學術界或已注意到楊簡的學說在明代有復甦的情況，並在當時的思想界中引起廣大的迴響，而此一特殊現象的原因應與陽明學的興起有關。
因此本文剋就陽明後學對慈湖「不起意」說的各種評議觀點進行探討，批評此說的學者多是立基於工夫論的角度，或者認為此說不是普遍的教法，或者主張此說非第一義的工夫，或者批判此說造成學界脫略工夫的弊病。
相反於此，亦有辯護慈湖並非不用工夫，時弊不宜歸罪慈湖的學者，而王龍溪則特別針對種種質疑與批評作出答覆，並以己說詮解慈湖之學，闡揚其深意。
至於王門諸子何以會關心慈湖的「不起意」說，筆者以為，這是因為該工夫之操作模式實有類於陽明「不著意」的觀點，同屬『去蔽化執以顯體』的修養工夫，故能成為關注的焦點。

The academia might have been noticed that Yang-Chien’s theory resurges and arouses intense reflections in Ming. This may be linked to the prevalence of Yang-Ming School in the time.
In this essay I will discuss the Later Yang-Ming School’s various views on Yang Chien’s “Not Arousing Intention” theory. Most of the protesters make their discourses focused on “effort” or take the theory not practical. And some of them see it far from ultimate effort as moral practice or criticize it becoming an excuse to neglect effort.
Nevertheless, there are still supporters defending Yang Chien by emphasizing that Yang Chien does not neglect effort. For example, Wang Ji answers all the doubts and judgments and further makes his own statements to explain Yang Chien’s theory.
In my opinion, the reason why the Yang-ming’s followers care about the theory “Not Arousing Intention” is because its practice of “effort” parallels to one of Wang Yang-ming’s theory about erasing one’s intentions in mind to reveal his pure conscience.