本文旨在探討南朝重玄道士建構的一種新型態道論。在佛教徒對中國傳統「道者氣」說進行批判的背景下，陸修靜 (406-477) 提出「虛寂為道體」、「道者至理之目」的說法。道體既是道，但又不是道，二者具有一種「非一非異」的關係，筆者稱其為「二重的道論」。陸修靜建構的道論，由南朝的其他重玄道士繼承與發展：在功夫修養上，宋文明等人提出「一三三一，不一不異」的三一之說；在對本跡問題的討論上，孟智周提出「有無體用」之說，認為妙無（道之理）與妙有（道之氣）相待故有，並以「體用」這組概念來說明二者的關係；在對體證經驗的說明上，臧矜提出「智慧為道體，神通為道用」的說法。最後介紹重玄家的二重道論，對理學的體用說產生的影響。

This paper discusses a new type of theory on the Dao established by Taoist priests of the Zhongxuan 重玄 school in the Southern Dynasties. At this time, Buddhists began to critique traditional Chinese theories of Dao, prompting Lu Xiujing 陸修靜 to rethink the concept. He contended that the substance of the Dao was equal to the Dao; however, at the same time, this substance differed from the Dao in certain respects. He concluded that the relationship between the tao and its substance was one of “neither sameness nor difference.” In this paper, I call Lu’s understanding of the Dao “the paradoxical tao theory.” Other Zhongxuan school priests expanded upon Lu Xiujing’s paradoxical Dao theory, applying it to many different concepts and practices. For example, with regard to self-cultivation, Song Wenming 宋文明 put forth a theory called the “Three Ones”. Meng Zhizhou 孟智周，in his analysis of the relationship between noumenon and phenomenon, advanced the doctrine known as “being and non-being,” and he used the concept of tiyong (substance and function 體 用) to illuminate this relationship. And, Zang Jin 臧矜, in his discussion of meditative experience, explained the meaning of the paradoxical Dao theory through reference to the concept of wisdom. The Zhongxuan school Daoist priests’ paradoxical Dao theory in fact heavily influenced Chinese conceptions of substance and function, which would later play an important role in Neo-Confucian thought.

道教；重玄學派；陸修靜；道論；體用論；非一非異

Daoism；Zhongxuan 重玄 school；Dao theory；Tiyong 體用 theory (substance and function theory)；neither the same nor different