摘要
禪宗公案，究竟是邏輯，還是詭辯？吾人至少可以提出三點禪之詭辯論的事實。難怪強調概念清晰，邏輯一致，暨語意上求其有意義的現代哲學家，會把「禪」神祕化；也難怪以某種理論來詮釋宗教經驗暨宗教語言的現代宗教哲學家，認為禪宗經驗及語言最令人匪夷所思。為了要消解這些疑惑，本文特別論究公案之邏輯，及其在語意學上之意義；並澄清其方法論暨存有論之基礎。本文主要想討論有關公案所引生的疑惑，暨禪之詭辯性兩個基本問題：如何以邏輯合理方式來衍生出有意義層面而作為彰顯或達到終於真理的工具？如何合理的解釋這些疑惑暨詭論？邏輯上又如何解釋？吾人對於這些問題的答案，主要是根據對禪之疑惑暨詭論之深度分析。我們指出禪宗悟者把公案之表面語意與其深一層存有論的指涉二者之關係予以打破，使表面意義的語言失去了本身存有論中的指涉者；因此，同一禪語言能形成有新的表面語意的語言形式，而其本體之指涉仍不變，亦即其本體指涉者沒有特定的指涉對象。前者形成了所謂「本體無承諾原則」；後者則精成「意義呈現（重組）原則」，本文許多論點不外乎是此二原則的詮解，相信將能使吾人對禪之語言及其疑惑暨詭辯論有進一步合理的瞭解。
關鍵字
無資料並列摘要
When a ch'an Buddhist speaks of kung-an (＂open case＂), he is using a form of paradoxical language in which laws of logic are contradicted and common-rules of understanding are defied. This form of language is usually a dialogue or a problem-posing- and-disposing between a ch'an master and his disciple seeking wu (enlightenment). How is this form of language understood? Can we avoid calling it ＂illogical＂ and ＂unintelligble＂? Can we give it a logical and rational explanation and justification and thus bring out its own logicality? Furthermore, can we enlighten the attainment of wu in light of logic and reason? In this paper I made the effort and attempt to explain and justify the use of kung-an as a matter of logical and referential transformation. The following two principles are specifically formulated and proposed for this explanatory and justificatory purpose: the principle of ontological non-commitment and the principle of contextual reconstitution.