本文由方法學的角度討論嚴遵、河上公、王弼三家的《老子》注文。藉由他們對「道」與「言意問題」的不同意見，說明三家注本不同的詮釋型態。三家注中，王弼有《老子指略》一文說明他的詮釋方法，而嚴遵及河上公的詮釋方法則必須由注文中尋繹重建。王弼視「道」為被詮釋的對象，關心於「名言」如何識「道」的問題，因而強調道的「整全性」及其語言世界與心靈世界的「解蔽」功能。嚴遵、河上公與王弼不同，他們不把「道」視為一可被詮釋的對象，而以為道有確信的內涵。在型態上嚴遵強調「道」有「反復交感」與「對立同源」的二種特性；而河上公則強調「道」能主宰、能經營變化的功能。了解三家在詮釋型態上的不同，除了能清楚掌握他們對《老子》的理解外，或許也可以對目前關於《老子》的不同版本系統，提供學術史研究上的合理推測。

This paper discusses the different methodologies used by Yen Tsun, Ho-shang-kung, and Wang Pi in their commentaries on Lao Tsu. Specifically, we will differentiate their interpretations of Lao Tsu in terms of their approaches towards Tao and the use of language to signify that concept. To understand Wang Pi's approach, we may consult his “Lao Tsu Chih Lueh”; however, for the other two authors we are left to infer their approaches based on their commentaries on the Lao Tsu. In this paper we shall show that inasmuch as Wang treats Tao as an object to be interpreted, he must resolve the problem of how language can be used to convey “Tao”. As a result, he emphasized Tao's “cmpleteness” and its role in “removing obstacles” in the linguistic and psycho-spiritual realms. Yen Tsun and Ho-shang-kung's approach to Lao Tsu differ from Wang's in the sense that they do not see Tao as an object to be interpreted, although they do believe that Tao has a definite nature. In his discussion of Tao, Yen Tsun empha-sizes two concepts, a sort of “continual mutual interaction” and “dualism springing from a common source.” Ho-shang-kung, on the other hand, stresses Tao's role as “being able to control” and “responding to change.” By delineating these different interpretative attitudes among these three commentators, we can not only better understand their approaches to the text itself, but may also be in a better position to offer a reasonable explanation for the different textual traditions of the Lao Tsu over the ages.