（按上圖或按此免費下載）

撮要

討論莫特曼與道家思想的異同，最佳方法莫如遵循莫特曼的進路，從相近中體認出差異。由於道家思想牽涉甚廣，本文只以老子為討論對象。我們以為莫特曼跟老子的思想都是環繞著他者而開展的。他者乃指異己，就是自己所不能同化者。自然生態作為他者，即表示天地萬物均異於上帝或道，其本性絕不可能為上帝或道所同化。莫特曼討論上帝與受造物的關係，老子闡釋道與萬物的關係，不約而同都表現出萬物當有其本性的關注。即或如此，我們仍然不能抹去莫特曼與老子的差異。這主要在於莫特曼所講的從上帝自限而來的無，具有毀滅生命的可能性。對於老子來說，無只是天地萬物的根源，並不涵有毀滅的可能性。有而不有，復歸於無，才是道的本性。老子只從不生之生來作用地保存萬物的他性，而莫特曼不單在創造的舉動中確立萬物的他性，在作用地保存這層次內，他更考慮到死亡毀滅所起的功能。莫特曼言無，涉及作用地限制這一面。讓開一步是賦予空間、自生之可能性，卻未及如何限制其異化自己而反過來企圖主宰自身以外的一切；莫特曼在讓開一步之外，指出了無的另一性格——消極地以毀滅來限制萬物此失其位分的舉動。

ABSTRACT

This paper aims at spelling out the similarity and difference between Moltmann and Lao-tze through their close understandings of the creation and the Otherness of the ecological nature. Both of them emphasize the Otherness of the ecological nature which is ontologically different from God or Tao. This means that nature cannot be ontologically dissolved by God or Tao. Both Moltmannn and Lao-tze consider that nature enjoys its own essence which is different from God or Tao. Though both of them establish their doctrines of creation on the base of Nothing, differences between them cannot be eliminated. Lao-tze’s Nothing has not the character of annihilation but has only the function of non-creating creation. Moltmann regards that Nothing also plays a role that limits the trespass of the creation. Nothing does not only provide possibility for the self- creation of the creation but also restrict the self-divinisation of the creation. It is this double function of Nothing that helps the creation to come to be itself without losing its own Otherness.

原載於《建道學刊》20期（2003年7月），頁23-42。