牟宗三先生對朱子哲學的詮釋中，對於朱子的「理」的判定是為「只存有而不活動」。但是，朱子的文獻中卻亦有某些部分的確有類似「理」有活動性說法。其中，尤其是朱子論「神」的部分極具代表性。但是，牟先生對此卻判定朱子所說的「神」，只是指氣的流行，並非就有「即存有即活動」的意思。 本文的目的即在於證明朱子的「神」，亦有以「理」層次而言的流行之意。並且，以此議題為焦點，論述朱子的「理」或太極雖是從陰陽氣化中「逆推」的「所以然之理」，然此思維並不影響此理是為一生生之理。此即，此「所以然之理」仍須復返流行於陰陽氣化中。總而言之，朱子雖是一種格物的方式去識取「理」，這只是一種工夫論或方法論，對於「理」的屬性並無決定性的影響。

In Mou Zongsan(牟宗三)’s interpretation of Chu Hsi ‘s philosophy, he considers Chu Hsi’ s Li(理)was “merely a being but not active（只存有而不活動）”. However in Chu Hsi’s book, we can find that Chu talks a lot about a vital principle（生生之理）,especially in his discussion of Shen(神). Nonetheless, Mou determines that it is only an activity from Chi （氣）and Chi does not represent “a being and also being active（即存有即活動）”. This paper wants to prove that Chu Hsi’ s theory of Shen (神) does manifest a ever-lasting living force from Li(理). Although Chu Hsi’s Li(理) seems to be the cause of Chi of Yin and Yang（陰陽氣化）, it is also a vital principle and that Li(理) is moving along with Chi of Yin and Yang（陰陽氣化）. Although Chu Hsi did realize Li from Ko-Wu（格物）, yet Ko-Wu（格物）is only a doctrine of Cultivation（工夫論）or Methodology(方法論) and it has no significant influence on Li’s(理) essence.