從詮釋學的角度來看，《大學》原典本身，原本就是一個蘊含了豐富多義性的綜合體。尤其在晚明，釋德清的《大學綱目決疑》與陳乾初的《大學辨》，更是針對各種相關的論題，各自表述了他們推陳出新的卓越見解。特別是在《大學》的知行問題上面，釋德清的自性清淨心的真常觀點，與陳乾初特意強調「學之不已」的力行理念，便存在著微妙的呼應關係。當然，因爲兩人的基本立場，畢竟一爲禪者、一爲理學家，他們理解知行問題時，原本就有根本關懷的不同；然而，搭配在晚明學界普遍的三教合一潮流底下審視，毫無疑問的，釋德清與陳乾初的知行看法，確實足以視爲是晚明儒佛交會的一種特殊嘗試。

Shih Der-Ching's explanatory commentary to Da-Xue is on the basis of Zen's standpoint. I doubt whether he had any real understanding of Da-Xue, because his concepts about Da-Xue's knowledge and confirmation fulled of obvious Buddhism's shades. Moreover, Chenchien-chu's "Recognition of Da-Xue" is a new undertaking of traditional Da-Xue's commentaries. His freshness of insight and broadness of activism are between the lines. The objective of this research is to explore the two of them remarkable viewpoints toward Da-Xue's knowledge and confirmation. And on this research I want to develop they two's extraordinary opinion on Da-Xue's correlate discussions from their writings, and it maybe will render some creative results.