「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，像日本的梶山雄一. 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. 作者的分析是針對梶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 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.
