元至明初理学的发展存在着一条重要的脉络，即呈现出躬行践履之学与词章训诂之学两者之间的张力。其中北方理学为了纠正金代以来的词章训诂之弊，将重点放在了如实践履程朱理学所提供的成圣成贤之方法，南方理学则试图将羽翼朱子之学的词章训诂之风转向躬行践履朱子之学。元至明初南北理学的这一发展演变，构成了明前期程朱理学以躬行实践为本的重要背景。明初《四书五经大全》和《性理大全》的编纂意味着羽翼程朱之学的终结，不事著述成为了明前期理学家的共同特点，同时，明前期理学家的著述形式又体现出理学文本的发展由语录体到纂释体再到修身日记演变的特点。修身日记既是理学家们自己道德实践的记录，又是他们修身实践的重要工具。明前期理学家以《四书章句集注》《太极解义》等朱子所著之书为依据，力求寻求朱子思想的统一性，为其道德践履构建一个标准。这一标准在理气论上体现为他们坚持理气不离不杂，理为气之主的观念，明前期理学家们仍然是站在理本位的立场来理解和诠释理气关系。但是到了明前期，如何躬行践履程朱理学才是理学家们的宗旨，因此他们的重点已经不再聚焦于对形上本体的讨论，而是转移到了对工夫论上。明前期理学家的工夫论基本都以程朱的主敬穷理为纲领，但是相对来说他们的重点却不在格物穷理的工夫上，以主敬涵养为本成为了他们在工夫论上最主要的共同点。他们意识到了传统祭祀活动所要求的内心专一乃是主敬思想的重要起源，也强调主敬工夫的无对象性。他们主要从外在的整齐严肃与内在的主一无适两方面来理解主敬的涵义，而又以主一无适作为主敬的核心内涵。他们认为主一无适之主不仅仅指内心专一，更重要的是指心的主宰性。道德的认知与实践都须依靠可活动的、有作用的心，对于程朱理学而言，工夫论的问题在根本上又是心的问题。因此，将重点聚焦在工夫论上的明前期理学家们，极为重视对心这一概念的讨论。但他们对心的理解乃是以朱子所定义的“虚灵不昧，具众理而应万事”为依据和标准，而尤其强调心之虚与灵。因此，并不能因为明前期理学家注重对心这一概念的诠释，就将其作为理学向心学的过渡，而应该看到他们对心的重视乃是由明前期理学的工夫论转向所决定的。

There is an important thread in the development of the theory of Li from Yuan to early Ming Dynasty, that is, the tension between the study of practice and the study of exegesis.In order to correct the disadvantages of exegesis since the Jin Dynasty, Northern Neo-Confucians focused on the sanctification methods provided by practicing the theory of Li. Southern Neo-Confucians tried to turn the style of exegesis of Zhu Xi’s theory to the practice of Zhu Xi’s theory. The development of the theory of Li from the Yuan Dynasty to the early Ming Dynasty constitutes an important background for the purpose of practicing the theory of Li in the early Ming Dynasty.The compilation of ‘Four Books and Five Classics’ and ‘Xing Li Da Quan’ in the early Ming Dynasty meant the end of enriching Cheng Zhu’s theory. Not writing has become a common feature of Neo-Confucians in the early Ming Dynasty. At the same time, the writing form of Neo-Confucians in the early Ming Dynasty also reflects the characteristics of the development of Neo-Confucian texts from quotation style to compilation style to self-cultivation diary. The self-cultivation diary is not only a record of the moral practice of the Neo-Confucians, but also an important tool for their self-cultivation practice. In the early Ming Dynasty, Neo-Confucians tried to seek the unity of Zhu Xi’s thoughts and build a standard for the moral practice based on Zhu Xi’s books such as ‘Variorum of the Four Books’ and ‘Tai Chi Jie Yi’ . This standard is reflected in the theory of Li and Qi as they insist that Li and Qi are neither separated nor the same, and that Li is the master of Qi. Neo-Confucians in the early Ming Dynasty still understood and interpreted the relationship between Li and Qi from the standpoint of the theory of Li.But in the early Ming Dynasty, how to practice the theory of Li is the purpose of the Neo-Confucians. Therefore, their focus is no longer on the discussion of metaphysical ontology, but on the theory of cultivation. The cultivation theory of Neo-Confucians in the early Ming Dynasty was basically based on Cheng Zhu’s theory of seriousness(zhu-jing) and the investigation of things(ge-wu). But their focus is not on the investigation of things(ge-wu). Seriousness(zhu-jing) has become the most important common point in their cultivation theory. They realized that the inner unity required by traditional sacrificial activities is an important origin of the theory of seriousness(zhu-jing). They also emphasize the non-objectivity of seriousness(zhu-jing). They mainly understand the meaning of seriousness(zhu-jing) from two aspects : external seriousness and inner concentration, while inner concentration is the core connotation of seriousness(zhu-jing). They believe that inner concentration also refers to the dominance of the mind.Because the cognition and practice of morality must rely on the active mind, the problem of cultivation theory is fundamentally the problem of mind. Therefore, the early Ming philosophers who focused on the theory of cultivation attached great importance to the discussion of the concept of mind. However, their understanding of the heart is based on Zhu Xi’s definition, with particular emphasis on the emptiness and flexibility of the mind. Therefore, the theory of Li in the early Ming Dynasty should not be regarded as the transition from the theory of Li to the theory of mind according to the interpretation of the concept of mind by Neo-Confucians in this period.. It should be considered that their emphasis on the mind is determined by the turn of the cultivation theory of theory of Li in the early Ming Dynasty.