本文分析「器」所具有的道論、存有論意涵，希望突破傳統「道在器中」的體用合一（道體器用）之論述，更進一步具體地分析器中見道的可能性。在傳統的「體用合一」論述中，器的特殊性並不重要。然而本文希望由具體的器與製作的特殊性中見道。本文將器論分為形上學層次與存有論層次：形上學層次包含「工具論」、「工具指引」；存有論層次則有「體用器」、「無用器」。除了超越體用論的論述，道家的器具存有論也因為有真人身體的參與，而超越了海德格的器具理論，因為海德格是「身體的遺忘」，較少討論身體議題。

This article analyses the traces of Dao that can be found in equipment. I hope it can challenge the traditional discourse that dao is substance (ti) and equipment is function (yong). In traditional discourse, the particularity of equipment is not so important, while in this article it is very much fundamental. I will discuss texts from Daoism—Laozi and Zhuangzi—and Heidegger’s Being and Time. Finally I divide two levels of the theory of equipment: metaphysical and ontological. At the metaphysical level, one distinguishes useful and indicative equipment. At the ontological level, one distinguishes ti-yong equipment and useless equipment. In addition to transcending the theory of ti-yong, Daoist ontology of equipment also transcends Heidegger’s theory of equipment. Heidegger forgets the discussion of body, while the Daoist Zhuangzi discusses the body thoroughly as well as the relation of body and equipment.