This bibliography is edited by Digital Library & Museum Buddhist Studies.         Fulltext[全文] Correction Contribution

Serial No.
252259
Title
《中論》裡的「四句」之研究
Author
楊惠南=楊惠男
Source
華岡佛學學報=Hwakang Buddhist Journal
Volume
n.6
Date
1983.07.01
Pages
277 - 310
Publisher
中華學術院佛學研究所=The Chung-Hwa Institute of Buddhist Studies
Location
台北市, 臺灣 [Taipei shih, Taiwan]
Mediatype
期刊論文=Journal Article
Language
中文=Chinese
Library
SEARCH: NTU LIBRARY / MET@CAT
Compilation Date
1998.07.22
Note
Keyword
中論;四句;辯證法;邏輯;
Abstract
「四句」(catuskoti)是龍樹《中論》裡的主論式之
一. 作者發現,《中論》裡的「四句」共有兩種:(1) 擬似
四句; (2) 真實四句. 一般的學者,像日本的□山雄一. 印
度的穆諦 (T. R. V. Murti) 都未能看出這兩種四句的不同
,以致得到了某種錯誤的結論. 作者更透過「四句」的分析
,證明龍樹的《中論》並沒採用「辯證法」 (dialetic)
,那是一種從矛盾中獲得更高,更真實之真理的方法. 作者
的分析是針對□山雄一與美國學者查. 羅賓生 (Richard
H. Robinson) 等人的研究成果. 在這些學者看來,龍樹的
《中論》確實用到了「辯證法」. 事實上,這些學者的觀點
,與印度唯識宗,乃至中國的天台,,華嚴二宗,並沒
基本上的差異,因他們都把「空」視為「不空」. 另外,
作者還把龍樹的論式,拿來與「直覺主義」 (Intuitionism)
,「模態邏輯」 (Model Logic) 相比較; 那是開展在二十
世紀初年的兩種新邏輯. 作者發現,這三者間有許多相似
處,而它們都與傳統的「亞里士多德邏輯」
(Aristotelian Logic),有根本上的差異.

The Four points of Argument are one of the major
argumentative patterns in the `Madhyamika Sastra`
written by `Nagarjuna`. The author of this article
discovers that there are two kinds of the Four
Points of Argument in the Sastra:one is simulated
and the other actual. The failure of ordinary
scholars such as Mr. □山雄一 of Japan and Mr.
T.R.V. Murti of India in discerning the difference
between the two has led to some erroneous
conclusions.

Through analyzing the Four Points of Argument,
the author proves that,in the `Madhyamika Sastra` ,
`Nagarjuna` does not use dialectics, a method for
transcending contradictions to arrive at a higher,
more real truth. The analysis is directed against
the conclusions reached by such scholars as Mr. □山
雄一 of Japan and Mr. Richard H. Robinson of the
United States, who claim that dialectics is actually
employed in the `Sastra`. In fact,the opinions of
these scholars are basically not different from
those of the `Vijnana` School of India and the Tien
T'ai and the Hua Yen Schools of China; they all
consider Emptiness as non-Emptiness.

Moreover,the author compares Nargajuna's
argumentative pattern with intuitionism and modal
logic,the two new logical theories developed in the
twentieth century. He finds there are a lot of
similarities among the three,all of which differ
greatly from the traditional Aristotelian logic.
ISBN/ISSN/ISRC