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
Series
 
Series No.
 
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 (RichardH. 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 majorargumentative patterns in the `Madhyamika Sastra`written by `Nagarjuna`. The author of this articlediscovers that there are two kinds of the FourPoints of Argument in the Sastra:one is simulatedand the other actual. The failure of ordinaryscholars such as Mr. □山雄一 of Japan and Mr.T.R.V. Murti of India in discerning the differencebetween the two has led to some erroneousconclusions.Through analyzing the Four Points of Argument,the author proves that,in the `Madhyamika Sastra` ,`Nagarjuna` does not use dialectics, a method fortranscending contradictions to arrive at a higher,more real truth. The analysis is directed againstthe conclusions reached by such scholars as Mr. □山雄一 of Japan and Mr. Richard H. Robinson of theUnited States, who claim that dialectics is actuallyemployed in the `Sastra`. In fact,the opinions ofthese scholars are basically not different fromthose of the `Vijnana` School of India and the TienT'ai and the Hua Yen Schools of China; they allconsider Emptiness as non-Emptiness.Moreover,the author compares Nargajuna'sargumentative pattern with intuitionism and modallogic,the two new logical theories developed in thetwentieth century. He finds there are a lot ofsimilarities among the three,all of which differgreatly from the traditional Aristotelian logic.
ISBN/ISSN/ISRC