一般皆認為宋明儒者的論學主是不外是探究人如何能成賢成聖。如此說雖然沒有大錯，但卻失之籠統。本文正是透過指出張橫渠及程明道對孔顏之樂的不同理解來展示宋明儒者們的論學主題大同之下亦有其異，而這差異在了解各人的功夫論上是相當重要的。橫渠把顏子的樂解釋成為在修養功夫上有所長進時而有的快樂，也就是說橫渠強調了顏子勉力立志作聖人的一面，是以勤懇用力作其基調的，樂只是偶有的現象；另一方面明道卻強調顏子作為仁者而時常皆有的和樂氣象。 這些對顏子之樂的不同理解分別反映在他們的功夫論上。橫渠對賢者之主要描述既是勉力求道，那麼橫渠的弱夫亦自然以克苦用力為主調。明道既認為顏子在聖人之途上邁進時是充滿和樂的氣象的，則他亦自然不會要求一用力克苦的功夫。相反，他所強調的是「未嘗致纖毫之力」及「不須防檢」的功夫。功夫論無疑是「為道問題」的答案，然而明道及橫渠卻不是在為同一個問題提出不同的答案。對橫渠而言，他只是要回答人如何能成賢成聖，所以其答案不論成功與否皆是切合對應其問題的。而明道的問題卻是人如何能和樂地，不謹嚴地成賢成聖。故此，即使橫渠的答案真能叫人成賢成聖，只因其強調克苦用力，也不對應明道的問題。所以說宋明儒者論學皆只為探究人如何能成賢成聖是一過於籠統的說法。

it is generally assumed that the main theme of Sung-Ming Confucianism is nothing but the search for the way to attain “sage-hood.” This is a correct but oversimplified statement. Through displaying how Zhang Heng-qu’s interpretation of the “joy of Confucius and Master Yan” differs form Cheng Ming-dao’s, this paper intends to draw attention to a particular fact: the theme of every Confucian’s theory is different, and such a difference is important in terms of understanding their theories of self-cultivation. Zheng interprets Master Yan’s joy as happiness brought by the progress in attaining “sage-hood,” that is to say, the process of self-cultivation is tedious and laborious. Joy is just the occasional consequence of recognizing one’s progress in this process. On the other hand, Cheng always emphasizes the joy of a person who engages himself in self-cultivation, that is, the process of self-cultivation is a joyful experience. Every interpretation about the joy of Master Yan is reflected on the corresponding theory about self-cultivation. Zhang describes a person working on sage-hood as a diligent laborer; hence his theory about self-cultivation places particular emphasis on assiduousness. Believing that master Yan was joyous throughout his journey to sage-hood, Cheng would accordingly deny any assiduousness in this theory about self-cultivation; what he emphasizes is “no effort” and “no need to guard against evil.” Theories of self-cultivation are no doubt the answers to the question of how to become a sage. Zhang and Cheng are not answering the same question, even though both of them respectively provide a theory about self-cultivation. On the one hand, Zhang is only answering the simple question about how to become a sage, so his response to the question, successful or not, is a direct one. On the other hand, Chen’s question is how to attain sage-hood with joy rather than assiduousness. Thus even if Zhang’s response, due to it emphasis on assiduousness, can successfully answer the question about how to be sage, it is not the answer to Cheng’s question. Therefore, I conclude that it is an oversimplification to say that the main theme of Sung-Ming Confucianism is nothing but the search for the way to attain “sage-hood”.