本文旨在探討徐復觀《易》學在現代《易》學的定位及重要性。鑑於學界較少關注新儒家《易》學，且多集中在牟宗三及唐君毅對《易傳》哲學的發揮，無法提出新儒家在現代《易》學的定位。相較唐、牟二氏，徐復觀對同時期古史辨派的觀點有所回應與抉擇。在《易》為卜筮之書、《易經》非一人一時所作、《易傳》非孔子一人所作這三點承繼古史辨派的說法，但不贊同古史辨派將聖人與《易》經、傳完全切割，故仍肯定六十四卦成於文王，部分卦、爻辭與周公有關，《易傳》仍保留許多孔子思想；亦不同於古史辨派僅關注探討《易》的原始性質及定位及作者，而能留意《易》的流傳歷程，強調《易》經、傳經過多人長年努力整理而成。在《易》學哲學方面，因未討論「太極」、「道」，僅論及陰、陽二氣，未能思考萬物如何被創造的根源性探討。雖然不同於唐、牟二氏關注《易》學哲學，但在回應現代《易》學的重要議題，以及以《易》經、傳為發展性文本的主張，重新讓我們思考聖人與《易》經、傳的關係，以及《易》經、傳無需完全切割的問題，為現代《易》學的發展提供一條可能路徑，此乃重要性所在。

The purpose of this study aims at discussing the modern orientation and importance of Xu Fuguan's ”Yijing” learning. The reason of Xu's response and decision toward Historical text research school is that either scholars pay less attention to Contemporary Confucianism's ”Yijing” learning or they pay more to Mou Zongsan's and Tang Jun-yi's interpretation of ”Yizhuan”, which prevents the scholars of Contemporary Confucianism from founding the position of modern ”Yijing” learning. Xu approves of some theories of Historical text research school; yet, he disapproves of neither the complete separation of Sage and ”Yijing” and ”Yizhuan” nor the partial discussion of ”Yijing”'s quality of origin, the orientation, and the authors. That is, Xu notices the historical process of ”Yijing” learning, emphasizing that ”Yijing” and ”Yizhuan” have consisted of the long-term efforts of scholars.As to the philosophic thoughts of ”Yijing”, instead of discussing TaiJi and Tao, Xu proclaims Chiinclined Cosmology based on Yin and Yang. Xu's response to the important issue of modern ”Yijing” learning and his proclamation of ”Yijing” and ”Yizhuan”based context make us reconsider that there are some relationships between Sage and ”Yijing” and ”Yizhuan” and that there is no need to completely separate ”Yizhuan” and ”Yijing”. The importance of Xu's study lies in his suggestion of a possible way of modern ”Yijing” learning.