wang yang-ming also had a fully pragmatist epistemology; really closest to peirce: knowledge is action, including experimental action. but here are a couple of passages, again staring the people who labeled him an 'idealist' in the face, expressing ontological realism about the external world and also externalism in philosophy of mind, and mind-body identity, believe it or not. now, however, because i would agree with all these positions, i am liable to be reading these passages, well, in a certain way.
If one refers only to the place it occupies, it is called body; if one refers to the matter of control it is called mind; if one refers to the activities of the mind, it is called purpose; if one refers to the intelligence of the purpose, it is called understanding; if one refers to the relations of the purpose, it is called things. Yet it is all one. The purpose is not suspended in empty space, but is placed in some thing. (Phil of WYM, 146)
now, this illustrates what i said about the translation (which is just a suspicion since i don't read chinese): this round of seeming rigamarole with 'control, purpose, intelligence, understanding,' etc. results from semi-competently taking semi-technical terms in the philosophy of that period (maybe neo-kantian) to be equivalent to a series of confucian concepts. right. what is remarkable and is a note he hits again and again is that it all originates and eventuates in things, by which he really does mean real-world objects, stuffs, and so on. the circular construction of the human starts with the the physical body in external space, and it eventuates in that too or else it is purposeless or idle, or maybe just conceptually impossible. people come from things and end up in things and are things.
the matter of 'things', or questions of fundamental ontology, came into neo-confucianism in the scholastic manner: so, in the great learning confucius had recommended 'the investigation of things', a rather characteristic thought (con was always learn learn learn and never stop, which i do recommend). so, other neo-confucians, including i believe chsu hsi, has actually suggested that this be re-interpreted as the investigation of principle (li). wang yang-ming went all lee corso: 'not so fast! no, confucius was actually talking about things.'