湛甘泉主張「隨處體認天理」，此說是一工夫論命題，是在主體之心已然識得吾心一以貫之且包涉萬物之後的工夫，便是在日用常行中「隨處體認天理」，因此，甘泉之工夫，本身就是一套本體工夫論旨，且有境界工夫的意味在，亦即是悟後起修的境界工夫，此旨亦是對白沙自然意境的體會與繼承。甘泉此說，陽明批評有求之於外之失，甘泉反駁，亦批評陽明格物說有重內遺外之失。本文主張，兩家的批評都是誤解他說的無謂臆想。惟陽明格物說於《大學》文本簡易宗旨確有偏離之失，但甘泉格物說亦過於提升宗旨，使其直接等同於隨處體認天理之說。可以說，兩家都是刻意執著己見，並且偏視他說。本文主張，對中國哲學的研究，時至今日，都應善解其說，並且以化解衝突為要。

Zhan Gan-quan’s advocacy of “experiencing heavenly principle everywhere” is a proposition in the cultivation theory, which refers to the cultivation made after one recognizes his or her mind and is comprehensive with all things. Therefore, Zhan’s cultivation is a theory of ontological cultivation informed with the cultivation for perfect personality, that is, the efforts of cultivation after enlightenment, which is an understanding and succession of Chen Bai-sha’s natural state of mind. Wang Yang-ming criticized Zhan’s theory for being outward-oriented, while Zhan refuted and criticized Wang for over inward-oriented. Here we advocate that both of them misunderstood one another. Wang’s theory of investigating things was devious from The Great Learning, while Zhan wrongly equalized the theory of investigating things with the theory of “experiencing heavenly principle everywhere.” It is fair to say that both Zhan and Wang were deliberately obsessive with their own opinions biased against one another. Here we advocate that any research now on Chinese philosophy should be focused on proper interpretations and conflict resolving.