Chu Hsi朱熹dedicated himself to the construction of the Confucian tao- t'ung 道統 (orthodox lineage of the Tao) and positioned himself within the sagely lineage, which also became an orthodox ideology afterwards. In the Ming Dynasty, Wang Yang-ming 王陽明 proposed a philosophy to criticize the Ch'eng-Chu 程朱 learning. Founded on this philosophy, a new Yang-ming school was successfully constructed. Obviously this new school needed to deal with the orthodox tao-t'ung. This article endeavors to discuss how Yang-ming scholars accommodated themselves to the contemporary intellectual atmosphere, adopting the hegemonic tao-t'ung as a framework and seeking to renew its content. They chose Yen-tzu 顏子， a lofty but ambiguous figure within the tao-t'ung transmission, as a symbol of sage learning and tried to reinter-pret Yen-tzu's learning with Wang Yang-ming's philosophy. By doing so, they claimed the Yang-ming learning as the true heritage of Yen-tzu and tried to replace Chu Hsi with Wang Yang-ming in the tao-t'ung 道統 lineage. This was a strategy fighting for the orthodoxy of the Yangming school within both academic and political fields. This article also briefly deals with how the symbol of "Yen-tzu" was continually emphasized and reinterpreted during the late Ming. As for the historical outcome of claiming Yang-ming learning as the true heritage of Yen-tzu, in a sense, it did assist the Yang-ming school in earning academic and official recognition, as well as assist in transforming the Confucian tradition.It, therefore, was successful to a certain degree. Nevertheless. it never really converted the positions of Chu Hsi and Wang Yang-ming nor did it successfully persuade many to take teh Yang-ming learning as the true heritage of Yen-tzu.