黃梨洲曾云：「陽明先生之學，有泰州、龍溪而風行天下，亦因泰州、龍 溪而漸失其傳。」唯居今而言，論陽明學之傳播與影響，龍溪、心齋雖可同舉，卻不必然宜於並論。本文別析二家同異，一方面將其所共申之義，追溯於當日姚江教旨，以見三家所以於王門中特具力量之原因；另方面則區辨其彼此，乃至與其它王門承教者之殊異，以探求陽明學內部分歧之所以故。而文中尤措意於與龍溪相關之「四有」「四無」之辨。蓋此一分辨不明，則陽明之真 義難理，而王學流衍之糾結難斷。作者之意，大旨在於細辨龍溪提問之原旨，說明龍溪之於「心」上立根，而言「致知」，實係悟後表慎，並非止守一點靈明，而逕於「意」中抹去善、惡之區範；如梨洲所疑。彼所謂「最上一機，不由積累而成」，正是辨別工夫離卻本體，皆止是境上著力，非關實功。此種以「靈竅」解說「良知」之法，與心齋所謂「識得此理，則現現成成，自白在在。即此不失，便是莊敬；即此常存，便是持養」之言，亦近、亦不近。所近者，良知現成，不須防檢，不待窮索。至於所異，則在心齋乃依明道而言「識理」，依其說細辨，實可見出心齋之言仍止是見識語，而非徹悟語。蓋心齋所說，大體皆本「良知現成」之意，故謂當下無所向、見者，即是良知之體亭當現在。凡此皆止是略窺見些「體用一原」之意，並無龍溪所謂「默證」之功。然正唯泰州之見僅及於此，故由顏山農之「率性所行，純任自然」，推而為羅近溪「保任赤子之心」之說，從學者遂將心齋所曾有之「百姓日用即道」之教盲，專於心性日用處發揮。不僅蔑棄聞見，且並周、程以來所懸「尋孔、顏樂處」之途轍，亦若棄置不論。此種止重「保任心元」，而不復高懸「孔、顏境界」之作法，實已將人性完成之目標，推向樸質化之人情形態發展。此但觀於當時李卓吾與公安三袁之聲氣相通而可知。雖則如此，卓吾之由近溪接軌泰州，亦頗有轉變泰州派下風氣者，其中又不之龍溪之影響，可以就其與焦竑澹園之往復切磋者知之。此中精微，與晚明思想之發展關係實深，而知者若杪，故篇中亦為之摘出而細論之。

Huang Zongxi writes in his Mingru Xuean: "Among the students of Yangming, there were Wang Oen and Wang Ji, who made the greatest effort to advance Yangming's ideas. Yet they also had to be responsible for having failed to transmit their teacher's true doctrine." This view of Huang on Wang Gen and Wang Ji had long been revered by many Confucian scholars; as a result, the two Wangs were often treated like a pair of twin brothers ever since. This article challenges Huang's view by arguing that although Wang Gen and Wang Ji shared some philosophical ideas and together they had created a joint trend in their times, they were nonetheless quite different from each other in many ways. Their differences can be found not only in their philosophies, but also in their respective impacts on the development of Yaojiang School. In order to clarify some of the past misinterpretations of Wang Ji's philosophy, the author revisits the controversies of so-called "four forms of non-existence", and then tries to offer a new interpretation. In the author's view, Wang Ji's description of the Tianquan Bridge Meeting is far more correct than other versions; in addition, both Wang Ji's perspective and his arguments exhibit a philosophical depth that is unsurpassable by his peers. Huang Zhongxi's comment on Wang Ji is therefore incorrect; so is his interpretation of Wang Ji's ideas. In the end, the author suggests that if we adopt the viewpoint proclaimed by this article and use it to reexamine the development of Yaojiang School, we may hope to attain a fresh understanding and gain new insights into the history of Ming philosophy.