傳統思想史研究往往將宋代思想史和理學發展史劃上等號，這是站在儒學本位的立場回頭觀看宋代的結果。事實上，要研究唐宋兩代的思想變化，必須同時考量儒釋道三教的角色。宋代則應當斷代為二，理學興盛而定於一尊乃是南宋時期的發展。北宋之季是唐代和南宋的中介階段，思想世界再度爭鳴的時期。若仔細觀察北宋士人的論述內容，可發現經歷三教互相激盪之後，雖然仍有判教的先後順序，大致都試圖將三者融而為一，建立一個從內在到外在、從個人性到公共性的體系。只是其方法和觀點不同，故有新學、朔學、蜀學和洛學之別。但是時代氛圍使得各學派同時校注三教經典，《道德經》當然也不例外。北宋的注老風潮至宋徽宗《御解道德真經》一出，大致上可謂定調。一方面宋徽宗崇尚道教，提升《道德經》的定位，不再是人人皆可任意批評的經典；另一方面透過官方力量，掌握了對《道德經》的詮釋可能性。宋徽宗注解的過程中，除了針對《道德經》的義理分析外，還可反映出其所處時代的學術旨趣和氛圍，如心性問題、統治者面對異論相攪的思考等。在其中徽宗描繪出盡性復命而體道的聖人，足以因性而修身、治國、平天下。然而，近人研究往往因為宋徽宗縱情於文藝、宗教，而淪為亡國之君的窘境，認定《御解道德真經》透顯出消極無為的意義，似乎是值得再次反思的。

The history of thought in the Song Dynasty is strongly associated with the development of neo-Confucianism. However, when we examine the development of thought between the Song and Tang dynasties, we also need to consider the roles of Daoism, and Buddhism. At the same time, the Song Dynasty is divided into two periods, with Song Confucianism especially developed during the Southern Song Dynasty while the Northern Song period acted as a mediator between the Song and Tang dynasties, with a period of contention between different schools of thought. When we examine discourses from the Song Dynasty in detail, when find that following struggles between the three schools, although doctrinal judgment still existed, there was an effort to create dialogue and produce a system that integrated the three schools in the private and public realm. However, differences in methods and perspectives lead to distinctions between the New School, Su School, Shu School, and Luo School. In this atmosphere, the different schools applied their own interpretations to the classics, including the ”Dao De Jing”. Emperor Huizong's ”Imperial Commentary on the Dao De Jing” set the tone for the renewed focus on Laozi in the Northern Song. On the one hand, Emperor Huizong raised the status of the ”Dao De Jing” to a classic above criticism. On the other hand, Emperor Huizong used his official authority to determine how the ”Dao De Jing” was interpreted. Emperor Huizong's commentary, aside from its analysis of the moral principles of the ”Dao De Jing”, also reflects the intellectual interests and atmosphere of its time, including spiritual problems and how rulers met the challenges of contending thoughts. In this, Emperor Huizong describes the ”figure of the saint” under heaven who cultivates his own moral character and rules the country. However, due to Emperor Huizong's indulgences in arts and religion and the eventual end of the Song Dynasty shortly after his death, recent research have seen the Imperial Commentary on the ”Dao De Jing” as a symbol of imperial inaction. This view is now worth reassessing.