在哲學研究所需遵循的詮釋原則裡，理論的融貫可謂十分重要，其為詮釋思想建立的必要條件。對理論融貫的探討，除需關注詮釋思想自身的一致外，在中國哲學──這種以注釋經典方式進行的哲學活動──的研究脈絡裡，亦需留意理論融貫之第二層次的問題，即詮釋思想自身與被詮釋的文本之間的融貫性。本文旨在通過分析陳漢生對老子「道」概念的詮釋思想，以顯示其中涉及理論融貫之第二層次的問題。首先說明了中國哲學研究的特殊背景及其與理論融貫之關係；其次藉引介學者對於陳漢生詮釋假說之探討與質疑，說明了他通過對中文文法結構及名詞性質的觀察，而以為中文系統裡不具備表徵、描述的語義功能，及不能具有指稱任何個體概念之作用的觀點是難以成立的；第三節通過考察《老子》的基本意涵，指出陳漢生對於老子「道」概念的詮釋思想，即以為老子所欲提倡者為否定所有規範性話語及隨之而起的價值取向的觀點，並不能推廣而使之與文本的其他部分彼此融貫；最後的總結反映，若我們視詮釋的工作為揭示和解釋經典本義，則陳漢生對老子「道」概念的詮釋實有違其與被詮釋的文本之間的融貫性。

The consistency of the principle of coherence is a necessary condition for a valid hermeneutics. In addition to determining whether a theory of textual interpretation possesses internal coherence, in the context of the Chinese philosophical tradition, which relied heavily on the practice of textual commentary, we should also be concerned with a secondary level of coherence; that is, with the question of whether a hermeneutics conforms to, and does not conflict with, the content and basic meaning of the original text. This paper, which is divided into four sections, aims to disclose the hidden conflict in Chad Hansen’s interpretation of the Laozian concept of Dao from the perspective of this second-level meaning of coherence. The first section of the paper illustrates the unique context of the Chinese philosophical tradition, and the relationship between this context and coherence. The second section discusses scholars’ critiques of Hansen’s hermeneutic hypotheses in an effort to prove the invalidity of Hansen’s understanding of classical Chinese, which was based in an analysis of nouns and syntactic structure. It is argued here that this understanding of classical Chinese, in which the language does not denote any particular objects and does not possess the semantic functions of representation and description, is difficult to substantiate. In the third section, I examine the fundamental significance of the Laozi, and compare it with Hansen’s interpretation of the Laozian concept of Dao. On the basis of this comparison, I argue that Hansen’s view of Laozi’s Dao, which asserts that Laozi promoted the abandonment of all prescriptive discourses and the value orientations that accompanied them, fails to cohere with the basic meaning of the text. The fourth section concludes that, if the purpose of Chinese hermeneutics is to explain and discover the meaning and significance of the text, then a conflict, which violates the second-level meaning of coherence, can be found between Hansen’s interpretation of the Laozian concept of Dao and the basic meaning of the Laozi.