王陽明的教法主要是以重視對於本心的熟習與自覺為主，所以強調以良知的自覺，為其工夫 論核心的要點，強調良知本體的不學不慮，若流於「學習」則是會有求諸於「外」的風險，反而 和本體工夫的主旨背離，所以在強調內心自覺為宗的立場下，便認為湛甘泉的教法會有流於「外」 之風險，故就此點給予批評。 但是以湛甘泉的立場而言，王陽明的教法，由於過份重視內心的自省自覺，而輕視對於古訓 的學習，所以在缺乏對於前賢經典的客觀檢視下，其教法所言之良知之自覺，常會有流於不良之 風險，故就此點批評王陽明的教法，會有過份重於「內」而輕於「外」的風險。所以湛甘泉主張 要重視參考古訓，而建立出一套客觀的道德法則之標準，便可以在藉由「學習」的掌握下，去把 握基本的工夫論之要求，雖然此時的標準是從認知心的學習掌握，但是此時所掌握的是，聖賢對 於本體所顯現下的工夫要求，所以便可以在聖賢經典的要求之下，進行對於本體的正確認識。之 後再進行對於本體的「熟習」與自覺，就可以有一套完整的工夫論。但是陽明認為此法，常有流於對於知識的積累，而無法完成對於本體之自覺的風險，所以常就良知本體的「不學不慮」面， 去批評甘泉有流於「外」的缺點，但是事實是否如此？而「學習」與「熟習」是否真是無法相容的系統？筆者將針對此點進行討論。

The importance of teaching method of Wang Yangming (王陽明) is the familiar training 「熟習」 of original mind, on the foundation of awareness. Therefore, he emphasizes the awareness of conscience is the essential part of practice, further, noumenon (本體) of conscience is neither learning nor contemplation. If noumenon (本體) of conscience is put into learning that means seeking outside, and will be fare from ontological practice. Therefore, when Wang Yangming emphasizes on awareness of inner mind, he holds that the teaching method of Zhan Ganguan (湛甘泉) may decline to outer seeking. So, Wang Yangming criticizes on this specific point. But, according to Zhan Ganguan (湛甘泉), teaching method of Wang Yangming is excessively lean towards awareness of inner mind and purely regard to ancient way of learning. Therefore, under the lack of objective survey of ancient text, his teaching method, awareness of conscience usually decline in non-conscience risk factor. Therefore, excessively lean towards inner and less outer is criticism of Wang Yangming. Thus, Zhan Ganguan (湛甘泉) argues the importance of ancient training way and formed a set of objective stander of moral rule. In this way, one form learning「學習」can grasp the basic needs of practice theory. Although, the stander of this learning is grasped from cognition of mind, but this is what requirement of a Sage practice when he manifest noumenon (本體). Thus, from the Sage point of view, proceeds towards proper understand of noumenon (本體), and then proceeds towards proper understanding of noumenon’s (本體) familiar training 「熟習」and awareness.Thus, there is a complete set of theory of practice. But, Wan Yangming holds that this method usually decline towards accumulation of knowledge and unable to complete the awareness of noumenon (本體), thus he usually from the point of view of ‘noumenon is neither learning nor consideration’ criticizes Zhan Ganguan (湛甘泉). But, is it really so? Are learning「學習」 and familiar training 「熟習」 consistent system? In this paper the author discuss from this point of view.