But the fact that this unrelenting foe of feudal society was someone who simply denied the values of the logic of invention could not but limit his antifeudlism. For all Shoeki's conceptual rejection of feudal society and his hopes for the advent of the world of nature, he was so opposed to any "dogma of human invention" that his theory lacked the active element necessary to bring about the transformation from the world of law to the world of nature. True, there is in his theory the logic representing the natural world that he called direct cultivation, but the idea of bringing about the world of nature was wholly lacking from his theory. Instead of discussing ways to restore the world of nature by destroying the world of law, he treated in detail the way to obtain the same effects as those of the world of nature while living in the world of law. Shoeki was a pacifist (as he pu it,"I do not want to discuss military affairs") and expected his theories to be realized "in a hundred years' time." This was not a temporary tactic, but rather an attitude deeply embedded in his mode of thought. This, and the fact that despite his interest in Holland, his description of the world of nature contains many features characteristic of a prefeudal rather than a postfeudal society, clearly reveal to us the extent to which even such radical thinker was conditioned by his historical and social circumstances. With Motoori Norinaga, whom I shall examine next, these limitations are still more visible, though they take a different form.
(Studies of Intellectual History of Tokugawa Japan: Masao Maruyama tartanslated by Mikiso Hane page 263-264)


しかしながらこの徹底的な封建社会の敵對者が作爲の論理的價値の單純な否定者として現はれたところにまた、反封建制の抜くべからざる限界があつた。昌益がいかに封建社会を観念的に否定し、また「自然ノ世」の到来を期待しようと、法世を自然世に轉換さすべき主體的契機は一切の「人作説」に對立する彼の理論のなかには見出されない。昌益の理論からは、「直耕」といふ自然世に於る論理はあつても自然世を齎らす論理は出て来ないのである。法世の打倒による自然世の回復について論ずる代りに彼が詳細に述べたのは、法世にありながら自然世に於けると同じ効果を擧げる方法であつた。昌益が「我は兵を語らず」として平和主義をとり、彼の理論の實現について「百年の後」を期したといふのも、決して一時的タクテイクではなく、深く彼の思惟方法そのものに根ざした態度であつた。このことは彼の自然世の猫冩が - 和蘭への注目にもか拘らず - 封建社会以後よりはむしろ以前の社会的特徴を具へている事実と相俟って、この急進思想家の上に課せられた歴史的条件のいかなるものかをまざまざと吾々に告げてゐる。さうしてこのような制約は吾々が次に検討する本居宣長に於ても異なつた形に於て、しかし一層顕著に、見出されるところである。
(日本政治思想史研究: 丸山眞男 263-264頁)