纏繞種種有關「動物放生」說法裡，放生經常被談成一致與單一的現象。因此本文以台灣戰後為時間起點，將動物放生現象放在歷史脈絡考察，一來反省有關動物放生的知識建構；二來解析傳統放生與現代問題的辯證關係；最後闡述放生如何是問題和正確放生如何形成兩個大哉問。透過論述分析的方式，我們注意到兩種轉折。一方面，生態學界與放生團體不是完全對立而是相互演化，一來生態學知識會隨其內部關注焦點不同而產生新的認知；二來是雖然一部份宗教團體放棄從事放生活動，但仍有部分放生團體的放生論述越來越有「生態知識建構」意味，逐漸調整放生行為符合環保知識的要求，或是形成「對抗性論述」，自行發展因應策略因應外界批評。另方面，放生的「問題化」與「正確放生」的形成，一開始並非針對宗教團體的大量放生，而是經由濫捕動物和養殖業者棄養動物引發的生態浩劫而起，其後是在變動的生態學典範、環保意識、佛典詮釋及政經脈絡下交織而成。所以，在歷史動態過程中，理解放生與批評放生的知識憑藉都是脈絡性的，並在這樣的論述交織和社會運作中形成神聖／世俗、有害／無害（人為主體）、絕種／非絕種、保育／非保育、有害／無害（生物多樣性）、感應／沒感應的分類判準。也就是可放與不可放、正確與不正確的區別重點不在這是什麼動物，而是能否符應該脈絡下的分類標準。

The phenomena of captive animal release are treated as unique and single in varieties of arguments about it. In this paper the phenomena of religious captive animal release are discussed in the historical contexts to reflect on the construct of the knowledge of captive animal release and the dialectical relationships between the traditional captive animal release and modern social problems. Finally, why and how the problem of captive animal release became a public issue and how to do a “correct practice of captive animal release” are elaborated. By the method of discursive analysis, we find that the biological community and the religious groups practicing captive animal release are influenced by each other in the last two decades. on one hand, newrecognitions about the social issues are formed according to the paradigmatic shift in the biological community. on the other hand, new practices of captive animal release are adopted by religious group to accommodate to the biological knowledge. And some kinds of “counter-discourse” are developed among the religious groups who practice captive animal release. Therefore, for the phenomena of captive animal release to become a public issue and the emergence of correct practices of it is formed under the shifting articulation between biological paradigms, consciousness of environment-preservation, interpretation of religious texts and politicaleconomic contexts in Taiwan. The knowledge of captive animal release and critics of it are both contextual.