在莊子與冥契主義的比較研究中，學者分別提出「四大類型綜合」以及「統合內外的圓教型自然主義冥契類型」這兩種說法。本論認為「四大類型」中的自然論與一元論，大體可與外向型、內向型相溝通，而有神論則可說是滲入較多教義成份於其中的外向型，至於巫祝論是否適合歸入冥契主義則似有商榷空間。在承繼學者的研究成果以及《莊子》文獻的引導下，本論認為莊子之冥契經驗應為：「具工夫向度且兼融內、外向型的冥契主義類型」。莊子的內、外向型關係，從精神意識的純粹程度來看，「內」高於「外」，從工夫再現的角度說，則「內」「外」皆為悠遊之樂地，從精神意識發展辯證的角度說，不論「內」「外」都不應耽溺於冥契悅境，而應開展於人間世。

In accordance with the comparative research in Zhuangzi’s philosophy and mysticism, scholars propose two points of view: ＂integration of four major types＂ and ＂a naturalist type of mysticism that integrates the internal and external＂. This essay holds that among these four types, ＂nature mysticism＂ and ＂monistic mysticism＂ can communicate with the ＂external type＂ and ＂internal type＂, while ＂theistic mysticism＂ can be considered an external that embraces more doctrines in comparison with other types of mysticism while ＂shamanic mysticism＂ seems to need more discussion to determine whether it can be categorized in mysticism. On the basis of scholar research and the literature regarding the ＂Zhuangzi＂, the essay believes that Zhuangzi’s mystical experiences ought to be acquired and categorized in a type that unites both the internal and external type and in the meantime, surpasses them.