本文由分析《淮南子》的「匠」字切入，分論該書工匠和聖王所代表的兩種體道模式。該書的匠字有實指和隱喻兩種用法。就實際指涉而論，指稱以身體勞動為憑藉，親手施作技藝並以此體道的工匠。其隱喻向度則用以強調帝王在政治文化中所抱持的理想應世態度，聖王治國之道，原理與工匠制器之道相同。另一方面，相較於工匠以技體道，聖王則立基於現實地位優勢，以內在修養為根源，主觀心靈之轉化即是世界樣態之轉化，毋須勞心勞力而與道冥合。雖然就同一對象物來說，工匠和聖王對該物道性的體驗飽滿程度相同，但因工匠只在特定對象物上體道，聖王則以全天下為範圍，以神感神應的方式，萬物皆為其所調理；因而終極而言，後者的與道冥合才能稱為整全，雙方精神高度並不完全齊平。《淮南子》聖王獨尊的形上學階序差異的主張，是對《老》、《莊》政治懷疑論述的新詮。

Recent academic studies of Daoism in the Huainanzi 淮南子 are mostlyconcerned with cosmology and politicization. Through analysis of metaphors,this paper discusses the two modalities of the Dao in the Huainanzi. The firstmodality is represented by the relationship between the artisan and his work.The artisan masters his techniques through constant practice and in the processreaches the state of ‘supreme spirit,’ when his subjectivity merges with thepraxis. The second modality is the sage-king, who through internal cultivationgains total control over his mind and is not distracted. In this process, the law ofthings naturally emerges in his mind and he is then able to extend this capacityinto the world. With this lucidity, he can always properly take care of matters.These two modalities, one fixated upon on one specific object, the other whoextends his mind into the world, represent the two types of Dao in the Huainanzi.