高攀龍係明末東林書院的領袖，望重士林，其思想學術受到推崇，不屈殉節的精神更受到明末清初士人的倣效。然當代對他思想的研究，往往受到史料的誤導，不能呈現他承襲「王學」菁華且發揚光大之面向，大都強調他復興「程朱之學」，主張經世致用的表象。本文第一章從史料剖析著手，試圖重構其思想之全貌，賦予他理學史上的新定位。第二章依時間序列，分階段探討攀龍思想之成長，並分析其中幾次重大轉折的時代背景。本章尤其注重探析他以靜坐和悟解為主的治學路徑，借以說明他與「程朱」學者之差異。第三章論述攀龍之殉節緣由和過程。就行為而言，他與同時遭「閹禍」諸君子不同處在於，他未赴逮便已先投水自盡，成全刑不上大夫之氣節。就所殉對象而言，他與明亡殉國諸臣的差別在於，他是殉以忠君愛國為核心的整個儒家價值體系，而非僅一朝一君。此外攀龍殉死具宗教層面的緣由，此標示出他與元儒或清儒有所不同。綜而言之，明末「王學」末流狂放縱恣，流弊已現。攀龍與東林同志起而力矯其弊，但他治學取徑實仍不出「王學」矩矱。清儒痛憤明儒清談誤國，將東林諸賢形塑成經世務實之學者，遂誤失攀龍學思淵源之主脈，也輕忽了正統明儒學問得力之處。

Kao P’an-lung (Gao Panlong) was one of the leaders of the Tung-lin Academy which possessed nation-wide celebrity in the late Ming. His thought and spirit were admired by many scholars during the transition of the Ming and Ch’ing dynasties. However, most historical materials about him, compiled by his progeny and disciples, were biased to shaped him as a Ch’eng-Chu School follower and adhered merely to the practical learnings. Chapter One thus tries to reconstruct the outlines of his scholarship and relocate his position in Chinese intellectual history. Chapter Two deals with, according to the time sequence, several crucial stages of P’an-lung’s intellectual growth, and the backgrounds of those conversions. The chapter especially emphasizes on the meditation and inner enlightenment, two tools through which he used to approach the Neo-Confucian truth. Chapter Three probes into the martyrdom occurred at the end of his life. P’an-lung, different from his peers who were tortured to death by the eunuchs’ gang, committed suicide before the Imperial Guards apprehended him to prevent the emperor to be blamed that he killed his loyal minister. P’an-lung’s death contained many religious elements which could hardly find in Ch’ing Confucians. In general, some followers of the Wang Yang-ming School degraded their trainings and morality, and, as a result, they were harshly criticized by Tung-ling scholars, among them P’an-lung was an eminent one. Many Ch’ing scholars, who ascribed the fall of the Ming dynasty to the futile learnings of Ming scholars, praised P’an-lung as a practical Confucian. But, unfortunately, they misunderstood his thought and scholarship, and underestimated the merits of those authentic Ming Confucians as well.