清辨（Bhāviveka, 500-570 A. D.）與龍樹（Nāgārjuna, 150-250 A. D.）以及其他中觀學家如佛護（Buddhapālita, 470-540 A. D.）、月稱（Candrakīrt, 600-650 A. D.）等最大差異在於其著作中大量採用因明（hetuvidyā）論式，然而論式的使用在某 種程度上接受了一套既有的軌則，而此有違龍樹在《迴諍論》（Vigrahavyāvartanī）中遮破使用量（pramāṇa）的看法。那麼，清辨又為何要依此方式說明中觀的立場，其背景與積極意義為何呢？此文將討論清辨是否成功地以因明說明中觀的內涵，若是，則他如何解決使用量所產生的形上疑慮？勝義簡別在這其中又如何扮演其角色？再者，一直以來，清辨雖被視為中觀的繼承者，但卻抑於佛護、月稱一系而在修證的判定上不受重視，此處也將釐清清辨雖以不同的方式說明，但其內涵是具有其傳承與說服力的。
The major difference between Bhāviveka and Nāgārjuna as well as other Madhyamikas such as Buddhapālita and Candrakīrt etc. is Bhāviveka’s application of Buddhist logic (hetuvidyā) in his works. However, to a certain degree, his use of inference has to accept the system of logical rules, which, in turn, violates the view in Nāgārjuna’s Vigrahavyāvartanī where the means of acquiring knowledge (pramāṇa) is denied. Then, what are the reasons that Bhāviveka applies hetuvidyā when he explains the content of Madhyamaka? What is the background and positive meaning behind his application? This paper discusses whether or not Bhāviveka has successfully explained the content of Madhyamaka by applying hetuvidyā. If he does, how does he solve the doubt in metaphysics when applying it? In other words, how does he avoid considering pramāṇa as real? What role does the qualifi cation of “from the ultimate point of view” play within it? Additionally, though Bhāviveka is considered as the adherent of the Madhyamaka school, he is not highly valued regarding cultivation when compared to Buddhapālita and Candrakīrt. This paper clarifi es that his method has inherited the spirit of Middle Way and it is convincing if we examine his philosophy as a whole.
