本論文旨在經由韓國性理學大師李栗谷《醇言》一書之前五章，並對比於《老子道德經》及其徵引的相關文獻，做一總體的理解詮釋。經由對比、和合、會通而指向筆者近年來所構造的「存有三態論」，進一步宣稱「儒道同源互補」。 首先，筆者反思中國文化傳統儒家主流說（正統說）與「血緣性縱貫軸」的密切關係，並試圖解構此政治、學術及宗教權力的限制，而歸返原先的「儒道同源互補」。再者，因緣而生，以栗谷的《醇言》為核心展開詮釋。先之以「天道論」，指出栗谷之由道家的「天地絪醞論」轉向「本體生起論」。在文獻的疏理過程裡，我們發現「揀擇」與「詮釋」所可能帶來的「轉化」與「創造」。繼之以「心性論」及「修養工夫論」，並對比的引證《老子道德經》相關文獻，並對勘於近年拙譯的《新譯老子道德經》，以及由儒道會通所締造的「存有三態論」，以及「新道家治療學」。最後，據此而證成「儒道同源互補」之可能，並肯定道家在現代社會中的批判與治療之作用。

The aim of this paper is to give an alternative general understanding and interpretation of the first five chapters of Korean Neo-Confucianist Yi Yulgok's Chun Yan and that of Laozi's Dao De Jing by comparing both the texts and the materials cited by Yi. It then refers the comparison, integration and synthesis of Chun Yan and Dao De Jing to "the theory of three manifestations of Being" and claims that "Confucianism and Daoism have the same root and are complementary to one another." In this paper, the author firstly reflects on the close relation between the view of Confucianism is the mainstream (or orthodoxy) of Chinese Cultural Tradition and "kinship vertical axis" and tries to deconstruct the limit of political, academic and religious powers to return to the vision of "Confucianism and Daoism have the same root and are complementary to one another." Secondly, with his alternative interpretation of Chun Yan, the author points out the turn of Yi's theory of the way of heaven from the vision of "the universe is the process of correlation" to that of "the ontological occurrence." Meanwhile, the author shows the transformation and creativity inherent in the choice and interpretation of the texts and the related materials. Also the author confronts some chapters of Chun Yan with that of Dao De Jing and that of his New Interpretation of Laozi Dao De Jing to discuss the theory of Mind (Shin) and Nature (Hsin) and that of self-cultivation in the perspectives of "the theory of three manifestations of Being" and "Therapeutics of New-Daoism." Finally, based on the foregoing discussion, the author tries to justify the possibility of "Confucianism and Daoism have the same root and are complementary to one another" and affirms the critical and disabusing role of Daoism in modern society.