本文考掘中國哲學的「神秘主義」根源，發現是馮友蘭首先扣連「直覺」與「神秘主義」，致令學界始終籠罩著一股神秘主義思潮。陳漢生卻點明神秘主義不應該被視為中國哲學的特質，因為神秘主義本身一無所說。在他的理論挑戰下，不少講求神秘經驗的說法其實只是思辯不足的遁辭。本文旨在以陳漢生的挑戰揭示牟宗三的「道德的形上學」恰恰不是神秘主義。「道德的形上學」的基本意思，不過是說直覺∕本心是我們踐行道德的根據，這個直覺∕本心若能擴而充之即可以有「創造力」，成就物之所以為物的價值。陳漢生忽略了這種道德直覺的創造力，視之為排斥語言的神秘能力，其實有欠公允。

This paper investigates the origin of ”mysticism” in Chinese philosophy. It is Fung Yulan who first connects ”intuition” and ”mysticism” together and creates a mystical atmosphere in studying Chinese philosophy. But Chad Hansen argues that we should not interpret Chinese philosophy in terms of mysticism, for mysticism by definition has nothing to say. After Hansen's clarification, mystical interpretation is just an utterance without critical reasoning.Through Hansen's challenge, I show that Mou Zongsan's moral metaphysics is not mysticism. To put it simply, moral metaphysics claims that intuition/heart-mind is the source of people's virtuous conduct. By moral cultivation, this intuition/heart-mind will be ”creative” in the sense that it actualizes the value of things. Hansen neglects this aspect of creativity of intuition/heart-mind in his analysis. Thus, it is unfair to claim that intuition/heart-mind is an anti-language capacity.