當今學界普遍同意「儒道互補」的說法，但是對它的定義卻莫衷一是，本文及基於後設的立場，對此概念做出澄清，並貞定其確實之意義。本文認為「儒道互補」牽涉到互補的角色、互補的方式和互補的結果等三個議題，而學者之間之所以會有語意上的出入，就是在這三個議題上出現圓鑿方枘的主張。在互補的角色上，本文歸納出學者間主要的差異是在互補受益者的認定上，其中至少出現學說理論、文化人生和前二者兼而有之等三個不同的見解；在互補的方式上，有人認為是對等付出平行受益，有人認為人輕重主從之分惟難於決定孰優孰劣，也有人認為儒道兩家只有付出但均未受益；在互補的結果上，或肯定是儒家道家的調適上遂，或主張是兩家各執一端以共構完成一更圓滿的思想學說。凡此種種不同的堅持，本文乃逐一加以分析檢討，最後證成三點結論：一、儒道互補在中國是全面的現象；二、儒道互補在學理上是相互引發、自我完足，在文化上是以儒為主、以道為輔，在生活智慧上則是稱機而用、各擅勝場；三、儒道互補並非儒道平分主義，所以它和儒家主流說或是和道家主幹論都能相容。

　　　　　From a meta-cognitive viewpoint, the author of this essay makes an effort on clarifying the concept about the complementary function of Confucianism and Taoism'. Scholars have different opinions on this topic. Therefore, the author tries to solve this theoretical problem by proposing three important issues. The first issue is about what would get benefit from the complementary function of the two schools--the lifestyles derived from the schools' theories, the content of theories, or maybe the both? The secondary issue is about how the complementary function operates--which of the two schools is more beneficial and which gets more benefit? The third issue is about what are the outcomes from the complementary function--Are the two schools completing profound knowledge separately, or both of them are becoming a part of a more satisfactory theory? All of the above are discussed in this essay. And the three conclusions of the essay are? 1. The complementary function of Confucianism and Taoism is a universal phenomenon in Chinese history. 2. Though the complementary function of Confucianism and Taoism is existing in China, Confucianism still stands for the main stream and Taoism the minor culturally. 3. The complementary function of Confucianism and Taoism is not a kind of doctrine of equality. That means it could be compatible with either one being the main stream thought in alternative situations.