蕺山之學特別呈顯出一種泯除分際、渾合為一的傾向。他反對宋儒理、氣之分，連帶地也反對張載以來「義理之性」與「氣質之性」的區分，以及朱子「人心」、「道心」的區分。在宋明儒者當中，朱子的理氣論最具有二元論傾向，故成為蕺山大力批判的對象。蕺山雖反對理氣二元之說，但並未使他成為戴震的同調，其關鍵在於蕺山依然承認理之超越性。本文旨在探討蕺山如何批判朱子的理氣論，並藉此說明蕺山之學不可歸入大陸學者所說的「氣本論」或「情卻解放」論述。

　　　　　Liu Zongzhou's system of thought exhibited an inclination toward harmony which eliminated distinctions. He opposed the distinction between li 理and qi氣in Song Neo-Confucianism. Therefore, he also denounced the distinction between the nature of Heaven and Earth (tiandi zhi xing 天地之性) and physical nature (qizhi zhi xing 氣質之性), as well as that between the mind of the dao (daoxin道心) and the human mind (renxin 人心). Among the Song-Ming Neo-Confucianists, Zhu Xi 朱熹 showed a very strong dualistic tendency and, therefore, became a targeted philosopher against whom Liu Zongzhou launched vehement attack. Although Liu opposed firmly the li-qi dualism, he was not in line with Dai Zhen 戴震 philosophically because he affirmed the trancendenec of li as the ultimate principle. This article attempts at an analysis of Liu's attack against Zhu Xi's li-qi dualism. We also offer rebuttals against the current characterization of Liu's philosophy as a qi-centered discourse 氣本論 or desire-emancipation theory.