朝鮮儒者李退溪作為朱子學者，曾批評明代羅整菴的「人心道心」説是誤認「道心為未發，人心為已發」，原因是整菴混淆理氣為一物，進而使心性混同。但整菴對「人心道心」的分判，並非混淆心性概念。筆者認為，羅李二人「人心道心」説皆來自於朱子「心性論」，但由於朱子「心統性情」論與「人心道心」説之間的關係具有討論空間，當退溪與整菴欲將「人心道心」放入「心統性情」架構時，便產生了理論發展的兩種型態。因此討論羅李二人的「道心人心」觀點，不但能見及他們對朱子「心性論」的繼承與轉化情形，亦可分析兩者異同，看見朱子「心性論」的發展空間。本文將分四個部分：第一，分析朱子「心性論」架構與「人心道心」之間的連繫性，指出朱子並未有意識地統攝「心統性情」論與「人心道心」説，此關乎兩者具有的問題意識並不相同。第二，討論羅整菴的「人心道心」説。第三，討論李退溪的「人心道心」説。最後，以前幾章的討論為基礎，進一步指出羅、李二人「人心道心」説的主要差異，也找出在差異中的共同傾向性，以較為深入地顯現朱子「心性論」兩種發展型態之間的關係。

Choson dynasty Confucian scholar Toegye 退溪 (Yi Hwang 李滉, 1501-1570), who studied Zhu Xi (1130-1200), criticized Ming dynasty scholar Luo Zheng’an’s 羅整菴 (1465-1547) theory of “mind of Dao and mind of man” 人心道心 for misidentifying the “mind of Dao” as the “unmanifested mind” 未發and the “mind of man” as the “manifested mind” 已發. The reason, according to Toegye, was Luo confused li 理and qi 氣 leading to the confounding of “mind” and “(human) nature.” But in fact, Luo’s “mind of Dao and mind of man” does not mix up the two. Despite Luo’s and Toegye’s theories both originating from Zhu Xi’s “the nature of the mind” 心 性, there is a certain distance between Zhu Xi’s concept of the “mind dominates nature and feelings” 心統性情 and the “mind of Dao and mind of man.” As Luo and Toegye attempted to combine these two systems together, they created two patterns of development concerning “the nature of the mind.” This paper approaches this topic from four aspects: firstly, the link between Zhu Xi’s “the nature of the mind” framework and the “mind of Dao and the mind of man” is analyzed, and this paper indicates that Zhu Xi did not incorporate “mind dominates nature and feelings” with the latter. Secondly, it discusses Luo Zheng’an’s “mind of Dao and mind of man,” and thirdly, examines Toegye’s theory. Finally, after expounding the similarities and differences between Luo and Toegye, this paper elaborates on the two types of development.