以心學發展史而言，不論宋明理學中的象山或陽明學，一般皆以孟子思想為根據，陽明文本對孟子的討論高達百餘次，可見其對孟子的推尊不遺餘力。本文欲探問陽明對孟子的詮釋意涵，反思兩人觀念是否內含共同的精神，考慮其理論表達的起點、理論的第一設定之實質內涵，並依此反思孟子與陽明間的經子關係。目前學界所稱的經子關係，主要視經典的定位屬於動態性。以明代心學史為例，《孟子》在宋明理學中雖然升格為「經」，陽明的地位為「子」，但很難說子不如經，視陽明的影響力在明代不如孟子，畢竟陽明以符合其時代的表達方式發揮其影響力，在明代中後期取代了程朱學影響社會長達百年之久；甚至於東傳日本，使儒學的影響從中土擴及東亞。在儒學影響力擴展中，其中的哲學問題在於探問：儒學的創造力到底是在歷代每位儒者心中，還是早已存在先秦經典（文本）的成果之中？此項思考一方面涉及儒學工作者的成果是否有其當代的獨立價值，或是僅能依附於古代經典進行註釋。另一方面，本文工作亦試圖追本溯源、從陽明上溯孟子，探問其詮釋精神，檢視兩人共通觀念的形成背景、反思其實質內涵。本文反省的重點在於：為何孟子與陽明的核心文本在指出其第一設定（諸如四端之心與良知之心）後，為何兩人皆須再次強調、須要求學者去除良知之蔽、去除人欲之私，方能彰顯人性完整的善、方能見其第一項概念的基礎中最重要之精神。即其文字表達系統既內含「人性為善」的重要主張，亦同時存在文字性表達仍「未能完全呈顯其精神」並「有賴修養工夫」加以彰顯者；此思考脈絡的目的即在檢視陽明學的「表達系統的完備性」是否充分，此即本文所言對「表達起點」或「表達系統的發生項」的問題檢視與反思。本文即依此脈絡思考儒學表達的根源、其創造性，以及儒學工作者的詮釋成果是否具有獨立之價值。

Throughout the history of its development, the doctrine of mind is generally founded on Mengzi’s thoughts, nomatter it’s pproposed by Lu Xiang-shan or Wang Yang-ming as part of Neo-Confucianism. With more than a hundred discussions on Mengzi in Wang’s texts, his advocacy of Mengzi goes to great lengths. This article is meant to address Wang’s interpretations of Mengzi, reflect on what they share in their formative backgrounds, contemplate the starting point of the expression of his theories as well as the authentic immanence of the first premise of his theories, whereby to reflect on the classics-philosophy relationship between Mengzi and Wang Yang-ming. The academic definition of the classics-philosophy relationship sees classics as something dynamic. Taking the development of the doctrine of mind in the Ming Dynasty for example, while Mengzi was granted the status of “classics” by Neo-Confucianism and Wang the status of “philosophy,” we can hardly say that philosophy was less than classics or Wang was less influential than Mengzi in the Ming Dynasty. After all, Wang was quite influential owing to his more opportune expression, took the place of Cheng’s and Zhu’s doctrines for about a hundred years from the middle of the Ming Dynasty, even was transmitted to Japan and underlay the doctrine of mind there, extending the influence of Confucianism from China to East Asia. The philosophical issue with the spread of the influence of Confucianism is whether the creativity of Confucianism lies in the mind of every Confucian throughout history or in the academic results of the pre-Qin classics (texts). On the one hand, this issue is about whether Confucians’ results have their contemporary independent values or they are just commentaries on ancient classics just as western philosophies are all commentaries of Plato. On the other hand, this article is also attempted to trace Wang Yang-ming to Mengzi, inquire on Wang’s interpretative spirit, examine the formative backgrounds of the ideas they share, and reflect on the authentic immanence of these ideas. The key to this article is to reflect on why both Mengzi’s and Wang’s central texts, after pointing out their first premises such as the mind of four origins and the mind of good knowing, demand scholars to eliminate themselves of the disadvantages of excessive emphasis on good knowing in order to manifest the all the good of human nature and reveal the most important spirit behind their first concepts. That is, Mengzi’s and Wang’s systems of verbal expression consist not only in the important claim of “good human nature” but also in something that can be manifested not by verbal expression but by cultivation efforts. Such a context of thinking is meant to examine the comprehensiveness of the “systems of expression,” which is an examination and reflection on the question of the “starting point of expression” or the “genesis of the system of expression.” Following this context of thinking, this article is to contemplate on the origins of Confucian expressions, the creativity of Confucianism and whether the interpretations by Confucians have independent values.