漢傳佛教經典注疏裡常出現「本迹」語詞來詮釋經文，尤以智顗在《法華》的分科、開演為最。然而，本迹用語在漢傳佛教最早使用的卻是僧肇，在《注維摩詰經》裡詮釋佛菩薩的「不可思議解脫」境界；智顗的用法與僧肇有所不同。若想了解本迹一語的詮釋演變，勢必溯本還原，了解僧肇此等語詞的概念從何而來？是否受玄學影響？玄學裡，又以郭象的「跡冥論」為最早且具體提出，他在《莊子注》當中多處運用「跡」、「冥」註解莊子的「神仙說」，並建立內聖外王之聖人觀。究竟僧肇本迹說，與郭象跡冥論之間的關聯性為何？各自所彰顯的特色與價值又在哪裡？研究成果得出「自生獨化」與「緣起性空」，是郭象與僧肇在本迹根本思想上的最大不同之處。
Within the commentaries of the Buddhist scriptures passed down from the Han people, the notion of ＂root and traces＂ (本迹) is often used to interpret the texts. This is especially true in the case of Zhiyi's commentary of The Lotus Sutra, with its first section as the best example. However, the earliest usage of the notion of ＂root and traces＂ in Chinese Buddhism is found in Seng Zhao's Commentary on the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa-sūtra, where he explains the ＂inconceivable liberation＂ realm of Buddha and Bodhisattvas. It is clear that Zhiyi's usage and Seng Zhao's differ to some extent. Therefore, if one wishes to understand the changing interpretations of the notion of ＂root and traces＂ one must inevitably recall and reconstruct its roots, including an understanding of Seng Zhao; what are the origins of his usage of this kind of terminology and concept? Was he influenced by Hsüan-hsüeh (玄學) thought? Within Hsüan-hsüeh, if we take Guo Xiang's ＂doctrine of the visible and the invisible＂ (跡 冥論) as the earliest and most specific mention, terms such as ＂the visible＂ and ＂the invisible＂ are used in many places within the Commentary on the Zhuangzi in order to explain ＂the sayings of immortals＂ (神仙說), as well as to establish sagely doctrines such as that of the ＂inward sage, outward king＂ (內聖外王). What is the exact reason behind the connection between Seng Zhao's ＂root and traces＂ and Guo Xiang's ＂doctrine of the visible and the invisible＂ and what is the character of this relation? Furthermore, where is the value and distinguishing feature that each of them manifest? This investigation will result in ＂Spontaneous generation, Self-Transformation＂ (自生獨化) and ＂Dependent Arising, Emptiness＂ (緣起性空), which will help illuminate the biggest underlying difference in Guo Xiang and Seng Zhao's thoughts with regards to ＂root and traces＂.
