本論文主要以王陽明與湛若水對於彼此「工夫」與「本體」之討論為主，由於湛若水強調「學覺並重」之思想，其特色在於支持「學宗自然」與「參證古訓」，所以陽明認為其思想有流於「外」之風險，因為對於經論的認知與學習，與道德心之自覺未必相關，不如直接就進行對於那本身「不學不慮」的良知本體自覺即可，此點為王陽明思路，即從本心自覺之路線，進行對於湛若水工夫論之批評，也就是認為「學問之功」在陽明心學中並非是成聖的必要條件，此點與湛若水強調「學問之功」的態度不同，但是以湛若水之看法而言，陽明之教法雖然高明簡易，但是由於過份自信本心，而缺乏對於客觀標準之檢視，故常有「理欲不分」的風險，故湛若水認為陽明之教法過份偏於「內」，故陽明之教法亦可能產生諸多之流弊，而亦從此點去批評陽明之教法，此為湛若水與王陽明思路中的內外之爭之起點，而成為本文所討論的主題。

This article aims to compare Zhan Ganguan(湛甘泉) and Wang Yangming(王陽明) in terms of their ideas of ＂moral practice＂ and ＂ontological entity.＂ By denying Zhan Ganguan's belief that learning Confucian classics is as important as self-introspection, which is said to be an external practice that implies an ignorance of an innate moral sense, Wang Yangming suggests an approach that immediately investigates the pure mind as an ontological entity. According to Wang Yangming's critique of Zhan Ganguan, it is clear that for the former, learning Confucian classics is not a necessary condition to becoming a sage, the latter holds a reverse viewpoint. Zhan Ganguan replies that although Wang Yangming's teaching has a simple structure that is not difficult to learn, it will result in confusion between moral principles and sensory desires, as a consequence of believing the original mind excessively. In short, it can be said that Zhan Ganguan disagrees with Wang Yangming's teaching as an internal approach, and that it is one of the origins they argue about with each other.