本文的主旨是討論牟宗三先生對於道家義理定位的問題。全文分為兩階段論述，首先如實地描述牟先生對道家義理定位的主張，其次是筆者對牟先生主張所作的討論。筆者認為在《老子》原始文獻中，道本來具有「有」、「無」的雙重性，「自然」涵義亦同時具有「自然而然」的作用義，以及「自己本具」的實有義，兩面俱有，不可只偏於「作用義」理解之。至於道家對於「道生」涵義的說明，認為生命中一切的作為必依於「自然而然」的方式，以及「自己本具」的內容而展開自己，實現自己。此意義下的「道生」，仍屬「實有形態」，但是不必然同於儒家方式的「道生」，亦不必然悖於儒家方式的「道生」。與儒家的差異在於對實有內容的展開不同，道家不以仁義為首出，而以存在為首出。以更廣大超越的心靈涵容一切的可能性，更能正視人類文化創造的殊異性、豐富性，以及意識到存在不可滯限的變動性。此為本文大旨所在。

This article discusses the principles of Taoism that the scholar of China, Mr. Mou Zong-san (1909-1995), had defined. Firstly, I introduce Mr. Mou's views on Taoism. Secondly, I address my argument against his definition. I consider that the nature of Tao possesses the duality of “existence” and “non-existence” as implied in the original text of 《Lao-zi》. Besides, the “nature” denotes “inherency” in terms of its factuality and purports “spontaneousness” in terms of its functionality. Anyone who intends to interpret the meaning of nature based on the “functionality” only catch its partial essence. The Taoists consider “Tao Sheng” (The path of truth) as a spontaneous way that all things are born. Accordingly, all things will develop by themselves based on their inherencies. The connotation of “Tao Sheng” that Taoism asserts (which is subject to reality) is different from the Confucian definition. However, the both are compatible in the way of fulfillment. The Confucians realize the way of truth by means of humaneness and righteousness. On the other hand, the Taoists take existence as primary. The latter embraces any possibility in a transcendental spirit. Therefore, it is able to hold the diversity of different cultures and senses the unlimited variation of existence.