朱子對 “涵養德性” 的理論建構與核心意義

——二程涵養思想的繼承、分化與時代指向

On Zhu Xi’s Theoretical Construction and Core Significance of “Nourishing Virtuous Nature”: With a Concurrent Discussion of the Inheritance, Differentiation, and Epochal Orientation of the Cheng Brothers’ Thought on Nourishment 

一、引言

     “涵養德性” 是宋明理學工夫論的核心命題，也是儒家實現 “內聖外王” 理想的基本實踐路徑。這一範疇由二程正式發端，經朱子系統性重構、擴充與完善，成為貫穿德性養成、道德教育、政治治世的根本性綱領。

                        I. Introduction

   “Nourishing virtuous nature” is a core proposition in Neo Confucian theories of moral effort from the Song and Ming periods, and it is also a basic practical path through which Confucianism pursues the ideal of “inner sagehood and outer kingship.” This category was formally initiated by the Cheng brothers and was subsequently reconstructed, expanded, and perfected by Zhu Xi into a systematic program running through the cultivation of virtue, moral education, and political governance.
      二程兄弟體貼出 “天理” 二字，確立理為宇宙本體與道德終極依據，首次將 “涵養” 明確為德性修養的核心工夫，提出 “涵養須用敬，進學則在致知” 的經典範式，為後世儒學定下 “居敬窮理” 的基本實踐框架。但受各自學術氣質與思想側重的限制，二程的理論存在顯著分野：程顥偏向即本體即工夫的自然誠敬，程頤側重嚴肅收斂的主敬工夫，且二者均未完整解決涵養如何貫通動靜、未發已發，如何與致知實踐深度耦合的技術問題，理論架構相對粗疏，落地性不足。
     The Cheng brothers discerned the two words “heavenly principle” and established principle as the ontological substance of the cosmos and the ultimate ground of morality. They were the first to identify “nourishment” explicitly as the core moral effort in the cultivation of virtue, proposing the classical formula, “Nourishment must use reverence; advancing in learning lies in the extension of knowledge.” This fixed the basic practical framework of “abiding in reverence and exhaustively probing principle” for later Confucianism. However, limited by their respective scholarly temperaments and emphases, the Cheng brothers’ theories diverged significantly. Cheng Hao inclined toward a natural sincerity and reverence in which substance and effort are identified, while Cheng Yi stressed a solemn, self-restraining effort of holding reverence. Moreover, neither fully resolved the technical problem of how nourishment should connect activity and stillness, the unaroused and the aroused, or how it should be deeply coupled with the practice of extending knowledge. Their theoretical architecture remained relatively rough and insufficiently practicable.
     朱子身處南宋學術大分化的時代，陸九淵心學主張 “發明本心”、偏向簡易頓悟，部分儒者沉溺空疏的靜坐體悟，忽視人倫日常的踐履；佛老之教盛行，其 “空談心性”“屏棄人倫” 的修養路徑，不斷解構儒家以天理為核心的德性基礎；同時，二程之後的理學傳人，多偏於一端，要麼專務涵養而忽視窮理，要麼偏重窮理而缺乏涵養根基，工夫實踐支離破碎。有鑒於此，朱子在二程的基礎上，整合張載 “心統性情” 的思想、李侗 “默坐澄心，體認天理” 的傳教，以 “敬” 為貫通線索，將涵養德性從單一的修養技術，提升為支撐整個儒家德性倫理、重塑士風、抵禦異教的核心理論，完成了理學工夫論的體系化建構。
    Zhu Xi lived in an age of great academic differentiation in the Southern Song. Lu Jiu yuan’s school of mind advocated “illuminating the original mind” and inclined toward a simple, sudden enlightenment; some Confucians indulged in empty quiet-sitting and neglected daily ethical practice. Buddhism and Daoism flourished, and their cultivation paths of “empty speculation about mind and nature” and “abandoning human relationships” continuously eroded the Confucian virtue foundation centered on heavenly principle. At the same time, after the Cheng brothers, later Neo Confucian transmission often leaned to one extreme: some devoted themselves solely to nourishment while neglecting the investigation of principle, while others overemphasized the investigation of principle without laying a firm foundation in nourishment, with the result that moral practice became fragmented. In view of this, Zhu Xi, building on the Cheng brothers, integrated Zhang Zai’s teaching that “the mind governs nature and feelings” and Li Tong’s instruction to “sit quietly, clarify the mind, and recognize heavenly principle.” Taking “reverence” as the unifying thread, he elevated the nourishment of virtuous nature from a single technique of self-cultivation into a core theory supporting the whole Confucian virtue ethics, reshaping the literati ethos, and resisting heterodox teachings. In this way, he completed the systematic construction of Neo Confucian moral effort.
     本文依託理學原典與後世學術研究，首先梳理二程與朱子涵養思想的聯繫與區別，再從德性體系的內在邏輯、道德教育的實踐價值、矯正時代學風的現實需要、辟衛儒家正統的理論使命四個層面，逐層深入剖析朱子強調涵養德性的根本原因，闡明其理論的精深所在與時代價值。
    Relying on original Neo Confucian texts and later scholarly research, this article first examines the continuities and differences between the Cheng brothers and Zhu Xi on moral nourishment. It then analyzes, level by level, the fundamental reasons why Zhu Xi emphasized nourishing virtuous nature from four perspectives: the internal logic of the virtue system, the practical value of moral education, the practical need to correct the academic ethos of the age, and the theoretical mission of defending Confucian orthodoxy. In doing so, it clarifies the depth of his theory and its significance for his times.
     二、思想溯源與理論分野：二程論 “涵養德性” 及其對朱子的影響
     朱子的涵養德性思想，直接脫胎於二程的 “敬” 學工夫。二程共同確立了 “主敬” 為涵養的核心，但二人的理論指向存在明顯差異，成為朱子思想的兩大源頭，朱子在取捨、整合二者的基礎上，完成了理論的系統化建構。
II. Intellectual Origins and Theoretical Divergence: The Cheng Brothers on “Nourishing Virtuous Nature” and Its Influence on Zhu Xi
  Zhu Xi’s thought on nourishing virtuous nature grew directly out of the Cheng brothers’ moral effort of “reverence.” The Cheng brothers jointly established “holding reverence” as the core of nourishment, but their theoretical orientations clearly differed and became two major sources of Zhu Xi’s thought. By selecting from and integrating both, Zhu Xi completed a systematic theoretical construction.
   2.1 二程涵養德性的基本論述
     二程以 “天理” 為形上基石，主張德性是天理在人身上的落實。天命之性粹然至善，但人受氣稟之拘、物慾之蔽，本然的善性無法自動彰顯，必須通過涵養工夫變化氣質、去其舊染之污，才能復明天理，實現性情皆順乎天理的道德境界。但兄弟二人的涵養路徑截然不同。
  2.1 The Cheng Brothers’ Basic Exposition of Nourishing Virtuous Nature
  Taking “heavenly principle” as their metaphysical cornerstone, the Cheng brothers held that virtue is the concrete realization of heavenly principle in human beings. The nature endowed by Heaven is purely and entirely good, but because human beings are constrained by their endowed vital energy and obscured by material desires, their original good nature cannot manifest itself automatically. Only through the effort of nourishment can they transform their physical nature, remove accumulated defilements, and thereby recover and illuminate heavenly principle, attaining a moral state in which both feelings and nature conform to heavenly principle. Yet the two brothers’ paths of nourishment were quite different.
   2.1.1 程顥：以誠敬存渾然德性，偏重本體境界之貫通
     程顥的哲學以 “仁” 為核心本體，主張 “仁者渾然與物同體”，將仁心定位為與天地萬物貫通的道德本體。在他看來，德性的本質是對本然仁心的自覺持守，涵養德性無須刻意用力、防檢私慾，只需先通過反身體悟，證得自身與萬物同體的仁心本體，再以 “誠敬” 持守此本體，讓內心充實和樂，自然能屏退私意雜念，不使本心迷失。
   2.1.1 Cheng Hao: Preserving the Undifferentiated Virtuous Nature through Sincerity and Reverence, with Emphasis on the Continuity of Substance and Realm
    Cheng Hao’s philosophy took “benevolence” as its core substance, maintaining that “the benevolent person is undifferentiated and forms one body with all things.” He identified the mind of benevolence as the moral substance continuous with Heaven, Earth, and the myriad things. In his view, the essence of virtue is the conscious preservation of the original mind of benevolence. To nourish virtuous nature, one need not deliberately exert effort or guard against selfish desire; one only needs first to realize through reflective self-awareness the substance of the benevolent mind that forms one body with all things, and then to preserve this substance with “sincerity and reverence,” allowing the mind to become full and harmonious. In this way, selfish thoughts naturally recede and the original mind is not lost.
       程顥區分 “誠”“敬” 之關係，提出 “誠者天之道，敬者人事之本”，將 “敬” 視為連接人道與天道的工夫，認為敬是誠體的發用，只要以誠敬持守仁體，便可直接貫通本體與工夫，無須額外的窮索或約束。他在《識仁篇》中說：“學者須先識仁。仁者，渾然與物同體，義禮智信皆仁也。識得此理，以誠敬存之而已，不須防檢，不須窮索。” 在這一邏輯下，涵養德性是一種即本體即工夫的境界化實踐，偏重內在的本體體悟，忽視後天的事理學習與日常行為的刻意規範，簡易直接，但容易流於禪學式的頓悟體悟。
   Cheng Hao distinguished the relationship between “sincerity” and “reverence,” proposing that “sincerity is the Way of Heaven, while reverence is the root of human affairs.” He regarded “reverence” as the effort connecting the human Way with the Way of Heaven, holding that reverence is the functioning of the substance of sincerity. As long as one preserves the substance of benevolence with sincerity and reverence, one can directly link substance and effort, without any additional investigation or restraint. In his essay “On Understanding Benevolence,” he said: “The learner must first understand benevolence. The benevolent person is undifferentiated and forms one body with all things; rightness, ritual propriety, wisdom, and faithfulness are all benevolence. Once one understands this principle, one simply preserves it with sincerity and reverence; there is no need for guarding or investigation.” Under this logic, nourishing virtuous nature is a realm oriented practice in which substance and effort are identified. It emphasizes inner realization of the substance and neglects the study of affairs and principles after birth as well as the deliberate regulation of daily conduct. It is simple and direct, but easily slides into a Chan-like sudden realization.
    2.1.2 程頤：以主敬為涵養之要，敬義夾持以實德性
程頤是理學涵養工夫的實際奠基者，提出了影響後世千年的經典命題：“涵養須用敬，進學則在致知”，明確劃分涵養與致知的邊界，確立二元並進的工夫框架。
   2.1.2 Cheng Yi: Taking Holding Reverence as the Key to Nourishment, and Supporting Virtue through the Mutual Reinforcement of Reverence and Rightness
     Cheng Yi was the actual founder of the Neo Confucian effort of nourishment. He put forward the classical formulation that influenced later generations for a millennium: “Nourishment must use reverence; advancing in learning lies in the extension of knowledge.” This clearly demarcated the boundary between nourishment and the extension of knowledge and established a dualtrack framework of moral effort.
    第一，明確 “敬” 的核心定義。程頤將 “敬” 界定為 “主一無適”，即心有主宰、專一不放逸，摒棄一切私意雜念，保持內心嚴肅凝重、警覺不放逸的狀態。他強調 “敬只是持己之道”，即一種內在的自我收斂、自我把持的工夫，不同於佛教的靜坐空心，而是要時刻警省自身，端正心術，不被外物牽引、私慾迷惑，以此守住本然的善性。
    First, he clarified the core definition of “reverence.”Cheng Yi defined “reverence” as “holding to oneness without distraction,” meaning that the mind has a master, remains concentrated and free from dissipation, rejects all selfish thoughts, and maintains a state of inner solemnity, vigilance, and restraint. He stressed that “reverence is simply the way of holding oneself,” that is, an inner effort of self-collection and self-mastery. Unlike Buddhist quiet-sitting with an emptied mind, it requires one constantly to awaken and examine oneself, rectify the orientation of the mind, and avoid being pulled by external things or deluded by selfish desire, so as to preserve the originally good nature.
       第二，主張敬義夾持，涵養與致知相輔相成。程頤認為，單純的內在涵養不足以成就完備的德性，必須配合外在的格物致知：涵養以 “敬” 來肅省心性，防止內心放逸，為窮理掃清主體的遮蔽；致知則是通過研讀聖賢經典、研討古今人物事跡、應接日常事務，窮究事物的當然之理與所以然之故。他指出：“敬只是持己之道，義便知有是有非。順理而行，是為義也。若只守一個敬，不知集義，卻是都無事也。” 只有將主敬的內在收斂，與集義致知的外在窮理結合起來，內外並進，才能真正使天理內化為人的穩定德性，避免涵養淪為空疏的靜默守心。
   Second, he advocated the mutual reinforcement of reverence and rightness, holding that nourishment and the extension of knowledge complement each other. Cheng Yi believed that inner nourishment alone is insufficient to achieve complete virtue; it must be coordinated with external investigation of things and extension of knowledge. Through “reverence,”nourishment purifies and awakens the mind and nature, prevents the mind from dissipation, and clears away subjective obstructions for the exhaustive investigation of principle. Through the extension of knowledge, one studies the classics of the sages, examines the affairs of ancient and modern figures, and engages in daily matters, thereby exhaustively investigating the normative principles of things and their underlying reasons. He pointed out: “Reverence is only the way of holding oneself; rightness is knowing what is right and wrong. Acting in accordance with principle is rightness. If one only holds to reverence and does not know how to accumulate rightness, then there is really nothing accomplished.” Only by combining the inner self-restraint of holding reverence with the outer investigation of principle through accumulating rightness and extending knowledge, and by advancing both internally and externally, can heavenly principle truly be internalized as stable human virtue and can nourishment be prevented from degenerating into empty, silent self-guarding.
        第三，以變化氣質為涵養的根本目標。程頤繼承張載 “天地之性” 與 “氣質之性” 的區分，認為天地之性純然至善，但人降生以來，氣稟有清濁、偏正的差異，濁氣、偏質會遮蔽天理的彰顯，產生不善之行；涵養德性的過程，就是通過主敬的持續收斂，不斷變化氣質，革除氣質中的渣滓，消弭物慾之蔽，使本然的天地之性得以漸漸顯現，落實為現實的道德品質。
     Third, he took the transformation of physical nature as the fundamental goal of nourishment. Cheng Yi inherited Zhang Zai’s distinction between “the nature of Heaven and Earth” and “the nature of physical endowment.” He held that the nature of Heaven and Earth is purely good, but from birth human beings differ in the clarity or turbidity and the balance or imbalance of their endowed vital energy. Turbid vital energy and unbalanced qualities can obscure the manifestation of heavenly principle and produce unwholesome conduct. The process of nourishing virtuous nature is thus one in which, through the continuous self-restraint of holding reverence, one constantly transforms one’s physical nature, removes the dregs within it, and dissolves the obscurations of material desire, so that the originally good nature of Heaven and Earth gradually appears and is realized as actual moral character.
        2.2 朱子對二程涵養思想的繼承與系統性整合
      朱子高度推崇二程的涵養理論，尤其將程頤的 “主敬” 說奉為正統，同時清晰察覺二人的理論局限，對二者進行取捨、補全與體系化整合，徹底重構涵養德性的理論架構。
    2.2 Zhu Xi’s Inheritance and Systematic Integration of the Cheng Brothers’ Thought on Nourishment
     Zhu Xi held the Cheng brothers’ theory of nourishment in high esteem and especially revered Cheng Yi’s doctrine of “holding reverence” as orthodox. At the same time, he clearly perceived the theoretical limitations of the two brothers, and therefore selected from, supplemented, and systematically integrated their ideas, thoroughly reconstructing the theoretical architecture of nourishing virtuous nature.
      2.2.1 繼承：堅守主敬傳統，確立內外並進的基本邏輯
     朱子完全認同二程以 “敬” 為涵養核心的主張，盛讚程頤 “涵養須用敬，進學則在致知” 之語，稱 “程先生所以有功於後學者，最是‘敬’之一字有力”，將 “敬” 視為貫通一切道德活動的核心綱領。
    2.2.1 Inheritance: Upholding the Tradition of Holding Reverence and Establishing the Basic Logic of Simultaneous Inner and Outer Advancement
    Zhu Xi fully agreed with the Cheng brothers’ view that “reverence” is the core of nourishment. He highly praised Cheng Yi’s saying, “Nourishment must use reverence; advancing in learning lies in the extension of knowledge,” and declared that “the reason Master Cheng has rendered such service to later learners is above all the single word ‘reverence,’ which is most powerful.” He regarded “reverence” as the core program running through all moral activities.
     其一，承接程頤 “主一無適” 的核心定義，將 “敬” 提煉為聖門工夫的第一義。朱子進一步發揮 “敬” 的內涵，將其規定為三重不可分割的屬性：一是收斂專一，即約束身心，不怠惰、不放縱，一心專註於理所當為之事，不被私意雜念、外物誘惑所牽引；二是貫穿動靜，無事時敬存於內心，有事時敬貫穿於應事接物之中，不偏廢、無間斷；三是表裡合一，內在的敬畏之心，必然表現在外在的端莊舉止、合禮言行上，內心的誠敬與外在的禮儀完全統一。
    First, he inherited Cheng Yi’s core definition of “holding to oneness without distraction” and refined “reverence” into the foremost principle of the Confucian school’s moral effort. Zhu Xi further developed the meaning of “reverence,” defining it in terms of three inseparable attributes. The first is self-restraint and concentration: one restrains body and mind, avoids indolence and self-indulgence, focuses single-mindedly on what ought to be done according to principle, and is not pulled away by selfish thoughts or external temptations. The second is continuity through activity and stillness: when there is nothing to do, reverence abides within the mind; when there are affairs to handle, reverence runs through one’s response to affairs and contact with things, without one-sided neglect or interruption. The third is the unity of inner and outer: the inner mind of awe and reverence necessarily manifests in outward dignified bearing and ritually proper speech and conduct, so that inner sincerity and reverence are completely unified with external ritual propriety.
      其二，保留二程 “敬義夾持”、涵養與致知相輔相成的基本邏輯。朱子主張，涵養是致知的主體前提，致知是涵養的內容補充，二者交相發，不可偏廢：惟有通過主敬涵養，使心保持虛明專一的狀態，才能真正窮究事物之理；惟有通過格物致知明徹天理，涵養才有真實的內容支撐，不至於淪為空泛的靜坐。
   Second, he preserved the basic logic of the Cheng brothers’ “mutual reinforcement of reverence and rightness” and the complementarity of nourishment and the extension of knowledge. Zhu Xi held that nourishment is the subjective precondition for the extension of knowledge, while the extension of knowledge supplements the content of nourishment. The two stimulate each other and neither may be neglected. Only through nourishing by holding reverence, by keeping the mind empty, luminous, and concentrated, can one truly investigate the principle of things; only through investigating things and extending knowledge so as to understand heavenly principle clearly can nourishment have real content to support it and avoid degenerating into empty quiet-sitting.
       2.2.2 分化：彌補二程粗疏之失，構建貫通全幅的成熟工夫
      朱子認為，二程的涵養思想開創有餘，但精密不足，存在三大明顯缺陷：一是程顥的涵養偏重本體體悟，忽視後天的下學工夫，容易流於近禪的頓悟；二是程頤雖提出主敬致知的二分框架，但未釐清敬與動靜、未發已發的複雜關係，沒有明確涵養在不同情境下的實踐規範；三是二人均未將涵養與心性論深度綁定，缺少形而下的主體支撐，工夫缺乏堅實的落地基礎。
       2.2.2 Differentiation: Remedying the Roughness of the Cheng Brothers and Constructing a Mature Effort Covering the Entire Scope
     Zhu Xi believed that the Cheng brothers’ thought on nourishment was more pioneering than precise, and that it had three obvious defects. First, Cheng Hao’s nourishment overemphasized realization of the substance and neglected the subsequent effort of lower learning, so it easily degenerated into a sudden enlightenment resembling that of Chan Buddhism. Second, although Cheng Yi proposed the twofold framework of holding reverence and extending knowledge, he did not clarify the complicated relations between reverence and activity or stillness, or between the unaroused and the aroused, and he did not specify the practical norms of nourishment in different situations. Third, neither brother deeply bound nourishment to a theory of mind and nature, and they lacked concrete subjective support, so their effort lacked a solid foundation for implementation.
       有鑒於此，朱子依託 “中和新舊說” 的學術轉變，整合張載 “心統性情” 的心性論，對涵養工夫進行系統性重構，實現三重關鍵突破：
    In view of this, Zhu Xi relied on the academic shift reflected in his “old and new theories of equilibrium and harmony,” integrated Zhang Zai’s theory of mind and nature that “the mind governs nature and feelings,” and carried out a systematic reconstruction of the effort of nourishment. He achieved three key breakthroughs.
     第一，貫通未發已發，賦予涵養完整的實踐形態。朱子嚴格區分未發與已發的不同狀態：“思慮未萌、事物未至之時” 為喜怒哀樂之未發，此時心寂然不動，性體渾然具足；及其感物而動，喜怒哀樂之情發露，心進入感而遂通的狀態，即為已發。他提出，主敬工夫必須覆蓋這兩種狀態，形成雙重涵養邏輯：未發時的靜中存養，通過靜坐收斂身心，保持內心敬畏虛靜，不使私意雜念侵入，持續呵護性體的本然明覺；已發時的動中省察，在應事接物、情感發動之際，敬仍然貫穿其中，隨事檢點、念念省察，及時校正言行的偏差，將省察作為涵養的延續，實現動靜交養，無時不涵養，無時不省察。
    First, he connected the unaroused and the aroused states, giving nourishment a complete practical form. Zhu Xi strictly distinguished the different states of the unaroused and the aroused. “When thoughts have not yet arisen and things have not yet arrived” is the unaroused state of pleasure, anger, sorrow, and joy, in which the mind is still and unmoved, and the substance of nature is wholly complete. When the mind is stimulated by things and begins to move, the feelings of pleasure, anger, sorrow, and joy are expressed, and the mind enters the state of being stimulated and penetrating all things; this is the aroused state. He proposed that the effort of holding reverence must cover both states, forming a twofold logic of nourishment. In the unaroused state, one engages in preservation in stillness: through quiet-sitting, one collects body and mind, keeps the mind reverent, empty, and still, prevents selfish thoughts from intruding, and continuously protects the original luminous awareness of the substance of nature. In the aroused state, one engages in reflection in activity: when responding to affairs and things and when feelings arise, reverence still runs through them; one examines matters as they occur and reflects on every thought, promptly correcting deviations in speech and conduct. Reflection is thus treated as a continuation of nourishment, realizing the mutual nourishment of activity and stillness, so that there is no moment without nourishment and no moment without reflection.
第二，以 “心統性情” 為涵養提供堅實的主體支撐。朱子借鑒張載的思想，明確心、性、情的體用關係：性是心之體，是天理賦予人的本然之性，湛然至善；情是心之用，是性感物而動產生的具體情感、念慮；心是人的形體主宰，統攝性情、貫通動靜。這一結構，明確了涵養的作用主體：涵養的本質，就是用 “敬” 來肅省心體，使心始終保持湛然虛明、專一不放逸的狀態，從而貞定性體的本然之善，節制情感、言行，使其不逾越天理的邊界，將涵養從單純的行為工夫，上升為有明確心性本體支撐的實踐理論。
    Second, he used the doctrine that “the mind governs nature and feelings” to provide firm subjective support for nourishment. Drawing on Zhang Zai’s thought, Zhu Xi clarified the substance function relations among the mind, nature, and feelings. Nature is the substance of the mind, the original nature endowed by heavenly principle, absolutely clear and wholly good. Feelings are the functioning of the mind, the concrete emotions and thoughts produced when nature is stimulated by things and begins to move. The mind is the master of the human person, governing nature and feelings and connecting activity and stillness. This structure clarified the agent of nourishment: the essence of nourishment is to use “reverence” to purify and awaken the substance of the mind, so that the mind always remains clear, empty, luminous, concentrated, and free from dissipation. In this way, it stabilizes the original goodness of the substance of nature, restrains feelings, speech, and conduct, and prevents them from overstepping the boundaries of heavenly principle. Nourishment is thereby elevated from a merely behavioral effort into a practical theory supported by a clearly defined ontology of mind and nature.
       第三，銜接小學大學，搭建階次分明的涵養落地路徑。朱子彌補二程缺少教育實踐落地的空白，將涵養德性貫穿於小學、大學兩個階次的教育全過程：小學階段側重涵養踐履，通過灑掃應對、孝悌忠信的日常行為訓練，養成誠敬的習慣，做 “培壅根本” 的工夫；大學階段側重涵養本原，在小學的基礎上，窮究事物之理，將已養成的誠敬習慣，轉化為自覺的天理體認，由行而達於知，由習慣而升華為德性自覺。
      Third, he linked elementary learning and greater learning, constructing a clearly staged path for implementing nourishment. Zhu Xi filled the gap left by the Cheng brothers, who lacked concrete implementation in educational practice, by making nourishing virtuous nature run through the whole educational process in the two stages of elementary learning and greater learning. At the elementary stage, emphasis was placed on nourishment through practice: through daily behavioral training in sprinkling and sweeping, responding to elders, filial piety, fraternal respect, loyalty, and faithfulness, one formed the habit of sincerity and reverence and did the work of “cultivating and nourishing the root.” At the greater learning stage, emphasis was placed on nourishing the source: on the basis of elementary learning, one exhaustively investigated the principle of things and transformed the already formed habit of sincerity and reverence into conscious recognition of heavenly principle, moving from practice to knowledge and from habit to virtuous self-awareness.
      2.3 二程與朱子涵養思想的核心差異
       三者的思想差異，可從五個維度具體辨析：
      其一，核心內涵層面。程顥主張誠敬合一，偏重自然和樂的本體境界，無刻意防檢；程頤以主一無適為核心，主張嚴肅收斂的內在把持，刻意約束身心；朱子整合二者，主張敬貫動靜、未發已發，兼顧內在收斂與外在踐履。
     2.3 Core Differences among the Cheng Brothers and Zhu Xi on the Thought of Nourishment
    The differences among their thought can be analyzed concretely along five dimensions.
      First, in terms of core connotation. Cheng Hao advocated the unity of sincerity and reverence, emphasizing the natural, harmonious realm of substance without deliberate guarding. Cheng Yi took “holding to oneness without distraction” as the core and advocated a solemn, self-restraining inner mastery, deliberately constraining body and mind. Zhu Xi integrated both, advocating that reverence runs through activity and stillness, and through the unaroused and the aroused, taking into account both inner self-restraint and outer practice.
       其二，實踐路徑層面。程顥主張先識仁體，以誠敬存之，不須防檢窮索，偏重本體體悟；程頤堅持主敬涵養與格物致知二分並進，偏重下學工夫；朱子則構建未發存養、已發省察、格物致知、日常踐履閉環式連續工夫，覆蓋道德實踐的全流程。
      Second, in terms of practical path. Cheng Hao advocated first recognizing the substance of benevolence and then preserving it with sincerity and reverence, without guarding or investigation, thus emphasizing realization of the substance. Cheng Yi insisted on the parallel advancement of the twofold path of nourishing through holding reverence and investigating things to extend knowledge, thus emphasizing the effort of lower learning. Zhu Xi constructed a closedloop, continuous effort encompassing preservation in the unaroused state, reflection in the aroused state, investigation of things and extension of knowledge, and daily practice, covering the entire process of moral practice.
      其三，與致知的關係層面。程顥偏重本體體悟，忽視致知，認為誠敬存仁即可自明天理；程頤將涵養視為窮理之基，致知視為涵養之實，二者平行並進；朱子明確涵養為先、致知為輔，二者交相發，涵養作為主體前提為窮理提供認知基礎，致知則充實涵養的義理內容。
    Third, in terms of the relationship with the extension of knowledge. Cheng Hao emphasized realization of the substance and neglected the extension of knowledge, believing that preserving benevolence with sincerity and reverence would naturally clarify heavenly principle. Cheng Yi regarded nourishment as the foundation for investigating principle and the extension of knowledge as the substance of nourishment, with the two advancing in parallel. Zhu Xi clearly gave nourishment priority and made the extension of knowledge auxiliary, holding that the two stimulate each other: nourishment, as the subjective precondition, provides the cognitive basis for investigating principle, while the extension of knowledge enriches the intellectual content of nourishment.
       其四，動靜關係層面。程顥偏重靜中體證，未明確貫通動靜的技術邏輯；程頤側重靜中存養、動時省察，但未詳細闡發二者關聯；朱子以敬為貫通核心，主張無分無事有事，時時涵養省察，實現動靜統一。
     Fourth, in terms of the relationship between activity and stillness. Cheng Hao emphasized realization in stillness and did not clearly articulate the technical logic for connecting activity and stillness. Cheng Yi stressed preservation in stillness and reflection during activity, but did not elaborate their interrelation in detail. Zhu Xi took reverence as the unifying core and maintained that regardless of whether there are affairs or not, one should constantly nourish and reflect, thereby achieving the unity of activity and stillness.
       其五，教育落地性層面。二程均未涉及具體教育方案，程顥偏向精英化的本體體悟，程頤未明確階次劃分，籠統強調變化氣質；朱子則設計出小學涵養踐履、大學涵養本原的完整階次，結合童蒙教育與高等學術，讓涵養工夫具備可操作性。
    Fifth, in terms of educational implement ability. The Cheng brothers did not address concrete educational plans. Cheng Hao inclined toward an elite oriented realization of substance, while Cheng Yi did not make clear stage divisions and generally stressed the transformation of physical nature. Zhu Xi, by contrast, designed a complete sequence of stages, with elementary learning focusing on nourishment through practice and greater learning focusing on nourishing the source. He combined childhood moral education with advanced scholarly learning, making the effort of nourishment practically operable.
      三、理論邏輯內核：涵養德性在朱子德性倫理體系中的核心地位
      朱子將涵養德性視為儒家成德之教的根本、聖學工夫的綱領，這一定位並非主觀臆斷，而是源於其德性倫理體系的內在邏輯：從心性本體到道德實踐，從認知工夫到人格養成，涵養德性是貫穿所有環節的基礎前提，連接天理與現實德性、溝通內在心性與外在實踐的關鍵樞紐。
   III. The Inner Logic of Theory: The Core Position of Nourishing Virtuous Nature in Zhu Xi’s Virtue Ethics System
     Zhu Xi regarded nourishing virtuous nature as the root of the Confucian teaching on attaining virtue and the guiding program of the sage learning effort. This orientation was not a subjective assertion but arose from the internal logic of his virtue ethics system. From the ontology of mind and nature to moral practice, and from cognitive effort to the formation of personhood, nourishing virtuous nature is the foundational precondition running through all links, the key pivot connecting heavenly principle with actual virtue and linking inner mind and nature with outward practice.
        3.1 涵養德性是復性成德的根本性奠基
       朱子的德性倫理體系，以 “性即理” 為形上基石，主張天命之性純粹至善，圓滿具足仁義禮智的全體道德法則；但現實中，人降生以來，便受到先天氣稟之偏、後天物慾之蔽的雙重遮蔽，本然的天命之性無法自動顯現，必須通過修養工夫變化氣質、去其舊染之污，才能復明本然的善性，將潛在的道德本性，轉化為現實的穩定德性。
   3.1 Nourishing Virtuous Nature as the Fundamental Foundation for Recovering Nature and Achieving Virtue
      Zhu Xi’s virtue ethics system takes “nature is principle” as its metaphysical cornerstone. It holds that the nature endowed by Heaven is purely and utterly good, fully endowed with the complete moral norms of benevolence, rightness, ritual propriety, and wisdom. In reality, however, from birth human beings are doubly obscured by innate imbalances in their endowed vital energy and by acquired material desires, so the originally good nature endowed by Heaven cannot automatically manifest. Only through the effort of self-cultivation can one transform one’s physical nature, remove accumulated defilements, recover and illuminate the original good nature, and transform potential moral nature into actual, stable virtue.
      在朱子看來，變化氣質、復明天理的關鍵，既不是單純的格物窮理，也不是短期的刻意克己，而是長期不間斷的涵養德性。這是因為，氣質的慣性極為頑固，私慾的滋生無時不有，惟有通過主敬涵養，時刻收斂身心，使心保持 “虛明純一” 的狀態，才能持續呵護本然的善端，防止私意雜念乘虛而入；惟有先做涵養的 “培壅根本” 工夫，將善端存養成熟，後續的格物致知、克己復禮才有堅實基礎。
     In Zhu Xi’s view, the key to transforming physical nature and recovering heavenly principle is neither merely investigating things and exhaustively probing principle nor short-term deliberate self-mastery, but long term, uninterrupted nourishment of virtuous nature. This is because the inertia of one’s physical endowment is extremely stubborn, and selfish desires arise at every moment. Only through nourishment by holding reverence, by constantly collecting body and mind and keeping the mind in a state of “empty, luminous, and pure oneness,” can one continuously protect the original sprouts of goodness and prevent selfish thoughts from entering when the mind is unguarded. Only by first doing the work of “cultivating and nourishing the root” and allowing the sprouts of goodness to mature can the subsequent efforts of investigating things and extending knowledge, and of mastering oneself and returning to propriety, have a solid foundation.
      他在《答胡廣仲》中說：“然須是平日有涵養之功，臨事方能識得，若茫然都無主宰，事至然後安排，則已緩而不及於事矣”，強調如果沒有預先的涵養，心無主宰，臨時再去辨義理、制私慾，必然為時已晚，無法做出正確的道德抉擇。在《朱子語類》中，他又以栽培植物為喻，指出涵養如同種植花木，必須逐日澆灌、無間斷，才能使善端慢慢生長，變化氣質的渣滓；若缺少涵養，只憑一時的格物窮理，就如同只種花、不澆水，種子無法生根發芽，善端終究會被氣質私慾消泯。質言之，涵養德性是復性成德的基礎性前提，沒有涵養，一切道德工夫都是空談。
    In his “Reply to Hu Guangzhong,” he said: “Thus it is necessary to have the achievement of nourishment in ordinary daily life; only then, when affairs arise, can one recognize them. If one is completely without a master and only arranges things after they arrive, then one is already too late and cannot keep up with affairs.” He stressed that without prior nourishment, the mind has no master, and if one tries to discern principle and restrain selfish desire only at the last moment, one will inevitably be too late and unable to make correct moral decisions. In Classified Conversations of Master Zhu (Zhu zi Yulei), he also used the analogy of cultivating plants, pointing out that nourishment is like planting flowers and trees: one must water them day by day without interruption in order for the sprouts of goodness to grow slowly and to transform the dregs of one’s physical nature. If one lacks nourishment and relies only on a momentary investigation of things and principle, it is like planting flowers without watering them; the seed cannot take root or sprout, and the sprouts of goodness will ultimately be extinguished by physical nature and selfish desire. In short, nourishing virtuous nature is the basic precondition for recovering nature and achieving virtue; without nourishment, all moral effort is empty talk.
     3.2 涵養德性是 “居敬窮理” 交相發的主體保障
    朱子德性倫理的核心工夫綱領，是繼承程頤而來的 “居敬窮理”，他明確提出 “學者工夫，唯在居敬、窮理二事”，二者構成相輔相成、雙向互動的辯證關係。其中，居敬涵養是窮理的主體條件，窮理是涵養的內容支撐，二者交相發，共同推進德性的完善。
   3.2 Nourishing Virtuous Nature as the Subjective Guarantee for the Mutual Stimulation of “Abiding in Reverence and Exhaustively Probing Principle”
      The core program of moral effort in Zhu Xi’s virtue ethics is “abiding in reverence and exhaustively probing principle,” inherited from Cheng Yi. He explicitly stated: “The learner’s moral effort lies only in the two matters of abiding in reverence and exhaustively probing principle.” These two form a dialectical relationship of mutual support and twoway interaction. Among them, abiding in reverence and nourishing is the subjective condition for probing principle, while probing principle is the content support of nourishment. The two stimulate each other and jointly advance the perfection of virtue.
      一方面，涵養是窮理的必備前提。朱子指出，心是認識天理的主體，人本心具有認知天理的潛在能力，但如果心散漫放縱、被私慾遮蔽，處於雜亂紛糾、昏昧沉濁的狀態，就無法專一於窮理，即使閱讀聖賢經典、觀察事物，也難以明徹其中的義理。惟有通過主敬涵養，收斂身心，摒除私意，使心恢復其虛明專一的本然狀態，才能具備窮理的主體條件，真正做到 “即物而窮其理”。他反覆強調：“不涵養則無主宰…… 才放下或困睡，這事便無人做主，都由別人，不由自家”，如果離開涵養，心無主宰，格物致知就失去了認知的主體依託，不可能真正窮盡天理。
   On the one hand, nourishment is the necessary precondition for probing principle. Zhu Xi pointed out that the mind is the subject that cognizes heavenly principle, and the human original mind has the latent capacity to cognize heavenly principle. However, if the mind is dissipated, indulgent, and obscured by selfish desire, and if it is in a chaotic, confused, dull, and turbid state, it cannot concentrate on probing principle; even if one reads the classics of the sages and observes things, it will be difficult to see their principles clearly. Only through nourishment by holding reverence, by collecting body and mind and expelling selfish thoughts, and by restoring the mind to its originally empty, luminous, and concentrated state, can one possess the subjective condition for probing principle and truly “investigate principle by going to things.” He repeatedly stressed: “Without nourishment, there is no master... As soon as one lets go or becomes drowsy, this matter has no one to take charge of it; it is all controlled by others and not by oneself.” If one departs from nourishment, the mind has no master, and the investigation of things and extension of knowledge loses its cognitive subjective support, making it impossible truly to exhaust heavenly principle.
      另一方面，窮理是涵養的內容補充。朱子反對脫離窮理、空守一心的涵養方式，認為如果只講主敬涵養，不通過格物致知來明辨事物的當然之理，涵養就會淪為空洞的靜坐，沒有真實的義理內容，甚至會流入佛老的空心守寂。只有通過窮理，明晰天理的具體內涵，才能準確地在日常實踐中約束自身的言行、矯正情感的偏差，使涵養落到實處，將窮理所得的天理，不斷存養、內化於心，轉化為穩定的道德信念。
      On the other hand, the probing of principle is the content supplement to nourishment. Zhu Xi opposed a mode of nourishment that departed from probing principle and merely guarded the mind in emptiness. He held that if one only spoke of nourishment through holding reverence and did not clearly discern the normative principles of things through investigating things and extending knowledge, nourishment would degenerate into empty quiet-sitting, lacking real intellectual content, and might even slide into the Buddhist and Daoist practice of guarding empty stillness. Only through probing principle and clarifying the concrete meaning of heavenly principle can one accurately restrain one’s speech and conduct in daily practice, correct deviations in feeling, and make nourishment truly effective. Then the heavenly principle obtained through probing principle can be continuously preserved, internalized in the mind, and transformed into stable moral conviction.
       在這一互動邏輯中，涵養是連接居敬與窮理的關鍵樞紐，確保二者不偏廢、無割裂，形成 “涵養→窮理→涵養→力行” 的完整閉環，不斷推進德性由潛在的本性，轉化為自覺的道德品質。
      Within this interactive logic, nourishment is the key pivot connecting abiding in reverence and probing principle. It ensures that the two are not onesidedly neglected or artificially separated, and it forms a complete closed loop of “nourishment → probing principle → nourishment → vigorous practice,” continuously advancing virtue from latent nature to conscious moral quality.
       3.3 涵養德性是貫通 “修德是本” 與 “進德修業” 的橋樑
      朱子繼承儒家 “修德是本” 的核心宗旨，主張道德是為學、處世、經世的根本，一切學問、事業、實踐，都必須以修德為前提；而涵養德性，正是實現修德、推進進德修業的核心橋樑，將內在的道德存養，轉化為外在的道德實踐。
     3.3 Nourishing Virtuous Nature as the Bridge between “Cultivating Virtue as the Root” and “Advancing in Virtue and Cultivating One’s Undertakings”
   Zhu Xi inherited the central Confucian tenet that “cultivating virtue is the root,” holding that morality is the foundation of learning, conducting oneself in society, and ordering the world. All learning, undertakings, and practice must take the cultivation of virtue as their precondition. Nourishing virtuous nature is precisely the core bridge for realizing the cultivation of virtue and advancing in virtue and undertaking, transforming inner moral preservation into outer moral practice.
      首先，涵養是修德的下手處。朱子認為，修德的本質是存養本然的善性、克除不合理的私慾，而涵養是最直接、最日常的實踐路徑。人在未應事接物時，通過靜坐收斂、居敬存養，呵護性體的本然之善；在應事接物時，通過省察剋制，時時照管言行，不使不合天理的意念萌發。這種無時不涵養、無時不省察的工夫，就是 “修德是本” 的具體落地，將抽象的修德要求，轉化為可操作的日常實踐。
    First, nourishment is the starting point of cultivating virtue. Zhu Xi held that the essence of cultivating virtue is preserving and nourishing the originally good nature and eliminating unreasonable selfish desires, and nourishment is the most direct and most daily practical path. When one has not yet responded to affairs or come into contact with things, one collects oneself through quiet-sitting, abides in reverence, and protects the original goodness of the substance of nature. When responding to affairs and things, one reflects and restrains oneself, constantly watching over speech and conduct so that thoughts that do not accord with heavenly principle do not arise. This effort of constant nourishment and constant reflection is the concrete implementation of “cultivating virtue as the root,” transforming the abstract demand of cultivating virtue into operable daily practice.
      其次，涵養是進德修業的動力支撐。“進德修業” 語出《周易・乾卦》，指不斷增進道德、修治事業，朱子將其解讀為德性持續擴充、不斷實踐的過程。他提出，進德不是憑空實現的，必須依靠長期的涵養積累：通過涵養，使心體持續保持虛明，對天理的感知愈發敏銳，能夠在日常事務中精準辨別是非、順理而行；同時，涵養養成的誠敬習慣，會轉化為道德實踐的堅定意志，使人能夠長期踐行天理規範，不為外物誘惑、私慾動搖，將內在的德性修養，外化為經世濟民的事業，實現 “內聖” 向 “外王” 的貫通。
    Second, nourishment is the motivational support for advancing in virtue and cultivating one’s undertakings. The phrase “advancing in virtue and cultivating one’s undertakings” comes from the Qian hexagram in the Book of Changes, meaning the continuous increase of virtue and the diligent ordering of one’s affairs. Zhu Xi interpreted it as a process of continuously expanding and practicing virtue. He proposed that advancing in virtue is not achieved out of thin air but must rely on long term accumulation through nourishment. Through nourishment, the mind substance is continuously kept empty and luminous, and its perception of heavenly principle becomes ever sharper, so that in daily affairs one can precisely distinguish right from wrong and act in accordance with principle. At the same time, the habit of sincerity and reverence formed by nourishment is transformed into firm will for moral practice, enabling one to practice the norms of heavenly principle over the long term, unmoved by external temptation or selfish desire, and to externalize inner moral cultivation into undertakings that order the world and benefit the people, thereby realizing the continuity from “inner sagehood” to “outer kingship.”
      質言之，涵養德性是連接 “修德” 與 “進德修業” 的關鍵紐帶：它既是修德的日常實踐，又是進德修業的主體保障，確保一切事業活動不脫離道德的根本，實現德性與事業的統一。
   In short, nourishing virtuous nature is the crucial link connecting “cultivating virtue” with “advancing in virtue and cultivating one’s undertakings.” It is both the daily practice of cultivating virtue and the subjective guarantee for advancing in virtue and undertaking, ensuring that all activities and undertakings do not depart from the root of morality and realizing the unity of virtue and enterprise.
        四、現實實踐指向：涵養德性與人格教育、矯正南宋士風學弊
      朱子強調涵養德性，不止於純粹的理論建構，更有強烈的現實針對性：其一，從道德養成的規律出發，涵養是培育完善人格的必經路徑；其二，當時南宋學術界、士大夫群體的學風士風存在嚴重偏弊，需要以涵養工夫進行矯正，重整儒家的道德實踐傳統。
   IV. Practical Orientation: Nourishing Virtuous Nature, Personality Education, and the Correction of Southern Song Scholarly and Literati Ethos

      Zhu Xi’s emphasis on nourishing virtuous nature was not confined to purely theoretical construction; it also had a strong practical orientation. First, from the perspective of the laws of moral formation, nourishment is the necessary path for cultivating a perfected personality. Second, the academic and literati ethos of Southern Song society suffered from serious imbalances and defects that needed to be corrected through the effort of nourishment, so as to restore the Confucian tradition of moral practice.
      4.1 人格教育之基：構建小學大學貫通的德性養成階次
     朱子將道德教育的目標定位為 “學以成聖”，即復明人本然的天命之性，培育完備的聖賢人格。他依據人的認知發展規律，將教育劃分為小學、大學兩個貫通的階次，將涵養德性作為連接兩個階次的核心綱領，設計出一套循序漸進、從行到知的完整人格培養方案。
  4.1 The Foundation of Personality Education: Constructing a Connected Sequence of Virtue Formation from Elementary Learning to Greater Learning
        Zhu Xi defined the goal of moral education as “learning in order to become a sage,” that is, recovering and illuminating the original nature endowed by Heaven and cultivating a complete sage personality. Based on the developmental laws of human cognition, he divided education into two connected stages, elementary learning and greater learning, and made nourishing virtuous nature the core program linking the two stages. In this way, he designed a complete personality cultivation plan that proceeds step by step from practice to knowledge.
       4.1.1 小學階段：涵養踐履，養成聖賢坯模
      朱子極度重視小學教育，將其視為大學教育的根本前提，指出小學階段的核心任務，是涵養踐履，養成誠敬的日常習慣，打下德性的基礎。在他看來，兒童的認知能力尚未發展，無法進行抽象的義理思辨，因此小學教育不傳授高深的義理，只教導日常生活中的具體道德規範：事親如何孝敬、事長如何恭順、交友如何誠信、灑掃應對如何合乎禮節、日常作息如何端莊合禮。
   4.1.1 Elementary Learning: Nourishment through Practice and Forming the Mold of a Sage
   Zhu Xi attached extreme importance to elementary education, regarding it as the fundamental precondition for greater learning. He pointed out that the core task of the elementary stage is nourishment through practice, forming the daily habit of sincerity and reverence and laying the foundation of virtue. In his view, children’s cognitive capacity is not yet developed, so they cannot engage in abstract speculative reasoning about principle. Therefore, elementary education does not transmit lofty philosophical principles; it only teaches concrete moral norms in daily life: how to serve parents with filial reverence, how to serve elders with respectful obedience, how to be sincere in friendship, how to conform to ritual propriety in sprinkling, sweeping, and responding to others, and how to keep one’s daily bearing and rest dignified and ritually proper.
       這一階段的涵養工夫，重點在於 “養正”，即通過反覆的行為訓練，讓兒童在不知不覺中養成端正的習慣，潛移默化地熏陶性情，收斂身心，默默存養善端。朱子在《大學章句序》中說，小學之教，是 “教之以灑掃、應對、進退之節，禮樂、射御、書數之文”，通過這些簡易的日常事務，讓兒童在具體的實踐中學會收斂身心，養成誠敬的習慣。他比喻說，小學的涵養工夫，就像塑造聖賢坯模，雖然尚未窮究義理，但已經打下堅實的德性基礎，長大後進行大學的格物致知工夫，才不會偏離道德的根本；如果缺少小學的涵養，兒童從小沒有養成誠敬的習慣，長大後學習義理，心會散漫放縱，無法將道德內化，終究難以成就德性。
  The nourishment effort of this stage focuses on “nourishing what is correct.” Through repeated behavioral training, children unconsciously form proper habits; their dispositions are imperceptibly cultivated, their bodies and minds are collected, and the sprouts of goodness are silently preserved. In his Preface to the Great Learning in Chapters and Verses, Zhu Xi said that the teaching of elementary learning is “to teach them the rules of sprinkling and sweeping, responding and deferring, and the arts of ritual, music, archery, charioteering, writing, and arithmetic.” Through these simple daily affairs, children learn in concrete practice to collect their bodies and minds and to form the habit of sincerity and reverence. He used the analogy that the nourishment effort of elementary learning is like shaping the mold of a sage. Although one has not yet investigated principle and meaning, one has already laid a solid foundation of virtue, so that when one grows up and undertakes the greater learning effort of investigating things and extending knowledge, one will not deviate from the root of morality. If one lacks the nourishment of elementary learning, and children do not form the habit of sincerity and reverence from an early age, then when they grow up and study principle and meaning, their minds will be dissipated and indulgent, and they will be unable to internalize morality, ultimately finding it difficult to achieve virtue.
       4.1.2 大學階段：涵養本原，點化德性、窮理致知
       大學是小學階段的深化，朱子提出，大學的任務是 “教之以窮理、正心、修身、治國、平天下之道”，在小學養成的誠敬行為習慣基礎上，進一步涵養本原，將日常的行為習慣，提升為自覺的德性認知，實現行與知的統一。
   4.1.2 Greater Learning: Nourishing the Source, Transforming Virtue, and Exhaustively Probing Principle to Extend Knowledge
      Greater learning is the deepening of the elementary stage. Zhu Xi proposed that the task of greater learning is “to teach the way of exhaustively probing principle, rectifying the mind, cultivating the person, ordering the state, and bringing peace to all under Heaven.” On the basis of the habits of sincerity and reverence formed in elementary learning, one further nourishes the source, elevating daily behavioral habits into conscious cognition of virtue and realizing the unity of practice and knowledge.
      大學階段的涵養，不再局限於外在的行為訓練，而是直接從心體上存養，“半日讀書，半日靜坐”，通過靜坐來觀喜怒哀樂未發之氣象，存養本然的性體；通過讀書窮理，深究事物中的天理，將平日涵養所積累的心中之理，加以擴充、貫通，明確德性背後的形上根據。此時的涵養，已經從被動的行為訓練，轉化為主動的心性體證，將小學階段養成的誠敬習慣，與天理的認知深度結合，使德性從自然的行為習慣，轉化為自覺的道德信念，再將這一信念外化為治國平天下的實踐，完成人格的完善。
     The nourishment at the greater learning stage is no longer confined to external behavioral training, but directly preserves and nourishes the mind substance. “Spend half the day reading and half the day in quiet-sitting”: through quiet-sitting, one observes the unaroused state of pleasure, anger, sorrow, and joy and preserves the originally good substance of nature; through reading and probing principle, one deeply investigates heavenly principle in things, expands and connects the principle accumulated in the mind through daily nourishment, and clarifies the metaphysical basis behind virtue. At this point, nourishment has already shifted from passive behavioral training to active verification of mind and nature. The habit of sincerity and reverence formed in elementary learning is deeply combined with the cognition of heavenly principle, so that virtue is transformed from a natural behavioral habit into a conscious moral conviction. This conviction is then externalized into the practice of ordering the state and bringing peace to all under Heaven, completing the perfection of personality.
      在朱子的教育邏輯中，小學涵養踐履、大學涵養本原，二者是同一涵養工夫的不同階次，前後銜接、缺一不可：小學為大學提供行為基礎，大學為小學提供義理支撐，通過持續涵養，將日常的道德踐履與高深的義理思辨貫通，循序漸進地培育出完善的德性人格。
   In Zhu Xi’s educational logic, elementary learning’s nourishment through practice and greater learning’s nourishment of the source are different stages of the same effort of nourishment. They are connected before and after, and neither can be omitted: elementary learning provides the behavioral foundation for greater learning, while greater learning provides the intellectual and principled support for elementary learning. Through continuous nourishment, daily moral practice and profound philosophical speculation are integrated, and a perfected virtuous personality is cultivated step by step.
      4.2 矯正時弊之策：對治南宋學風士風的支離偏枯
     朱子所處的南宋學術界、士大夫群體，學風士風扭曲分裂，存在兩種極端偏弊，嚴重衝擊儒家的道德實踐傳統，朱子將涵養德性視為對症之葯，雙管齊下進行矯正。
    4.2 A Strategy for Correcting Contemporary Abuses: Remedies for the Fragmentation and One-Sidedness in Southern Song Scholarly and Literati Ethos
    In the Southern Song academic world and among the scholar-official class in which Zhu Xi lived, the academic and moral ethos was distorted and divided, with two extreme abuses that seriously impacted the Confucian tradition of moral practice. Zhu Xi regarded nourishing virtuous nature as the proper remedy and applied it to correct both.
       4.2.1 破 “尊德性而道問學” 的兩極分裂
      當時的南宋學術界，以陸九淵為代表的心學一派，主張 “發明本心”“尊德性”，輕視讀書窮理、日常踐履，認為只需通過內省頓悟，便可直接體認天理，成就德性；而另有部分儒者，偏重道問學，沉迷於文字訓詁、空談義理，忽視內在的心性涵養與日常的道德實踐，將格物致知變成了純粹的知識求索，與自身的身心道德脫節。  

   4.2.1 Breaking the Twofold Division between “Honoring Virtuous Nature” and “Following the Path of Inquiry and Study”
      In the Southern Song academic world, the school of mind represented by Lu Jiu yuan advocated “illuminating the original mind” and “honoring virtuous nature,” disparaging the reading of books, the exhaustive investigation of principle, and daily moral practice. It held that through inner reflection and sudden enlightenment alone, one could directly recognize heavenly principle and attain virtue. At the same time, another group of Confucians overemphasized the path of inquiry and study, indulging in philological exegesis and empty speculation about principle while neglecting the inner nourishment of mind and nature and daily moral practice. They turned the investigation of things and extension of knowledge into a purely intellectual pursuit divorced from their own moral person.
      朱子認為，這兩種極端的病根，在於缺少完整的涵養工夫：陸派心學只重內省，忽視下學踐履，其所謂的 “發明本心”，沒有日常涵養的行為基礎，容易流入禪學的空疏頓悟；而重知識者只重窮理，缺少心性涵養的主體支撐，獲得的義理無法內化於心，知識與道德完全脫節。
      Zhu Xi believed that the root of these two extremes lies in the lack of a complete effort of nourishment. Lu’s school of mind emphasized only inner reflection and neglected lower learning and practice, so its so-called “illuminating the original mind” lacked the behavioral foundation of daily nourishment and could easily slide into the empty, vague sudden enlightenment of Chan Buddhism. Those who overemphasized knowledge valued only the probing of principle and lacked the subjective support of mind and nature nourishment, so the principles they acquired could not be internalized in the mind, and knowledge and morality were completely separated.
      他提出，涵養德性是對治這一分裂的關鍵：涵養兼內外、貫動靜，既不脫離日常人倫，也不忽視內在心性；既重視未發時的內在存養，又重視已發時的外在省察；將尊德性的內在修養與道問學的外在窮理耦合進同一工夫，形成內外並進、知行統一的實踐邏輯，彌合當時儒學內省與外求、踐履與認知的分裂。
     He proposed that nourishing virtuous nature is the key to remedying this division. Nourishment encompasses both inner and outer and runs through activity and stillness. It neither departs from daily human relations nor neglects the inner mind and nature. It values both inner preservation in the unaroused state and outer reflection in the aroused state. It couples the inner cultivation of honoring virtuous nature with the outer investigation of principle in following the path of inquiry and study within one and the same effort, forming a practical logic of simultaneous inner and outer advancement and the unity of knowledge and action, thereby healing the split in contemporary Confucianism between inner reflection and outer inquiry, and between practice and cognition.
      4.2.2 糾 “重內輕外”“重靜輕動” 的實踐偏弊
      兩宋之際的湖湘學派等學術流派，承襲程顥後學的偏失，片面強調 “默坐澄心”“體認未發氣象”，將涵養等同於靜坐，只重視靜中的內在體認，輕視動時的日常省察；只重視體悟天理的本體境界，忽視日常人倫事務的道德踐履，主張 “只去靜中體認天理”，完全割裂動靜、未發已發的辯證關係。
     4.2.2 Correcting the Practical Abuse of “Valuing the Inner over the Outer” and “Valuing Stillness over Activity”
      Academic schools such as the Huxiang school during the Northern Southern Song transition inherited the one-sided errors of Cheng Hao’s later followers. They one-sidedly emphasized “quiet sitting and clarifying the mind” and “recognizing the unaroused state,” equated nourishment with quiet-sitting, valued only inner realization in stillness, and slighted daily reflection in activity. They valued only the realization of the substance of heavenly principle and neglected moral practice in daily human affairs, advocating that one should “only recognize heavenly principle in stillness,” thereby completely severing the dialectical relationship between activity and stillness, and between the unaroused and the aroused.
      朱子一針見血地指出這種涵養方式的致命缺陷：“今人都是偏枯，理會內事，便外事都不管”，若只偏重靜中涵養，忽視動時省察，就會導致 “平日涵養本原，卻臨事用不着” 的荒唐結果 —— 平日里空守一心、靜坐體認，一旦遇到實際事務，心體依然散亂，無法將體認的天理落實為正確的道德抉擇。
      Zhu Xi sharply pointed out the fatal flaw of this mode of nourishment: “People today are all one-sided and withered; when they attend to inner matters, they pay no heed to outer affairs.” If one only emphasizes nourishment in stillness and neglects reflection in activity, this leads to the absurd result that “in ordinary daily life one nourishes the source, yet when affairs arise it is of no use.” One may idly guard the mind in stillness and realize things in quiet-sitting, but once one encounters actual affairs, the mind substance remains scattered and confused, and one cannot translate the heavenly principle one has realized into correct moral decisions.
      有鑒於此，朱子以自己貫通動靜、未發已發的完整涵養理論，力糾這一偏弊：他明確提出，“敬” 貫穿動、靜的全部狀態，“無事時敬在裡面，有事時敬在事上，有事無事，吾之敬未嘗間斷也”；涵養不止是未發時的靜中存養，更是已發時的動中省察；學者需要在日常的應事接物、待人處世中持續省察自己的言行，矯正情感的偏差，在實踐中鞏固涵養的效果；通過涵養德性，將靜中的存養與動中的省察結合起來，讓士大夫們回歸儒家 “下學上達”、日常踐履的實踐傳統，矯正當時空疏枯寂、脫離實際的學風士風。
   In view of this, Zhu Xi used his complete theory of nourishment, which connects activity and stillness and the unaroused and the aroused, to forcefully correct this abuse. He explicitly stated that “reverence” runs through all states of activity and stillness: “When there is nothing to do, reverence is within; when there are affairs, reverence is in the affairs. Whether there are affairs or not, my reverence is never interrupted.” Nourishment is not only preservation in stillness in the unaroused state, but also reflection in activity in the aroused state. Learners need constantly to examine their speech and conduct in daily interactions and dealings with others, correct deviations in feeling, and consolidate the results of nourishment in practice. Through nourishing virtuous nature, one unites preservation in stillness with reflection in activity, allowing scholarofficials to return to the Confucian practical tradition of “lower learning and higher advancement” and daily practice, thereby correcting the empty, sterile, and realitydetached scholarly and moral ethos of the time.
      五、理論衛道使命：涵養德性為抵禦佛釋異學的儒家壁壘
      自魏晉以來，佛老之學盛行，對儒家的核心價值、實踐路徑形成了嚴峻的理論挑戰：佛教主張 “見性成佛”，提倡靜坐空心、泯除雜念，否認現實人倫的道德價值；道教主張 “守氣養性”，輕視人倫事務、脫離社會現實。二者的心性修養理論，在形式上與儒家的涵養工夫相似，但其本質目標、實踐路徑完全背離儒家的人倫天理，嚴重衝擊儒家的德性倫理基礎。朱子強調涵養德性，有着清晰的儒釋之辨的理論自覺，以涵養的儒家本質屬性，劃清與佛老的界限，辟衛儒家的正統地位。
    V. The Mission of Theoretical Defense: Nourishing Virtuous Nature as a Confucian Bulwark against Buddhism and Daoism

      Since the Wei and Jin periods, Buddhism and Daoism had flourished and posed severe theoretical challenges to core Confucian values and practical paths. Buddhism advocated “seeing one’s nature and becoming a Buddha,” promoted quiet-sitting with an emptied mind and the elimination of distracting thoughts, and denied the moral value of real human relations. Daoism advocated “guarding the vital energy and nourishing one’s nature,” slighting human affairs and separating itself from social reality. The mindandnature cultivation theories of these two traditions are formally similar to the Confucian effort of nourishment, but their essential goals and practical paths completely depart from the Confucian heavenly principle realized in human relations, seriously undermining the foundation of Confucian virtue ethics. Zhu Xi’s emphasis on nourishing virtuous nature reflected a clear theoretical selfawareness of the ConfucianBuddhist distinction. By stressing the distinctly Confucian nature of nourishment, he drew a clear boundary with Buddhism and Daoism and defended the orthodox status of Confucianism.
      5.1 分判儒釋修養的本質差異
      朱子早年曾 “出入佛老” 十餘年，對佛老的心性修養理論有深入了解，回歸儒學後，他清晰辨別儒家涵養與佛老修養的本質差異，指出二者在實踐目標、實踐內容、實踐場域三個維度完全對立。
   5.1 Distinguishing the Essential Differences between Confucian and BuddhistDaoist Cultivation
     In his early years, Zhu Xi immersed himself in Buddhism and Daoism for more than a decade before eventually returning to Confucianism, and he acquired a deep understanding of their theories of mindandnature cultivation. After returning to Confucianism, he clearly distinguished the essential differences between Confucian nourishment and BuddhistDaoist cultivation, pointing out that the two are completely opposed in three dimensions: practical goal, practical content, and practical field.
      其一，實踐目標迥異。佛氏的修養，以 “心空” 為終極目標，主張 “但能心空，即是見性”，要求人們泯滅對現實人倫、事理的執念，破除一切世俗的道德規範，追求空心寂滅的境界；而儒家的涵養德性，目標是 “存天理，去人慾”，存養的是仁義禮智的天命之性，變化氣質、復明天理，以成就合乎人倫天理的德性人格，二者的價值目標完全相反。
    First, their practical goals are utterly different. Buddhist cultivation takes “emptiness of mind” as its ultimate goal, advocating that “if one can only empty the mind, this is seeing one’s nature.” It requires people to extinguish their attachments to real human relations and the principles of affairs, to break through all worldly moral norms, and to pursue a state of empty mind and tranquil extinction. By contrast, Confucian nourishment of virtuous nature aims at “preserving heavenly principle and eliminating human desire.” What it preserves and nourishes is the nature endowed by Heaven, consisting of benevolence, rightness, ritual propriety, and wisdom. Through transforming one’s physical nature and recovering heavenly principle, it aims to achieve a virtuous personality that conforms to human relations and heavenly principle. The value goals of the two are completely opposite.
      其二，實踐內容不同。佛氏的修養，“空其心而不理於理”，只強調靜坐澄心、消除思慮，不探究事物中的天理，也不以具體的道德禮儀規範約束自身；儒家的涵養德性，以 “敬” 為核心，同時配合格物致知、復禮實踐，“窮理” 與 “存心” 並行，通過外在的禮儀規範、日常的道德踐履，輔助內在的心性存養，將內在的敬與外在的禮完全統一，有明確的義理內容與道德規範。
Second, their practical contents are different. Buddhist cultivation “empties the mind and does not attend to principle.” It only emphasizes quiet-sitting, clarifying the mind, and eliminating thought, and it does not investigate heavenly principle in things or restrain oneself through concrete moral and ritual norms. Confucian nourishment of virtuous nature takes “reverence” as its core and is simultaneously coordinated with the investigation of things, the extension of knowledge, and the practice of returning to ritual propriety. “Exhaustively probing principle” and “preserving the mind” proceed in parallel. Through external ritual norms and daily moral practice, it assists the inner preservation of mind and nature, completely unifying inner reverence and outer propriety, and it has clear intellectual content and moral norms.
       其三，實踐場域有別。佛氏主張脫離塵世、隱居山林，摒棄日常人倫事務、家庭責任、社會義務，在與世隔絕的環境中靜坐修心；儒家的涵養德性，必須在日常人倫中完成，“不必離世絕俗，只就日用間做功夫”，在事親、事君、交友、應物的日常事務中，持續省察言行、存養善端，在現實的社會人倫關係中成就德性，而非逃避塵世。
   Third, their practical fields are different. Buddhism advocates leaving the dusty world, secluding oneself in mountains and forests, abandoning daily human affairs, family responsibilities, and social obligations, and practicing quiet-sitting in an environment cut off from the world. Confucian nourishment of virtuous nature must be completed in daily human relations. “One need not leave the world or cut oneself off from ordinary life; one simply does the work in the midst of daily affairs.” In serving parents, serving rulers, making friends, and responding to things, one continuously examines one’s speech and conduct, preserves the sprouts of goodness, and achieves virtue within real social and human relationships rather than fleeing from the world.
       5.2 以涵養的貫通性辟衛儒家正統
      朱子發現，佛氏的靜坐修養工夫，在形式上與儒家的未發涵養高度相似，當時許多儒者分不清二者的本質區別，誤將佛氏的空心靜坐當成儒家的涵養，最終背離儒家的道德根本；而他自己所構建的貫通動靜、兼顧涵養省察、耦合涵養致知的完整涵養理論，正是從實踐層面徹底區隔儒釋、捍衛正統的關鍵壁壘。
  5.2 Defending Confucian Orthodoxy through the Comprehensiveness of Nourishment

      Zhu Xi observed that the Buddhist quiet-sitting practice is highly similar in form to the Confucian nourishment of the unaroused state. Many Confucians of his time could not distinguish their essential difference and mistakenly took the Buddhist practice of emptying the mind in quiet-sitting as Confucian nourishment, ultimately deviating from the moral foundation of Confucianism. The complete theory of nourishment that Zhu Xi himself constructed—one that connects activity and stillness, attends to both nourishment and reflection, and couples nourishment with the extension of knowledge—was precisely the key bulwark for thoroughly separating Confucianism from Buddhism at the practical level and defending orthodoxy.
       一方面，朱子以 “敬” 的貫通性，對抗佛氏的 “空寂”。他提出，儒家的主敬涵養，不是消極的空心守靜，而是貫穿動靜、有無的全幅實踐：在未發時，敬是一種 “戒慎恐懼” 的警覺狀態，不是讓心空無一物，而是讓心保持專一、敬畏，不被私意雜念侵入；在已發時，敬貫穿於應事接物的全過程，時刻照管言行，依理而行；這種 “必有事焉” 的積極涵養，與佛氏 “不思善、不思惡” 的空心靜坐有着本質區別，從根本上消解了佛氏修養的理論迷惑。
   On the one hand, Zhu Xi used the comprehensive connectivity of “reverence” to counter Buddhist “empty stillness.” He proposed that the Confucian nourishment of holding reverence is not a negative practice of emptying the mind and guarding stillness, but a fullrange practice that runs through activity and stillness, presence and absence. In the unaroused state, reverence is a vigilant state of “caution and apprehension”; it does not make the mind empty of all content but keeps the mind concentrated and reverent, preventing selfish thoughts from entering. In the aroused state, reverence runs through the entire process of responding to affairs and things, constantly watching over speech and conduct and acting according to principle. This positive nourishment of “necessarily having something to attend to” is essentially different from the Buddhist quiet-sitting of “not thinking of good and not thinking of evil,” and it fundamentally dissolves the theoretical confusion of Buddhist cultivation.
       另一方面，朱子將涵養與格物復禮綁定，徹底錨定儒家的人倫底色。他強調，儒家的涵養德性，絕對不脫離格物致知和復禮實踐：格物致知，是通過研讀儒家經典、研討古今事務，明辨人倫之天理；復禮，是依據儒家的禮儀規範，約束自身的言行，將天理落實為日常的行為實踐。這一工夫路徑，將心性修養與現實人倫、社會道德秩序緊密結合在一起，從根本上劃清了與佛氏 “屏人倫、空一心” 的界線，證明惟有儒家的涵養德性，才能在現實社會中維持道德人倫、成就理想人格，成功辟衛儒家的正統地位，消解佛釋異學對儒家的理論衝擊。
    On the other hand, Zhu Xi bound nourishment to the investigation of things and the practice of returning to ritual propriety, thereby thoroughly anchoring the Confucian foundation in human relations. He stressed that Confucian nourishment of virtuous nature absolutely cannot be separated from the investigation of things, the extension of knowledge, and the practice of returning to ritual propriety. Investigating things and extending knowledge means studying the Confucian classics and examining ancient and modern affairs so as to understand clearly the heavenly principle in human relations. Returning to ritual propriety means restraining one’s speech and conduct according to Confucian ritual norms and translating heavenly principle into daily behavioral practice. This path of effort closely integrates mindandnature cultivation with real human relations and the social moral order. It fundamentally draws a clear line against the Buddhist stance of “discarding human relations and emptying the mind,” and demonstrates that only Confucian nourishment of virtuous nature can maintain moral human relations and realize the ideal personality in real society, thereby successfully defending Confucian orthodoxy and dispelling the theoretical impact of Buddhist and Daoist heterodoxies on Confucianism.
       六、結語
      朱子對 “涵養德性” 的理論建構，是對二程思想的系統性繼承、整合與理論超越：他承接程頤 “主敬涵養” 的核心命題，摒棄二程的偏失，以 “敬” 為貫通核心，串聯未發與已發、內在心性與外在實踐、小學日常踐履與大學窮理盡性、涵養與致知，構建出一套完整、精密、可落地的德性修養體系。
    VI. Summary
     Zhu Xi’s theoretical construction of “nourishing virtuous nature” represents a systematic inheritance, integration, and theoretical transcendence of the Cheng brothers’ thought. He inherited Cheng Yi’s core proposition of “holding reverence and nourishing,” discarded the Cheng brothers’ onesided errors, and took “reverence” as the unifying core. By linking the unaroused and the aroused, inner mindandnature and outer practice, the daily practice of elementary learning and the exhaustive investigation of principle and nature in greater learning, and nourishment and the extension of knowledge, he constructed a complete, precise, and practicable system of virtue cultivation.
       朱子之所以將涵養德性提升為儒家德性倫理、道德教育的核心綱領，有着三重由內而外的深層邏輯：
      There are three deep logics, from inner to outer, behind why Zhu Xi elevated nourishing virtuous nature into the core program of Confucian virtue ethics and moral education.
      第一，內在德性養成的本體邏輯：涵養德性是復性成德的根本前提，是居敬窮理的主體保障，能夠持續存養本然的善性，收斂身心、變化氣質，將潛在的天命之性，轉化為現實的穩定德性；
    First, there is the ontological logic of inner virtue formation: nourishing virtuous nature is the fundamental precondition for recovering nature and achieving virtue, and it is the subjective guarantee for abiding in reverence and exhaustively probing principle. It can continuously preserve the originally good nature, collect body and mind, transform physical nature, and turn the potential nature endowed by Heaven into actual stable virtue.
       第二，道德教育的實踐邏輯：涵養德性貫穿小學、大學的全部教育過程，通過循序漸進的行為訓練、心體存養，將外在的道德規範，逐步轉化為內在的道德信念，培育完善的聖賢人格；
     Second, there is the practical logic of moral education: nourishing virtuous nature runs through the entire educational process from elementary learning to greater learning. Through stepbystep behavioral training and preservation of the mindsubstance, it gradually transforms external moral norms into internal moral conviction and cultivates a perfected sage personality.
       第三，應對時代挑戰的現實邏輯：對內可以矯正南宋學術界重內輕外、重頓悟輕踐履的空疏學風，重整儒家下學上達的實踐傳統；對外可以通過儒家獨特的人倫涵養路徑，區別於佛老異教的空心修養，辟衛儒家以天理為核心的道德正統，維持儒家的人倫價值秩序。
     Third, there is the realistic logic of responding to the challenges of the age: internally, it can correct the Southern Song academic world’s empty and vague scholarly ethos that valued the inner over the outer and sudden enlightenment over practice, and restore the Confucian practical tradition of lower learning and higher advancement; externally, through the uniquely Confucian path of nourishment within human relations, it can be distinguished from the empty cultivation of Buddhism and Daoism, defend the Confucian moral orthodoxy centered on heavenly principle, and maintain the Confucian order of human relations and values.
      總而言之，朱子的涵養德性思想，將儒家的心性修養理論，從空疏的境界體悟、粗疏的修養技術，改造為一套有本體、有工夫、有實踐、有教育階次的完整道德實踐體系；這一理論，不僅深刻塑造了元明清之後的儒家道德教育傳統，成為後世儒者修身養性的基本路徑，更以其強調日常踐履、重視主觀道德自覺、主張內外並進的實踐特質，為當代社會的公民道德建設、人格教育，提供了可資借鑒的傳統資源，具有跨越時空的理論價值與實踐意義。
     In sum, Zhu Xi’s thought on nourishing virtuous nature transformed the Confucian theory of mindandnature cultivation from vague realization of realms and rough cultivation techniques into a complete moralpractice system with ontology, effort, practice, and educational stages. This theory not only profoundly shaped the Confucian moral education tradition after the Yuan, Ming, and Qing dynasties, becoming a basic path for later Confucians’ selfcultivation, but also, through its practical characteristics of emphasizing daily practice, valuing subjective moral awareness, and advocating simultaneous inner and outer advancement, provides traditional resources worthy of reference for contemporary civic moral construction and personality education. It possesses theoretical value and practical significance that transcend time and space.

朱熹，朱子，二程，程颢，程颐，涵养德性，主敬，敬义夹持，未发已发，心统性情，格物致知，宋明理学，工夫论，儒释之辨，德性伦理，儒家教育