王弼在《論語釋疑》與《老子注》等著作當中，分別提出「崇本舉末」、「崇本息末」與「捨本逐末」等三個不同命題。歷來較受爭議者莫過於「崇本舉末」與「崇本息末」兩者之間，究係為一矛盾命題亦或另有其內在思想之聯繫。本文試圖通過《論》、《老》、《易》三家互補的觀點提出（一）「崇本舉末」與「崇本息末」分別對應《論》、《老》體系之說明，兩者並不矛盾。（二）「捨本逐末」、「崇本息末」、「崇本舉末」旨在建立由《老》入《論》的逆向體証，「崇本舉末」、「則天行化」、「立言垂教」則為另一條由《論》入《易》的順向發展。（三）「息末」雖意在「崇本」，但「崇本」不必然「舉末」，「崇本」與「舉末」之間有賴「則天行化」而達《論》、《易》互通的目標。

Wang Bi proposed three different ideas in his works "Explication of Doubts on the Analects"and "Commentary on the Lao Zi (Dao De Jing)", namely, "revering the root while resting in the end" (chung panhsi mo), "revering the root while reaching the end" (chung pan chu mo) and "abandoning the root while pursuing the end" (she pan chu mo). Scholars tend to focus on whether or not "reaching the end" and "pursuing the end" are contradictory or contain internal connections. By examining Wang Bi's commentaries on the Confucian Analects, Lao Zi (Dao De Jing) and the Book of Changes, this article attempts to establish the following points: 1."Revering the root while resting in the end" and "revering the root while reaching the end" reflect, respectively, the context and thinking of the Confucian Analects and the Dao De Jing; thus, they are not contradictory in implication. 2. Wang Bi's "pursuing the end" to "resting in the end," to "reaching the end" together express a movement of reversal from the Dao De Jing to the Confucian Analects; "reaching the ends" to "following heaven through action," to "teaching through ideas" express a forward movement from the Confucian Analects to the Book of Changes. 3. Although the notion of "resting in the end" lies inherent in "revering the base," "revering the base" is not necessarily equivalent to "reaching the end." "Revering the base" and "reaching the end" depend on"following heaven through action" so as to reach the goal of interflow in the Confucian Analects and the Book of Changes.