全祖望在〈亭林先生神表〉中以「經學即理學」一調來概括亭林的學 術概念，後世學者對有種不同的詮釋：一則以為亭林欲以經學取代理學；一則以 為是以講經之理學代講學之理學。 為探得「經學即理學」的真正意涵，本文從明末政治、社會及學術概況等景入手， 推論出亭林的經學觀是篤實踐履、平易可循的學問，理學觀則越了宋明理學所偏 重於本體的問題，而遠承孔、孟以來，落實於道德實踐的外在工夫。過去學者在 釋「經學即理學」時，都把經學、理學的概念局限於傳統的理解中，以為經學只 是一般典籍的傳經注疏之學，而理學只是指宋明理學。因此，從亭林欲經世致用 的角度來看，「經學即理學」的真正意涵，是在說明：理學乃是經學的實踐標準， 而經學乃是理學實踐的具體呈現。二者的內涵實際是相同的。

In the biography of Gu Yan-Wu (Ting-lin-xian-sheng-shen-biao), Gu's scholarship is described in general by Quan Zu-wang as follow: “the study of Jing (Jing-xue) is the study of Li (Li-xue).” About this generalization, scholars in later times have different interpretations. In one sense, it is intended that the study of Li is replaced by the study of Jing; in another sense, it means that the study of Li that teaches literal meanings is replaced by that of Li that provokes thought. For the purpose of finding the true meaning of this aphorism--the study of Jing is the study of Li--this paper approaches the problem from investigating the political, social and academic conditions by the end of the Ming Dynasty: First, Gu's study of Jing is a more practical and comprehensive scholarship. Second, Gu's study of Li goes beyond the ontological issues emphasized by the Song-Ming study of Li and come directly to Confucius' and Mencius's moral practice. In the past, scholars comprehended the meanings of both the study of Jing and the study of Li in the traditional concept. They assume the study of Jing to be the annotations of texts and the study of Li to be the Song-Ming study of Li. In Gu's secular and practical perspective, “the study of Jing is the study of Li” actually shows that the study of Li is the norm of practice of while the study of Jing the manifestation of Li. The inner meaning of the two studies is actually the same.