: Heaven has the four seasons and the Five Phases, which govern growth, flourishing, gathering, and storage, thereby generating cold, heat, dryness, dampness, and wind. Humans have five zang organs that transform into five qi, thereby generating joy, anger, worry, thought, and fear; this is what is referred to as the "Five Wills" (Wu Zhi). The transformation of these five wills stems from the five zang organs, and the transformation of the five zang organs stems from the Five Phases. Therefore, in the Heart it manifests as joy, because the Heart governs Fire; in the Liver it manifests as anger, because the Liver governs Wood; in the Spleen it manifests as thought, because the Spleen governs Earth; in the Lung it manifests as worry, because the Lung governs Metal; in the Kidney it manifests as fear, because the Kidney governs Water. These five wills each have their specific affiliations and originally should not be discussed indiscriminately. Moreover, once humans possess life, they possess these wills; without these wills, what would be the purpose of life? Thus, life and wills are inherently inseparable and should not be separated. In the daily routine of eating and breathing, who does not regard the five wills as the manifestation of life and who does not regard them as functional activities, yet no one has heard that the movement of the five wills constitutes all fire pathogens. It is only when the use of wills is improper that it inevitably damages the qi of the zang organs. Therefore, in the *Neijing*, it is merely stated that injuries to the five zang organs belong to their respective organs, and injuries to the five qi result in respective diseases; there is no mention that injuries to the five wills are all classified as fire. The theory of "Five Fires" originated with Liu Hejian, who claimed that injuries caused by the five wills are all heat syndromes. Zhu Danxi elaborated on Liu Hejian's view, stating: The movement of the five wills gives rise to fire in each case. Liu Zongnong further elaborated on Zhu Danxi's view, stating: Great anger causes fire to arise in the Liver; drunkenness and overeating cause fire to arise in the Stomach; sexual exhaustion causes fire to arise in the Kidneys; sorrow and grief moving the interior cause fire to arise in the Lungs; the Heart, being the Sovereign Ruler, if it burns itself, death ensues. Since the theories of these three scholars became prevalent, it seems as though the Five Phases all transform into fire; can this reasoning be correct?
I have often observed patients injured by the five wills, seeing only their gradual emaciation and decline, but never seeing them all suffering from heat diseases. Even in cases where fire arises due to emotional agitation, while not impossible, nine out of ten cases involve damage to qi, whereas only one out of ten involves the stirring of fire. How can it be said that all five wills stir fire! Furthermore, regarding those whose liver qi is stirred by anger, it most easily injures the Spleen; if the Spleen is injured, it cannot be described as a fire syndrome. While drunkenness and overeating can stimulate stomach fire, if the Stomach qi is strong, it remains unharmed; however, if illness arises due to Spleen weakness, it cannot be described as a fire syndrome. Sexual exhaustion originally stirs kidney fire; if essence is lost and yang becomes hyperactive, it can be described as fire; but if essence is lost and qi also departs, it cannot be described as fire. Additionally, injuries from the five wills are essentially conditions that damage qi and ruin yang; how can they still be considered fire? Treating non-fire conditions with fire-clearing methods will inevitably lead to deterioration. There is another discussion under the second point analyzing Zhu Danxi's views in Volume 3; readers should consult it mutually.