本文主旨在論證日本江戶時代陽明學開創宗師中江藤樹以及其幕府末期的繼承者大鹽中齋特有的《孝經》學思想，認為二者將「孝」的思維，推尊到宗教性、神秘性的地位，極具有日本陽明學的特色。本文在第一節稍述研究日本陽明學不宜從中日近代知識份子在國家主義或民族主義之激情下，遮掩了真正的日本陽明學之特色。第二節分析朱子《孝經刊誤》以及對「孝」的詮釋所引發的後儒爭議。基本上朱子 (1) 對古文《孝經》的刊正，在於《孝經》原文中的「嚴父配天」會敵人悟亂之心。(2) 對「仁」、「孝」的關係，採取「孝」是「行仁」之「本」的實踐義，而非「是仁」之「本」的等同義，此項課題牽涉「仁」是否具有道德本體的超越性以及普遍性之問題。前項課題由藤樹破解之，後項課題則由中齋完成批判，並以「孝」取代「仁」作為總攝具有超越性以及普遍性的道德本體。故在第三節以藤樹對朱子《孝經刊誤》中有關「嚴父配天」思想會敵人悟亂之心的回應，並強化了「孝」的宗教性。第四節則分析中齋完成藤樹批判朱子「孝」思想的未竟之功，加強了「孝」的本體地位，扭轉了「仁」、「孝」的道德本體之地位。最後提出簡單結論，並從本文針對日本陽明學對「孝」課題的發揚為契機，兼論日本陽明學具有宗教性的特色。

The main purpose of this article is to expound on the particular thought found in the Classic of the Filial Piety by Nakae Toju, the founder of the Tokugawa Japan’s Yangming Learning, and his late Tokugawa successor, Oshio Chusai. It shows that both scholars religiously dignified the thought of the filial piety. characteristic of Japanese Yangming Learning. In the first section, this article argues briefly that Japanese Yangming Learning should not be treated from a view-point of nationalistic passion, held by both modem Chinese and Japanese intellectuals, which falsified the Yangming Leaming. In the second section, the article analyzes Chu His’s Correclions 10 the Classic of Filial Piety (孝經刊誤) and his interpretation of ‘filial piety’ that provoked controversy among later Confucians. In principle: 1) in his Corrections, Chu pointed out that the phrase ‘a strict father equals Heaven’ in the original text of the Classic of Filial Piety would make people presumptuous. 2) As to the interrelation between ‘benevolence’ and ‘filial piety’, he argued that ‘filial piety’ is the foundation of ‘benevolence’ This led to the question whether the term ‘benevolence’ includes both transcendentalism and universalism of a moralistic substance in its meaning. Toju solved the matter of transcendentalism, while Chu Hsi criticized the matter of universalism, replacing ‘benevolence’ with ‘filial piety’ as a transcendental and universalistic substance. The third section explains how Toju dealt with Chu’s criticism of the concept ‘enshrine Father as Heaven’ (嚴父配天),thus, strengthening ‘filial piety’ in a religious sense. The fourth section manifests the way Oshio Chusai completed Toju’s criticism of Chu Hsi, strengthening ‘filial piety’ as a moral substance, and switching the substantial interrelation between ‘benevolence’ and ‘filial piety’. Lastly, this work arrives at a succinct conclusion that also touches upon the religious traits of the Japanese Yangming Learning in terms of the definition of ‘filial piety’ by the both scholars.