當代新儒家牟宗三先生認為相對於儒家之為道德創生的實有型態的形而上學，道家成就的是一套主觀境界型態的形而上學。他之所以做出這樣詮釋，學者大體以為是立基於王弼所做的《老子註》解而來。本文的目的主要在於重新審視這個問題，意圖指出牟先生的詮釋典範有其可議處。經由王弼《老子注》暨牟宗三《才性與玄理》相關章節的細部對比。一方面，回溯王弼本身的哲理思想，進而考察這與其注老的關係，闡釋此中的異同，並指出以「主觀境界型態」去理解王弼所導生的可能問題。另方面，我們將因之對比地指出牟宗三詮釋系統的特色，並闡明其理據及限制。重要的是，我們將指出以「主觀境界型態的形而上學」來詮釋老子及道家哲學是不妥當的。再者，將就《老子道德經》第一章以及其他相關思想做一分疏與重建，最後則指出意圖以「存有三態論」與「存有的治療學」批判地繼承牟宗三先生的老子學詮釋，並求進一步的創造與發展。

Mou Zongsan, one of the most important representatives of New-Confucianism, opined that, in comparison with Confucianism as the metaphysics of Being-form, Daoism can be taken as the metaphysics of vision-form. It has been said that Mou's approach of interpretation was based on Wang Bi's Commentary on the Laozi. The main purpose of this paper is to re-examine this view and to indicate the problems with Mou's work by comparing the corresponding paragraphs both in Wang Bi's work and Mou's Talent and Mysterious Reasoning. On the one hand, it retraces the philosophical thinking of Wang Bi, probes the relation and analyzes the difference between his thought and his commentary on the Laozi and points out the shortcomings with the understanding of Wang Bi by the notion of metaphysics of vision-form. On the other hand, it will show the features of Mou's interpretation and elucidate its philosophical foundation and limitation. Significantly, it will argue that it is inappropriate to interpret the Laozi and Daoism by the idea of metaphysics of vision-form. It will then analyze and reconstruct the first chapter of Laozi and the related thoughts. Finally, it will present the intention to inherit critically Mou's interpretation of Laozi through the“theory of three manifestations of Being”and the“therapy of Being”and the possibility of creation and development of the studies of Laozi.