조선은 理學을 지배이념으로 하여 성립된 나라이다. 이학은 道學으로도 불렸다. 이학이 만물을 理로 설명하는 가치중립적인 개념이라면, 도학은 道統의식과 함께 타 사상에 대한 闢異端의 논리를 내재한 개념이다. 그동안 조선의 도학은 주로 김굉필과 조광조를 비롯한 유학자들의 의리실천학을 지칭하는 용어로만 강조되어 왔다. 하지만 도학은 이미 고려 말 이학이 도입되면서부터 그 용례가 발견될 뿐 아니라 시기별로 그 성격을 조금씩 달리하였다. 14세기 말 도학은 당시 원나라에서 도입된 程朱學 내지 이학 자체를 뜻하는 용어로 쓰였다. 이때 도학은 道問學의 학문 방법과 경세실천에 집중되었고, 특히 불교와 도교를 배척하는 벽이단의 성격이 두드러진다. 15세기 도학 역시 도문학의 학문방법과 경세실천에 집중되었다. 여기에 사대부뿐만 아니라 군주를 위한 학문과 사상으로서 治道學 내지 經世學의 역할을 담당하였다. 그런데 세조나 연산군과 같은 覇道的 군주와 부패한 정치세력이 부상하자, 15세기 말부터 절의실천적 도학이 주장되는가 하면 治心ㆍ養性ㆍ居敬과 같은 수신의 학문 태도, 즉 尊德性의 학문방법이 크게 권장되었다. 도학이 이제 마음을 닦는 心學으로 확대된 것이다. 도학의 핵심은 무엇보다 도통을 잇는 데 있다. 여말선초 이학자 가운데 가장 먼저 도통을 정리한 인물은 李穡이다. 이색은 원나라 許衡을 도통의 반열에 올려 원대 이학의 정통성을 주장하였다. 여말선초의 도통론은 크게 세 가지 방향으로 전개된다. 중국의 선유들에 대한 文廟從祀 논의, 조선 유자들에 대한 문묘종사 논의, 문묘에 종사되지 않은 유자들의 도통 논의가 그것이다. 도통논의에서 두드러진 점은 당대 사회의 가치에 따라 도통론이 좌우되어 문묘 종사의 대상들이 끊임없이 入享과 黜享을 거듭했다는 사실이다. 여말선초의 도통론은 君主道統論과 儒者道統論으로 특징지어진다. 군주도통론은 周나라 武王 이후 끊어졌던 王統을 이학의 나라인 조선의 국왕에 의해 다시 잇고자 한 도통론이다. 이는 박의중과 정도전에게서 그 단초가 나타난다. 유자도통론은 공자 이후 사대부의 영역으로 내려온 도학의 전수가 조선의 유자들에 의해 이어지는 도통론이다. 유자도통론은 문묘종사를 통해 공인되는 형태와 유자들 사이에 존재한 도통의식 또는 도통론의 형태로 구분된다. 15세기까지는 이제현에서 이색을 거쳐 권근으로 이어지는 도통론이 주류를 이루었다. 그러나 불교에 기울거나 절의에 문제가 있다는 이유로 이들은 모두 문묘 종사 대상에서 제외되었다. 실제로 여말선초에는 학문의 전수를 바탕으로 한 다양한 도통론이 존재하였다. 첫째, 원대의 허형에서 고려의 이색으로 이어지는 도통론이다. 둘째, 이제현－이색－권근으로 이어지는 도통론이다. 셋째, 이색－정도전－권근으로 이어지는 도통론이다. 넷째, 권근－길재－김숙자－김종직－김굉필로 이어지는 도통론이다. 그밖에도 박영은 정몽주－길재－김숙자－김종직－김굉필－정붕－박영으로 이어지는 도통론을 제시하였고, 박세채의 기록을 통해 이황이 4현을 언급하기 전까지 김안국을 도통의 반열에 올리려는 움직임도 있었음을 확인할 수 있다. 결국 여말선초 도통론은 16세기 중반 이후 士林勢力에 의해 정해진 도통과는 별개로 다양한 도통의 계보가 존재했다.

Chosŏn was a nation established by taking the “learning of principle”(K. Ihak 理學 C. lixue) as its ruling ideology. The learning of principle was also called the “learning of the Way”(K. Tohak 道學 C. daoxue). While the learning of principle is a value neutral concept used to explain all things by the principle, the learning of the Way is a concept that contains the logic of regarding other theories as heterodox teachings along with the strong sense of the lineage of the Way. The learning of the Way of Chosŏn has been mostly used as a term merely referring to meanings and principles focusing on practicality(義理實踐) of the Confucian scholars, including Kim Goeng-pil and Cho Kwang-jo. As the learning of the Way was introduced during the late Koryŏ period, however, the diverse usages of the term were found and moreover, its characteristics changed over a period of time. In the late 14th century the learning of the Way was used as a term indicating Cheng-Zhu learning from the Yuan dynasty or the learning of the principle itself. The learning of the Way focused on the way of study maintaining constant inquiry and study(道問學) and regulating the world(經世實踐). Especially the characteristics stood out as the logic of regarding Buddhism and Taoism as heterodox teachings. In the 15th century, the usage of the learning of the Way also based on classical studies and focused on the way of study maintaining constant inquiry and study(道問學) and regulating the world(經世實踐). The learning of the Way based on classical studies played a role as statecraft learning or ideology for rulers as well as literati. However, as hegemonic rulers like King Sejo or Prince Yŏnsan and corrupt political forces such as old meritorious elites emerged, it came to be difficult to rectify the society only with the learning of the Way valuing the classical studies based on the explication of the classics. Hence, from the late 15th century, the learning of the Way related to cultivate oneself(節義實踐) was advocated while the learning attitudes of honoring virtuous nature(尊德性), such as controlling the mind, nourishing inner nature, and abiding in reverence, were greatly encouraged. The learning of the Way was extended to the learning of the heart-mind (K. simhak 心學 C. xinxue), which was concerned with the cultivation of mind. Above all, the key point of the learning of the Way is carrying on the orthodox lineage of the Way. Among the scholars pursuing the learning of the principle in the late Koryŏ and early Chosŏn it was Yi Saek who was aware of the orthodox lineage of the Way. Yi Saek claimed the authenticity of the learning of principle from Yuan dynasty by putting Xu Heng on the rank of the orthodox lineage of the Way. The arguments on the orthodox lineage of the Way in the late Koryŏ and Early Chosŏn are divided into three categories: the argument on the shrine service to Chinese Confucian scholars, on the shrine service to Korean Confucian scholars, and on the Confucian scholars who were not served in the shrines. It is remarkable to note that opinions on the orthodox lineage of the Way were swayed by the social value of the time resulted in the incessant replacement of spirit tablets in the shrines. Arguments on the lineage of the Way in the late Koryŏ and early Chosŏn are characterized by the argument on the orthodox lineage of rulers and that of Confucian scholars. The argument on the orthodox lineage of rulers was an attempt to reestablish the royal lineage by the kings of Chosŏn, which was a state of the learning of the Way. This royal lineage was considered to have ceased since Emperor Wu of the Zhou dynasty. This was exposed in the idea proposed by Chŏng To-jŏn and Park ŭi-Jung. The argument on the orthodox lineage of Confucian scholars was the assertion that, after Confucius, the Way passed down to the Chinese literati was again transmitted to the Confucian scholars of Chosŏn. The argument is subdivided into the officially recognized form of shrine service and the form of the orthodox lineage of the Way approved by the Confucian scholars. The orthodox lineage from Yi Che-hyŏn through Yi Saek to Kwŏn Kŭn was mainly accepted by the literati up to the 15th century. All of them, however, were removed from the object of spirit tablets by reason of either inclination to Buddhism or lack of fidelity. In reality, in the late Koryŏ and early Chosŏn there were various arguments about the orthodox lineage based on transmission of scholarship. The first of them was the lineage of the Way from Xu Heng to Yi Saek. The second was the lineage from Yi Che-hyŏn through Yi Saek to Kwŏn Kŭn. The third was the lineage from Yi Saek through Chŏng To-jŏn to Kwŏn Kŭn. The fourth was the lineage from Kwŏn Kŭn, Kil Jae, Kim Suk-ja, and Kim Jong-jik to Kim Gwing-pil. Besides, Pak Yŏng suggested the lineage from Chŏng Mong-ju, Kil Jae, Kim Suk-ja, Kim Jong-jik, Kim Gwing-pil, and Chŏng Pung to Pak Yŏng as well as we can see the movement of putting Kim An-kuk on the spirit tables, before Yi Hwang says four sages. In conclusion, as for the argument on the orthodox lineage in the late Koryŏ and early Chosŏn, there were various lineages of the Way, regardless of the orthodox lineage made by rural Neo-Confucian literati after the middle of the 16th century.