本文試由釐清王弼、程頤之《易》學源流、注《易》特色；兩人在《易》學本體論上所採持的理解及詮釋立場；進行兩人相互間的對比，且予以評論，凸顯兩人《易》學本體論的特色。 在王弼注《易》的方法與旨趣上，本文考察其家學淵源及其與荊州學派的經學學風。文中列舉王弼的《易》學著作，且針對其《周易略例》（王弼注《易》的綱領）七論中，最重要的（明彖），及言陰陽異質相求之互感情態的「明爻通變」予以闡明。王弼《易》學在易學史上的最大貢獻，莫過於在〈明彖篇〉的言意之辨中，釐清了「象」與「意」的關係。他說明的「象」在表「意」上的功用及限制。他在注《易》所採取的理論模式上，則將儒理及玄理兼綜互補。而是在本體論上主採《老》學，在進德修業及立身處世上側重儒家義理。 在注〈復卦．彖傳〉「復見天地之心」處謂：「寂然至無是其本矣。」「至無」係天地萬物之本體，反映了他所持貴無論的道家立場。他以無形無名及寂然大靜描述本體的體性。至於程頤（伊川）《易》學的淵源，主要承自王弼、胡瑗及王安石等三家的義理《易》學。在伊川《易》學的本體論立場上，他兼採王弼的言意之辨，華嚴四法界的理事圓融觀，返宗於《周易》生生之理。其〈易傳序〉的「至微者，理也。至著者，象也。體用一源，顯微無間」係其本體論的形式特徵。其本體論之義理涵義上乃歸宗《周易．乾卦》的剛健無息之生生動能上。甚至他在注〈坤卦〉時亦謂「（坤）非健何以配乾，未有乾行而坤止也。其動也剛，不害其為柔也。」對他而言，坤具「柔健」之德。乾坤為《易》本體論的第一形上原理，伊川賦以健動不已的生生特性。

　　　　　This essay would like to elucidate Wang Bi and Chen Yi's special interpretation of “Change”(易). It would like to proceed from their understanding and interpretation of “Change” from an ontological perspective, in hopes to contrast, critique and bring to light to ontological character of the study of change. This essay investigates the source of Wang Bi's interpretation of Change and its influence from the Jing Chou school. It focuses on the 'Introduction of Zhou Yi' (《易周略例》), Wang Bi's outline of the interpretation of “Change”, most important part “Ming Duang”(〈明彖〉). It also discusses the disparite nature of the Yin and Yang pursuing a mutual emotional state from Wang Bi's explanation of Transformation of “Ming Yao”(明爻通變). Wang Bi's greatest contribution to the history of the study of “Change” has to be in his interpretation of the (明彖); where he elucidated the relationship between symbol (象) and meaning (意). He explained the function and limitations of “the symbol (象) “in expressing the meaning (意). In his interpretation of “Change” (易) he abstracted an ethical model and fused Confucian and Daoist principles. In his critique of Daoism, he advocated Confucian moral principles. In Wang Bi's analysis of “The Mirroring of the Heart of Heaven and Earth” (復見天地之心) in the Fu Diagam in Duang(〈復卦．彖傳〉) he comes out with “The still point of ultimate nothingness is its root.”(寂然至無是其本矣) “ultimate nothingness”(至無) is his a posteriori ontology of creation and shows his affinity to Daoism. He considers the formless, nameless and a quiet stillness to be the basic character of being. Cheng Yi's “Yi Chuan”(《易傳》) philosophy of “Change” derives mainly from Wang Bi. Hu Huan and Wang An Shi's interpretations of “change”. In his ontology of “change”, he adopts Wang Bi's debates, and Hua Yan's union of being and becoming of the four readmes (四法界的理事圓融觀) , in reverting back to the original principles of the “Zhou Yu”(《周易》) . His Being is what is the most, hidden, appearance is what is the most manifest, being and appearance belong to the same origin, and are without distinction. (至微者，理也，至著者，象也，體用一源，顯微無間) is a special aspect of his ontology. His ontology is a return to “The Qian Diagram in Ahou Yi” (《周易．乾卦》) , and its vigorous, ceaseless notion of creation. He then put forth the theory “Kun is not vigorous, if can not stay with Qian; it is impossible for Qian to be active and Kun be at rest, The activity of Kun is also strong, but it does not impeach its gentleness.” ((坤)非健何以配乾，未有乾行而坤止也，也動也剛，不害其為柔也) in his interpretation of the “Kun diagram” (〈坤卦〉) . In his estimation, the Kun advocates a “soft-building”(柔健) moral. “Qian Kun”(乾坤) are the first metaphysical principles in the philosophy of change's ontology, and the Yi Chuan's special contribution to philosophy.