虛靜工夫是多家共法，各自開展出相即相離的風貌。從《老子》致虛守靜，《莊子》心齋坐忘，到《列子》虛者無貴，虛靜之於道家的重要性毋庸置疑。而儒家孔孟以降，《管子》內靜外敬的思維結構，乃至周敦頤之無欲主靜，復經二程至朱熹，再由儒醫朱丹溪折衷調和濂溪與程朱，亦是一條重要路徑。觀察儒道虛靜工夫的流衍，揉雜多家的稷下《管子》或為關鍵，而三入稷下的荀子則引出了李斯與韓非。以上圖景當可概覽守靜與用靜的轉變。

論虛靜、定靜，由《管子》至宋明儒是一條重要脈絡，然稷下後還有另一路開展，即是將虛靜轉為術用的韓非。當韓非標舉法術勢時，偶也論及虛靜；但他將語境一轉，轉為用虛用靜；原先作為修養論或工夫論的虛靜，被他全然置入統御論的語境內，源出《老子》的虛靜工夫也就被轉譯為法家的手段或策略。《韓非子》論虛靜的重要涵義，即在於從工夫修養的範疇登出，轉而登入政治術用範疇。這是範疇的移轉，是虛靜的去工夫化，也是修養到力量的辯證。

The practice of “xu-jing 虛靜” (emptiness and stillness) is a shared method across multiple schools of thought, each developing its own distinctive yet interrelated character. From the Laozi’s 老子 call to “attain emptiness and remain stillness,” to the Zhuangzi’s 莊子 “fasting of the mind” and “sitting in forgetfulness,” and to the Liezi’s 列子 idea that “emptiness has no hierarchy,” the importance of “xu-jing” within Daoism is beyond dispute. Yet from Confucius and Mencius onward, the notion also manifests within Confucian traditions: in the Guanzi’s 管子 structure of “inner stillness and outer reverence,” in Zhou Dunyi’s 朱丹溪 teaching that “freedom from desire makes one’s nature still,” and through the refinements of the Cheng brothers and Zhu Xi 朱熹. Later, the Confucian physician Zhu Danxi sought to reconcile and harmonize the thought of Lianxi 濂溪 with that of Cheng 程 and Zhu 朱, forming another vital thread in this lineage. Observing the evolution of “xujing” across Confucianism and Daoism, the syncretic Guanzi of the Jixia 稷下 Academy emerges as a crucial node—and from that same Jixia tradition, Xunzi 荀子, who studied there three times, leads us toward Li Si 李斯 and Han Fei 韓非. Through this panorama, one can discern the transformation from “guarding stillness” to “using stillness.”

In tracing the notions of “xu-jing” and “ding-jing 定靜” from the Guanzi to Song-Ming 宋明 Confucianism, we find one major line of development; yet after the Jixia tradition, another path unfolds—namely, Han Fei’s transformation of “xu-jing” into shu-yong 術用(a technique of governance). When Han Fei extols fa 法, shu 術, and shi 勢, he occasionally discusses “xu-jing”; however, he shifts its context entirely—from gongfu 工夫 to application. What was once a discourse on moral or spiritual self-gongfu becomes, in Han Fei’s thought, a strategic tool of political control. Thus, the significance of “xu-jing” in the Han Feizi 韓非子 lies precisely in this categorical shift—from the realm of gongfu to that of political technique. It is a transference of domains, a de-gongfu of stillness, and a dialectical movement from moral refinement to the exercise of power.