本文試圖從《老》、《莊》的文本詮釋出先秦道家的淵源，追溯他們的哲理玄思的由來，從而理解道家與原始宗教的關係。這原始宗教我們稱之為「巫史傳統」。盛行於南方楚地的「巫史傳統」有複雜的歷史背景，也蘊有深邃的智慧。《莊子‧天下》提供了可信的線索，也指出道家特殊的宗教性質。事實上，老莊雖然源出這「巫史傳統」卻對它作了極大的變革。原初的「太一神明」轉化為形而上的「道體」，原生的神話也變為寓言。一切儀式、崇拜、甚至魔咒都被免除。不過，這些變革並不能抹去其蘊含的宗教性，只是被後世遺忘了。老子之為「博大真人」，莊子之為「天人」、「至人」都應從宗教意義上來理解。從「無為」、「無待」的修為工夫導致的心靈自由是這一宗教的最高境界。本文的論點簡單，所以只略分章節而不加標題，以免喧賓奪主，反而失焦。又本文溯其歷史淵源，探究其本質，非關考據，故渾圇名之〈說道家〉云。

This article seeks to explore the origin of pre-Qin Daoism based on an interpretation of the texts of Laozi and Zhuangzi. It traces the genesis of their philosophical contemplation in an effort to understand the relationship between Daoism and primitive religion. From our perspective, primitive religion in China is characterized as a “Shaman-historian tradition.” It was imbued with profound wisdom,and flourished in the southern Chu region against a complicated historical background. Credible evidence contained in the Tianxia chapter of Zhuangzi directs our attention to the peculiarly religious nature of Daoism. Although their thought was a product of the Shaman-historian tradition, Laozi and Zhuangzi actually reformulated that tradition to a great extent. The primordial “Ultimate Oneness of Divine Brightness” was transformed into the metaphysical substance of Dao, and indigenous mythology was converted into philosophical allegory. All of the rituals, worship, and even magical incantations were discarded. This reformation, however, did not eliminate the tradition’s inherent religiosity, which was simply forgotten by later generations. The reason that Laozi is called an “Immensely Great Authentic Person”and Zhuangzi a “Heavenly Person” or “Ultimate Person” should be understood in the religious sense. The spiritual freedom gained from the physical cultivation of “nonaction”and “non-dependence” is the highest achievement in this religious tradition.The argument of this article is plain and straightforward; therefore the main text is only divided numerically without any section titles in order to avoid unnecessary distraction. Furthermore, in so far as the intention of this essay is to trace the genetic origin and explore the essence of Daoism rather than textual criticism per se, I have decided to, somewhat generically, entitle it “On Daoism.”