關於王弼注《易》，歷來評價不一，或謂之援老入《易》、祖尚虛無，或謂之費氏家法，簡當而無浮義。取王弼《周易》注而觀之，禮法仁義、無為謙讓相關論述兼而有之，形式上可說兼採儒道二家。從學術源流而言，儒、道的區別應在於「禮」的態度，儒家維護禮樂而道家否定禮樂。然此一界限自漢世已逐漸模糊，王弼《易》注兼收禮玄，可謂此風之承續。也因此，從形式上的詞語判定王弼易學玄學化與否，恐成仁智之見而不易有定論。玄者，元也，本體也，故而玄學即本體之學。唐、牟二先生不約而同對王弼易學與老學的糾葛皆有相關剖析，也都從本體論的角度切入；就哲學論哲學，判別《易》、《老》之相異處，可謂切中肯綮。二位先生對於王弼《周易》注的詮解及評價攸關對《老子》的理解，因老學觀點之歧異連帶對王弼易學態度亦頗異其趣。牟先生對王弼《老子》注語多贊賞而對其《周易》注語多指責；唐先生則反是，對王弼《老子》注頗不苟同，而對《周易》注則多贊其哲學意境。但無論如何，二位先生所述王弼易學中的玄理，已不僅是「禮玄對舉」之玄義，而是本體論的哲學意義。

Wangbi's annotation on Yijing (the Book of Change) is differently valued in the history. On one hand, Wangbi is blamed for applying Laozi's theory, on the other hand, Wangbi is agreed for insisting on Confucian doctrine. Anyway, with careful observation on Wangbi's annotation, we will find that both Confucius and Taoism are combined over there. From the origin of scholarship, with Confucius on the right side and Taoism on the observe side, Confucius and Taoism should differ in the attitude toward etiquette. However, the boundary came to be obscure since Han dynasty; with the obscurity Wangbi's annotation is initiated. Hence, it would be difficult to judge literally whether Wangbi's annotation is inclined to Taoism or not.Xuan means the origin and the substance, so the theory of Xuan is namely ontology. Philosophically, Tang-junyi and Mou-zonsan both interpreted Wangbi's annotation from the angle of ontology. Because of their different opinions on Laozi, their opinions on Wangbi's Yi-learning also differ. Mr. Mou agrees with Wangbi's Lao-learning, but opposes to Wangbi's Yi-learning. On the contrary, Mr. Tan opposes to Wangbi's Lao-learning, but agrees with Wangbi's Yi-learning. Anyway, both Tan and Mou interpreted from the angle of ontology instead of sociological etiquette.