劉宗周以「支離」為朱熹、陽明與陽明後學詮釋《大學》文本的主要問題。其認為朱熹的〈格致補傳〉基本合於《大學》格致之意，陽明批其支離是不恰當的，但格致工夫應放回《大學》文本且不可脫離「知本」之旨；然而，朱熹的格物窮理工夫對「先討論物理」的要求又容易造成對知本之旨的遺忘，並且，對《大學》的詮釋忽略了誠意與慎獨的重要性，以意為心之所發，以慎獨為動察工夫等，成為朱熹《大學》詮釋「支離」之弊。又對陽明而言，則認為陽明《大學》詮釋的最主要的問題，即其透過致良知之教所詮釋的《大學》意旨與《大學》本旨的差異，宗周總結為「將意字認壞、將知字認粗」，即《大學》中的誠意與格物致知概念的詮釋問題；因此，劉宗周將良知學回歸孟子，與《大學》分隔，批判陽明以誠意為第二義，以意為已發導致工夫的不足，進而必須將正心定為未發工夫、修身定為已發工夫，使得一貫的工夫次第顯得搖擺不定而顯「支離」並缺乏整體性，亦導致四句教的詮釋問題，以及陽明後學的種種弊端。 Liu Zong-zhou considers “diversions” to be the major problems with the interpretations of The Great Learning by Zhu Xi, Wang Yang-ming and his followers. Liu believes that Zhu's A Supplementary Commentary on Ge Wu Zhi Zhi (investigation of things and acquisition of knowledge) basically matches the meaning of Ge W Zhi Zhi from The Great Learning. However, Zhu Xi's idea of “Ge Wu Qiong Li” (investigation of things and fathoming of principles) demands to investigate things first, which easily leads to the negligence of “knowing the root.” Moreover, Zhu's interpretations about The Great Learning overlook the importance of “sincerity of the will” and “vigilance in solitude.” With regards to Wang Yang-ming, the major problem with his interpretations is that the theme of The Great Learning as explicated by his theory of Zhi Liang Zhi (extension of innate knowledge) is distinct from the theme of the text itself in terms of the concepts of sincerity of the will and Ge Wu Zhi Zhi. Therefore, Liu traces the theory of innate knowledge back to Mengzi instead of The Great Learning and criticizes Wang as his interpretations of sincerity of the will, correction of the mind and cultivation of the self look incoherent, diverted and fragmented. The problems with such interpretations lead to the wrongful interpretations about the four dicta and all the problematic issues with Wang's followers.
