牟宗三先生一生詮釋儒釋道三家又排比中西哲學，歷經《才性與玄理》、《心體與性體》、《佛性與般若》，晚年又編寫《從陸象山到劉蕺山》以及《圓善論》之作。其中，《從陸象山到劉蕺山》一書，對劉蕺山的討論，具有兩項特色。第一，這是牟先生集合他在儒釋道詮釋的所有成果，落實到對劉蕺山詮釋的綜合表現，因此可以看出他的哲學思路的全部綱要；第二，他對蕺山學的詮釋提出兩項核心宗旨，一為以心著性，二為歸顯於密，前者與心學進路難分難捨，可以說是一項多餘的觀點，一方面刻意與心學別異，又不能不與心學求同，二方面其實只成就了與程朱兩分理氣三分心性情的型態不同之學而已。至於後者，確實是對蕺山的工夫論指出提綱契領的特點，且又能與象山陽明對工夫論的討論有重點之別異，也可以說就是一簡易與繁瑣的路線之別。

Interpreting Buddhism, Confucianism and Taoism as well as comparing Chinese and western philosophies throughout his life, Mou Tsung-san wrote Physical Nature and Speculative Reason, Substance of Mind and Substance of Nature and Buddha Nature and Prajna and then edited From Lu Xiang-shan to Liu Ji-Shan and The Theory of the Highest Good in his late years. Mou’s discussion of Liu Ji-shan in From Lu Xiang-Shan to Liu Ji-shan is special in two senses. First, Mou’s achievement in the interpretation of Confucianism, Buddhism and Taoism is embodied in his interpretation of Liu Ji-Shan; therefore, we get to see the overview of his philosophical thinking. Second, his interpretation of Liu Ji-Shan suggests two themes, that is, “the manifestation of nature through mind” and “returning from exoteric to esoteric teachings.” The former theme is interwoven with the approach of the doctrine of mind and therefore superfluous. On the one hand, it is deliberately distinct from but inevitably similar to the doctrine of mind; on the other hand, it is nothing but a doctrine that’s different from Cheng and Chu’s theories about mind and nature. As for the latter, it is indeed an overview of Liu’s practical theory and significantly different from Wang Yang-ming’s practical theory in terms of focuses, which is actually the difference between simplicity and complexity.