本文旨在以《韓非子》之〈解老〉為主、輔以〈喻老〉等篇之文字，以釐清韓非子所謂之「道」概念之確切涵義，間亦就時賢所論作一商榷。本文初步認為，《韓非子》〈解老〉中所示之「道」，不但未涉及宇宙論之討論，亦非將實踐之價值歸諸一形上實有之「規律」，而似僅為一因時地物而制宜、因利制權之靈活原則，再推衍出一以「收實效」為目的之應然之作為也。亦因此，循此原則以實踐，並非「必然」發生實效，且恐有自貽伊戚之虞，故《韓非子》以「水」、「劍戟」譬諸「道」。換言之，欲收實效，又能不反受其殃，尚有待許多外在之條件也，以是《韓非子》屢言虛、靜等「主道」。再者，《韓非子》之「道」為一純粹自實踐領域言「實效」之「應然作為」，其價值之來源與「形上原理」、「宇宙根源」等超越依據完全無關，亦因此似與老子之思想有相當之距離。凡此，本文將以嚴密之論證展示之。

Based on primarily “Explanation of Laozi” and secondarily “Analogy of
Laozi” from Han Feizi, this paper is meant to clarify the precise meaning of Han Feizi’s “Tao,” while discussing the contemporary scholars’ opinions as well. It is preliminarily assumed that Han Feizi’s “Tao”, as proposed in“Explanation of Laozi”, Han Feizi, neither involves any discussion about cosmology nor attributes the value of practice to a metaphysical law. On the other hand, it seems to be merely a flexible principle of expediency,leading to proper actions that are intended to be practically effective. This is exactly why the practice following this principle is not necessarily effective,while it might incur troubles or disasters, thus Han Feizi compares Tao to water and swords. In other words, it still requires many conditions for Han Feizi’s Tao to be effective without incurring troubles, due to whichHan Feizi often mentions emptiness and tranquility, that is, the ruler’s Tao. Furthermore,
Han Feizi’s Tao is exclusively about effectiveness and properness, while the source of its value has nothing to do with the transcendental grounds, such as“metaphysical principles” or “cosmological origins.” As a result, Han’s Tao is quite different from Laozi’s thought. All the argument above will be demonstrated through rigid reasoning.