眾所周知，朝鮮時代（1392－1910）儒學思想的發展，朱子學與陽明學呈現極端不對稱的態勢。尊崇朱子（名熹，1130－1200）思想的性理學，被奉之為「正統」（orthodoxy），而陽明學則被貶為「異端」（heresy），難以開展。本文對此學術現象，追本溯源，探究在朝鮮朝前期，王陽明（名守仁，1472－1529）思想東傳之際（特別是十六世紀），居於思想主流的性理學者，如何批判王陽明思想。本文指出，朝鮮朝前期性理學者對於陽明思想的批判，可分為三類：一、直接針對陽明著作文本提出批評；二、受羅整菴（名欽順，1465－1547）、陳清瀾（名建，1497－1567）之影響而批判陽明思想；三、經由赴京使的往返，批判陽明從祀文廟。這三類批判的共同主張，就是將王陽明思想斥之為「異端」。由於陽明的重要著作，在朝鮮朝前期，並未正式刊行，處於文獻不足的劣勢。故上述三類批評，除李退溪（名滉，1501－1571）直接就《傳習錄》上卷，展開義理的論辯外；不論受羅整菴《困知記》或陳清瀾《學蔀通辨》的影響，乃至赴京使的批評，都是間接的批評，大多夾雜學派思考與政治考量，難以客觀看待陽明思想。不過，也許因為朝鮮赴京使的往返，遂使陽明大多數重要著作文本，逐漸流傳在朝鮮後期的學術界，並衝擊朝鮮後期的性理學者與陽明學者。

As we all know, the development of Korean Confucianism during the Joseon Dynasty (1392-1910) is embodied in two opposite camps with extreme asymmetrical growing power. Korean Neo-Confucianism, which holds Zhu Xi (1130-1200) in high esteem, is regarded as orthodoxy; in contrast, Korean Yangming Learning, degraded as heresy, fights hard to survive. To shed light on the causes of this asymmetrical development of Korean Confucianism, this paper inquires into Korean Neo-Confucians' critiques of Wang Yangming's thought during the dissemination of Yangming Learning from Imperial China to Korea in the early Joseon dynasty, especially in 16th century.Korean Neo-Confucians' critiques of Wang Yangming's thought can be classified into three groups: 1. The criticisms levelled directly at Yangming's works; 2. The criticisms influenced by Luo Qinshun (1465-1547) and Chen Qing Lan (1497-1567); 3. Joseon envoys' criticisms directed against placing Yangming's tablet in the Confucian temple. The common claim of them all is to repudiate Yangming's thought as heresy. Suffering from the drawback that Yangming's important works haven't been published in the early Joseon dynasty, Korean Yangming Learning wins no chance to flourish. It is clear that only Yi T'oegye (1501-1571) confronts and criticizes the argumentations in the first volume of Wang Yangming's Instructions for Practical Living. The essence of Yangming's thought hasn't been treated as it is by the other two classes of criticisms which are mixed with Korean Neo-Confucianism's biased position and contaminated with political deliberations. Nonetheless, perhaps with the help of Joseon envoys' dispatch to Imperial China, most of Yangming's crucial works are circulated amongst the academic world in the late Joseon period, and collide with both Korean Neo-Confucianism and Korean Yangming Learning.