著重體驗的中國哲學與西方傳統的冥契主義兩者之間是否具有相似性？是否能作比較？學界對此仍有不少疑義。本文即透過牟宗三提出的「智的直覺」與史泰司（W. T. Stace）論述的冥契主義的比較，發現兩者存有「直覺超絕世界」與「冥契一體狀態」的共通點，於是進一步比較兩者對於冥契主義的詮釋，得出三點意見： 一，冥契主義的內涵：牟先生的冥契主義詮釋可稱之為「信念的呈現而人覺體驗」，史泰司的詮釋則稱為「信仰的堅定而天啟顯現」。 二、冥契主義的目的：中國強調良知信念的呈現，透過人覺體證，則是為了人間的道德實踐。基督教信仰則強調冥契的天啟經驗，主要是為了強化上帝信仰的意志。 三、冥契主義的論證：牟先生透過康德，無非就是要曲成的證明，良知主體有其自身開展的哲學體系。史泰司則是認為冥契主義很難以邏輯論理的方式來詮釋，最終必須求助東方的詮釋系統。

Is there any similarity between the Chinese philosophy that emphasizes experiences and the traditional western Mysticism? Are they comparable? The academy is still skeptical about this. In this text, some commonalities between intuition transcendent world and The condition of one whole in Mysticism are found by comparing the Intellectual Intuition proposed by Mou Tzung-San with the statements of Mysticism proposed by W. T. Stace. Three points can be derived when the interpretations of Mysticism of both are compared further. 1. The substantiality of Mysticism: According to Mou’s interpretation of Mysticism, Mysticism is the expression of belief based on personal experiences. According to Stace’s interpretation, Mysticism is the reinforcement of faith enlightened by apocalypse. 2. The purposes of Mysticism: The Chinese Philosophy emphasizes the realization of conscience through retrospective demonstration in order to practice common morality. However, the Christianity highlights the apocalypse mainly to reinforce God’s will. 3. The arguments of Mysticism: Adopting Kant’s theories, Mou attempts to prove indirectly that the conscience subject has developed its own philosophy system. Nevertheless, Stace holds that it’s hard to interpret Mysticism by logical arguments and eventually the oriental interpretation system must be applied.