解決西漢太一九宮學術體系相關問題的關鍵，在於挖掘「大、小週期」的構建背景，進而澄清兩者的關係。通觀古今釐為四說：一是以金人閑邪聵叟和明代馬蒔為代表的「大週期」乃由「小週期」累積而成；二是以明代張介賓為代表的只認同「大週期」；三是以當代李學勤為代表的「大週期」與「小週期」的主要區別在於太一是否入中宮。三說均未考察其構建背景，捨本逐末。四是筆者提出的，所謂「大、小週期」是對太一實施不同占測活動的不同的具體日程的說明或補充說明，「大週期」為「太一八節民生占」而設，「小週期」則是為「太一人群五宮占」而設，兩種占法有本質的區別。

To fully understand Former Han dynasty’s “figure of God Taiyi and nine zones,” we need to comprehend the constructive context of “Long and Short Cycles” and their interlinked relationship. Throughout history, there are four main theoretical approaches to “Long and Short Cycles.” The first approach, represented by Xianxie Kuisou (Jin dynasty) and Ma Shi (Ming dynasty), claims that the “Long Cycles” are composed of “Short Cycles.” The second approach, represented by Zhang Jiebin (Ming dynasty), recognizes only the validity of “Long Cycles.” The third approach, represented by Li Xueqin (modern era), suggests that the main variable between “Long Cycles” and “Short Cycles” pertains only to whether Taiyi occupies the central zone. However, all three above approaches fail to consider the constructive context of “Long and Short Cycles,” thereby making their arguments moot. As such, this paper offers a fourth approach which contends that the “Long and Short Cycles” in essence derived from explicating different types of Taiyi fortune-telling rituals and schedules. For instance, “Long Cycles” were structured around the “Taiyibajieminshengzhan” ( 太一八節民生占), while “Short Cycles” were established for the “Taiyirenqunwugongzhan” (太一人群五宮占). As a result, fundamental differences in the two methods of divination naturally form the distinctions between “Long and Short Cycles.”