Title

《老子》與《中論》之哲學比較──以語言策略、對反思維與有無觀為線索

Translated Titles

Philosophical Comparison of Laozi and Mulamadhyamakakarika: Taking Linguistic Strategy, Oppositional Thinking, and Viewpoint of Being and Nonbeing as Clues

DOI

10.6342/NTU.2007.01289

Authors

林建德

Key Words

道 ; 空性 ; 語言策略 ; 對反思維 ; 有無觀 ; 正言若反 ; 二諦 ; 正反 ; 立破 ; 有無相生 ; 非有亦非無 ; 消長律 ; 緣起法 ; Dao ; sunyata ; linguistic strategy ; oppositional thinking ; viewpoint of being and nonbeing ; recto word seems verso ; two levels of truth ; yo and wu give rise to each other ; neither being nor nonbeing ; law of vicissitudes ; theory of interdependence

PublicationName

臺灣大學哲學研究所學位論文

Volume or Term/Year and Month of Publication

2007年

Academic Degree Category

博士

Advisor

陳鼓應;蔡耀明

Content Language

繁體中文

Chinese Abstract

《老子》和《中論》分別是道家與佛教的重要典籍,本文即藉由二書之比較,來探討其間的異同,乃分別就語言策略、對反思維以及有無觀三個課題作探討。 對《老子》和《中論》而言,道及空性皆是不可言說的,因而其試著以一定的言說策略來因應此不可說。而語言策略所回應的不可說,就《老子》而言,可關乎世間對反關係的微妙運作;就《中論》來說,乃是涅槃空性之雙遮二邊、超脫一切分別思維。其中可從「有無」之對反概念,進一步看出其哲學觀點與關注課題之差異。如此,語言策略、對反思維以及有無觀三個線索,可統貫為本文探討兩本哲學典籍的主軸。以下除首、末兩章外,逐章說明本文比較所得之綱要。 在第二章語言策略部份,《老子》與《中論》的語言策略分別可以正反對演與立破兼施作為理解的方式。於此正反對演與立破兼施的言說策略,可歸納出四點共通處,分別為:一.兩者語言策略皆為回應不可說;二.在語言策略的視域下,皆顯示說與不說的微妙與弔詭;三.兩者之語言策略皆具有動態、靈巧之特質;四.策略詭奇之運用易於引起誤解。關於這些共通性其中可能的意義,在本章裡也進行了討論。 在第三章對反思維部份,本文指出,對於世間的對反概念,《老子》與《中論》分別提出兩種不同因應的方式。如就《老子》而言,萬物皆由兩對立面相依而成,此兩面會往其對立面轉化,而互有損益、消長;因此,如何在這些兩兩對立的世間中進退得度、取得平衡,並得以保全長生、無為而無不為,應是其所關心的。《中論》卻從對反二邊相即相離、雙是雙非的思路中,使揚棄一切二元性思維。由此可知,同樣面對世間相對二法,《老子》和《中論》提供了兩種迥然不同的理論模型,恰可作為對照。在本章第三節中,即對諸多相異處作出對比,包括兩者在對反語詞定位、用法上的不同,以及運思模式、中道思想上的差異,乃至二者重整體、重分析以及重批判、重和諧之別等方面的相互對比,來顯示出兩者間的區別。 在第四章有無觀部份,《老子》視有無為天地萬物之本,要人從玄之又玄的有無兩者,去洞觀道的深意,使能在此人世間保全長生;相對於此,《中論》卻以有無二見為顛倒妄執之顯現,並從有無二見的徹底破除,走向涅槃解脫的境地。對於兩者不同的有無觀,在本章第三節分別從有無的用法、有無觀背後的理論基礎以及其間的實踐性意涵,此三方面作出比較,其中涉及道家消長律與佛教因緣法的探討。 藉由本文之對比,雖然得知《老子》和《中論》皆以「善說」來回應不可說,也皆著重靈動、無執與善巧的語言策略來展現智慧;但同時也得知兩者在思想、智慧的特點及根本處上,有著實質的差異。換言之,兩者除了在「思想形式」上有些許相近之處,其「思想特點」及「思想基礎」卻大有所別;而藉由《老子》和《中論》兩本典籍的比較,可推斷出中國道家與印度佛教的思想核心原是南轅北轍的。其中《老子》象徵中國哲學的思想傳統,與莊、易二書合稱三玄,而開展出陰陽、有無等的兩儀、兩極、兩全或兩行之道,重視兩兩關係間的變化、辯證以及和諧、統一等。而《中論》上承阿含、般若等思想,表達印度佛學中道不二的意旨,使能捨離二邊而從苦難中解脫。就此而言,老學及道家哲學的兩兩、兩儀之道,與中觀學和佛教思想的不二中道、不二法門,各自成為不同面向的智慧典範。 總之,本文以《老子》與《中論》為依據,溯源於老子和龍樹的哲學,從中探究道、佛思想的基本觀點與洞見,可發現道家、道教的始祖老子,與素稱「佛陀第二」、「八宗共祖」的龍樹,兩者思想有實質的差異,乃分別指引人走向長生久視或寂滅無生的路,而各自開創一片境地。儘管如此,兩者也在因緣際會下,跨越時空,於中國這塊土地相遇,並在後人牽針引線與創新繼承中,共同影響中國佛教的發展。

English Abstract

Laozi and Mulamadhyamakakarika are two important classics of Daoism and Buddhism respectively. This study compares the two texts in terms of the following three topics: Linguistic Strategy, Oppositional Thinking, and the Viewpoint of Being(you) and Non-being(wu). According to Laozi and Mulamadhyamakakarika, the meaning of ‘The Way’ (Dao) and ‘Emptiness’ (wunyata) cannot be fully expressed in words, yet both texts employ certain linguistic strategies by which they convey the inexpressible. To Laozi the inexpressible could be ascribed to the subtlety of the operation of opposites. To Mulamadhyamakakarika on the other hand, one of the reasons that Emptiness is inexpressible is because it transcends all dualistic thinking. By looking at the two opposites of being and non-being, we can further distinguish differing viewpoints and pivotal subjects from the two scriptures. The clues of linguistic strategy, oppositional thinking, and the viewpoint of being and non-being, therefore, constitute the axis of my discussion of the two classics. In what follows, I shall briefly list the conclusions from this research as contained in chapters 2 to 4. In chapter 2, I take the contrasting methods of recto/verso and confirmation/negation to be the linguistic strategies employed by Laozi and Mulamadhyamakakarika. From this I conclude that four similarities can be distinguished from their usage: firstly, both of strategies are responses to the ineffable Dao and wunyata; secondly, both reveal the paradoxical trickiness between expressible and non-expressible in terms of use of strategies; thirdly, both linguistic strategies display dynamics and ingenuity; and lastly, the ingenious application of these strategies at times causes a certain degree of misunderstanding. In chapter 3, I point out that Laozi and Mulamadhyamakakarika take entirely different standpoints with regard to the worldly oppositional concepts. In Laozi, the universe consists of dualistic components which stand in opposition to each other. While constantly changing, each of these oppositional factors remains subject to the vicissitudes of growth and decline between itself and its opposite. The questions of how to maintain balance in this dualistic world so as to save ourselves from decay, how to attain immortality, and how to accomplish everything without action are Laozi’s main philosophical concerns. By contrast, Mulamadhyamakakarika aims to get beyond all duality by way of examining identity/confirmation and difference/negation between oppositional sides. Hence, it is clear that the two scriptures develop vastly differing theoretical models with which to view the worldly opposites. In chapter 4, I take the oppositional terms of being (you) and non-being (wu) as instances of comparison. Laozi views you and wu as the origins of all things in the universe and advises us to pierce through the mysterious Dao by observing the profundity of you and wu in order to realize an everlasting life. By contrast, Mulamadhyamakakarika considers the views of being and non-being as manifestations of mental attachment. To realize nirvana will require the eradication of these two views. In section 3, I compare these two vastly differing viewpoints of being and non-being, including their usage, theoretical foundation, and practical implications, involving the discussion of the Daoist law of vicissitudes and Buddhist theory of dependent arising (pratitya-samutpada) . Though both classics reveal skillful ways of responding to the inexpressible and laying emphasis on the flexibility, detachment, and ingenuity of linguistic strategy, at the same time we find that their foundations of thought and wisdom are quite divergent. By contrasting these two scriptures, we discover that the core philosophies of Chinese Daoism and Indian Buddhism are diametrically opposed. Laozi represents the tradition of Chinese Philosophy which, along with Zhuangzi and Yi embodied in the thought of ‘Three Profound Books’, puts forward a kind of dualistic philosophy that emphasizes change, dialectic, harmony and unity of the opposites. Mulamadhyamakakarika, however, follows the philosophy of the Agama and Prajbaparamita sutras and propounds the pursuit of liberation through eradicating attachment to dualistic concepts by way of the Indian Buddhist Philosophical systems of Non-Duality and the Middle Way. Hence, early Daoism and Buddhism are proved to be two dissimilar models of wisdom. In sum, having investigated the fundamental insights of Daoism and Buddhism via the philosophical systems of Laozi, as the first patriarch of Daoism, and Nagarjuna, as the ‘second Buddha’ or the ‘common patriarch of Chinese Buddhism’, this study concludes that these two philosophers propose two totally different philosophical views which shed light on the divergent goals of attaining a long life and attaining nirvana respectively. Through the inheritance of later generations, however, the two systems meet and converge on the Chinese mainland to shape the overall trend of Chinese Buddhism.

Topic Category 人文學 > 哲學
文學院 > 哲學研究所
Reference
  1. 吳汝鈞《印度佛學研究》,臺北:臺灣學生書局,1995
    連結:
  2. 吳汝鈞《佛學研究方法論》,臺北:臺灣學生書局,2006
    連結:
  3. 萬金川《龍樹的語言概念》,南投:正觀出版社,1995
    連結:
  4. 廖明活《嘉祥吉藏學說》,臺北:臺灣學生書局,1985
    連結:
  5. 釋印順《以佛法研究佛法》,新竹:正聞出版社,2000新版
    連結:
  6. 王中江《道家形而上學》,北京:新華書店,2001
    連結:
  7. 伍至學《老子反名言論》,臺北:唐山出版社,2002
    連結:
  8. 牟鐘鑒等《道教通論──兼論道家學說》,山東:齊魯書社,1991
    連結:
  9. 吳汝鈞《老莊哲學的現代析論》,臺北:文津出版社,1998
    連結:
  10. 袁保新《老子哲學之詮釋與重建》,臺北:文津出版社,1998
    連結:
  11. 陳鼓應《老莊新論》,臺北:五南出版社,1995
    連結:
  12. 陳鼓應《易傳與道家思想》,臺北:臺灣商務印書館,1995
    連結:
  13. 莊萬壽《新譯列子讀本》,臺北:三民,1993
    連結:
  14. 葉海煙《老莊哲學新論》,臺北:文津出版社,1997
    連結:
  15. 劉福增《老子哲學新論》,臺北:東大圖書公司,1999
    連結:
  16. 牟宗三《才性與玄理》,臺北:臺灣學生書局,2002年修訂版
    連結:
  17. 張祥龍《海德格爾思想與中國天道》,北京:三聯書店,1996
    連結:
  18. 傅偉勳《從西方哲學到禪佛教》,北京:三聯書店,1989
    連結:
  19. 王曉波〈「歸本於黃老」與「以無為本」──韓非及王弼對老子哲學詮釋的比較研究〉,《臺灣大學哲學論評》29期(2005.03)
    連結:
  20. 吳可為〈非同一律:作為內在關係論的存在論──大乘中觀學派性空論辨微〉,《中華佛學研究》10期 2006
    連結:
  21. 吳汝鈞〈從邏輯與辯證法看龍樹的論證〉,《鵝湖月刊》102期1983
    連結:
  22. 吳汝鈞〈印度中觀學的四句邏輯〉,《中華佛學學報》5期1992
    連結:
  23. 何建興〈商羯羅論不可說者的言說〉,《臺灣大學哲學論評》27期2004
    連結:
  24. 李志夫〈佛教中國化過程之研究〉,《中華佛學學報》8期1995
    連結:
  25. 林鎮國〈龍樹《迴諍論》與基礎主義知識論的批判〉,《國立政治大學哲學學報》16期 2006
    連結:
  26. 陳榮灼〈龍樹的邏輯〉,《鵝湖學誌》3期1989
    連結:
  27. ?#92;雅棠〈無以取有──《帛書老子》政治思想試說〉,《政治科學論叢》18期2003
    連結:
  28. 傅佩榮〈《老子》首章的文義商榷〉,《臺灣大學哲學論評》33期2007
    連結:
  29. 楊惠南〈「空」中會有「不空」嗎?──〈從邏輯與辯證法看龍樹的論證〉有感〉,《鵝湖月刊》105期1984
    連結:
  30. 楊惠南〈「四句」是釋迦的方便說──敬答 馮耀明先生〉,《鵝湖學誌》2期1988
    連結:
  31. 馮耀明〈龍樹《中論》的邏輯與辯證問題〉,《鵝湖學誌》2期1988
    連結:
  32. 馮耀明〈《中論》「四句」與直覺主義邏輯的問題〉,《鵝湖學誌》3期1989
    連結:
  33. 蔡耀明〈《大般若經•第二會》的嚴淨�清淨〉,《佛學研究中心學報》4期1999.07
    連結:
  34. 蔡耀明〈《阿含經》和《說無垢經》的不二法門初探〉,《佛學研究中心學報》7期2002
    連結:
  35. 蔡耀明〈「不二中道」學說相關導航概念的詮釋進路:以佛法解開生命世界的全面實相在思惟的導引為詮釋線索〉,《臺灣大學哲學論評》32期2006.10
    連結:
  36. 顏永春〈不即不離 ──高達美與龍樹中道哲學初探〉,《佛學研究中心學報》12期2006
    連結:
  37. 嚴瑋泓〈論《般若經》的「假名」概念──以《大般若波羅蜜多經.第四會》〈妙行品〉與《第二會》〈善現品〉的對比作為考察的基礎〉,《中華佛學研究》10期 2006.03
    連結:
  38. 龔雋〈僧肇思想辯證—-《肇論》與道、玄關係的再審查〉,《中華佛學學報》14期2001
    連結:
  39. Eckel, Malcolm D. 大容譯〈清辨與早期中觀學派之語言理論〉Bhavaviveka and the early Madhyamika theories of language,《諦觀》24期1985
    連結:
  40. Bhattacharya, Kamaleswar, The Dialectical Method of Nāgārjuna, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1978.
    連結:
  41. Brown, H. Douglas, Principles of language learning and teaching, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents, 1994.
    連結:
  42. Cheng, Hsueh-li , Empty Logic: Madhyamika Buddhism from Chinese Sources, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers, 1991.
    連結:
  43. Csikszentmihalyi, Mark and Ivanhoe, Philip J. eds., Religious and Philosophical Aspects of the Laozi, NY: SUNY press, 1999.
    連結:
  44. Hansen, Chad, Language and Logic in Ancient China, Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 1983.
    連結:
  45. Hubbard, Jamie and Swanson, Paul Loren (ed.), Pruning the Bodhi Tree: The Storm over Critical Buddhism, Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1997.
    連結:
  46. Huntington, C. W., Jr., with Geshe Namgyal Wangchen, The Emptiness of Emptiness: An Introduction to Early Indian Madhyamika, Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1989.
    連結:
  47. Inada, K. K., Nagarjuna A Translation of his Mulamadhyamakakarikas with an Introductory Essay, Tokyo: The Hokuseido Press, 1970.
    連結:
  48. Kalupahana, D. J., Nagarjuna, the Philosophy of the Middle Way, Albany: State University of NY Press, 1986.
    連結:
  49. Kohn, Livia, Early Chinese Mysticism: Philosophy and Soteriology in the Taoist Tradition, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992.
    連結:
  50. Loy, David, Nonduality: A Study in Comparative Philosophy, NY: Humanity Books, 1998.
    連結:
  51. Lycan, William G., Philosophy of Language: A Contemporary Introduction, London: Routledge, 2000.
    連結:
  52. Matilal, B. K., Epistemology, logic, and grammar in Indian philosophical analysis, Netherlands: Mouton & Co. N.V. Publishers, 1971.
    連結:
  53. Murti, T. R. V., The Central Philosophy of Buddhism: A Study of the Madhyamika System, New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers, 1955.
    連結:
  54. Murti, T. R. V., The Central Philosophy of Buddhism: A Study of the Madhyamika System, New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers, 2003. (originally published: London: Allen and Unwin, 1955).
    連結:
  55. Parkes, Graham, ed. Heidegger and Asian Thought. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1987.
    連結:
  56. Robinson, R.H., Early Madhyamika in India and China, Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1967.
    連結:
  57. Ruegg, D. S., The Literature of the Madhyamaka School of Philosophy in India, Otto Harrassowitz: Wiesbaden, 1981.
    連結:
  58. Shin Chang-Qing(釋長清), The Two Truths in Chinese Buddhism, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 2004.
    連結:
  59. Sprung, Mervyn & Murti, T. R. V. & Vyas, U.S. trans., Lucid exposition of the middle way: the essential chapters from the Prasannapadā of Candrakīrti, Boulder: Prajñā Press, 1979
    連結:
  60. Streng, Frederick, Emptiness: A Study in Religious Meaning, NY: Abington, 1967
    連結:
  61. Tuck, Andrew, Comparative Philosophy and the Philosophy of the Scholarship: On the Western Interpretation of Nagarjuna, NY: Oxford University Press, 1990
    連結:
  62. Wang, Youru, Linguistic Strategies in Daoist Zhuangzi and Chan Buddhism, London: Routledge Curzon press, 2003
    連結:
  63. Wang, Youxuan, Buddhism and Deconstruction: Towards a Comparative Semiotics, London: RoutledgeCurzon, 2001
    連結:
  64. Wayman, Alex, Two Traditions of India—Truth and Silence, in Buddhist Insight, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1984
    連結:
  65. Wim, De Reu, Right Words Seem Wrong: Neglected Paradoxes in Early Chinese Writings, Doctoral dissertation, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, 2004
    連結:
  66. Wood, Thomas E., Nagarjunian Disputations: A Philosophical Journey through Indian Looking-glass, Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1994
    連結:
  67. Abraham Velez de Cea “Emptiness in the Pali Suttas and the Question of Nagarjuna 's Orthodoxy,” Philosophy East and West 55/4 (October 2005): pp.507-528.
    連結:
  68. Anderson, Tyson, “Wittgenstein and Nagarjuna's Paradox,” Philosophy East and West 35:2 (1985): 157-169.
    連結:
  69. Cua, Antonio S., ”Opposites as Complements: Reflections on the Significance of Tao," Philosophy East and West, 31:2 (1981): 123-40.
    連結:
  70. Cheng, Chung-Ying, “On Zen (Ch'an) Language and Zen Paradoxes,” Journal of Chinese Philosophy, V. 1 (1973): 77-102
    連結:
  71. Cheng, Chung-Ying, “Rejoinder to Michael Levin's Comments on the Paradoxicality of the Koans,” Journal of Chinese Philosophy V. 3 (1976): 291-297
    連結:
  72. Fleming, Jesse,“Comparative Philosophy: its aims and methods,”Journal of Chinese Philosophy 30:2 (June 2003): 259-270.
    連結:
  73. Gomez, Luis O., “Proto-Madhyamika in the Pali Canon,” Philosophy East and West 26/2 (1976): 137-165.
    連結:
  74. Hansen, Chad, “Linguistic skepticism in the Lao Tzu,” Philosophy East and West 31, no.3 (July, 1981): 321-337
    連結:
  75. Ho, Chien-hsing, “Saying the Unsayable,” Philosophy East and West, 56, (July2006): 409-427.
    連結:
  76. Kalupahana, David J., “The Early Buddhist Notion of the Middle Path,” Journal of Chinese Philosophy 7 (1980): 73-90
    連結:
  77. Levin, Michael E., “Comments on the Paradoxicality of Zen Koans,” Journal of Chinese Philosophy, V. 3 (1976): 281-290.
    連結:
  78. Mou, Bo, “Ultimate Concern and Language Engagement: A Re-Examination of the Opening Message of Dao De Ting,” Journal of Chinese Philosophy 27:4, (2000): 429-439.
    連結:
  79. NG, Yu-kwan, “The Arguments of Nagarjuna in the Light of Modern Logic,” Journal of Indian Philosophy, 15 (1987): 363-384.
    連結:
  80. Robinson, R.H., ”Some Logical Aspects of Nagarjuna 's System”, Philosophy East and West, 6:4 (1957): 291-308.
    連結:
  81. Sellman, James, "A Pointing Finger Kills 'The Buddha', A Response to Chung-Ying Cheng and John King-Farlow," Journal of Chinese Philosophy, V. 12 (1985): 223-228.
    連結:
  82. Siderits, Mark, "Word Meaning, Sentence Meaning and Apoha," Journal of Indian Philosophy (1985)
    連結:
  83. Sharma, Dhirendra, “Buddhist Theory of Meaning, Apoha, and Negative Statements”, Philosophy East and West (1968)
    連結:
  84. Thurman, R. A. F., “Philosophical Nonegocentrism in Wittgenstein and Candrakirti in Their Treatment of the Private Language Problem”, Philosophy East and West 30, No. 3 (1980): 321-337
    連結:
  85. Tucker, John, “An Anglo-Saxon Response to John King-Farlow's Questions on Zen Language and Zen Paradoxes,” Journal of Chinese Philosophy, V. 12 (1985): 217-221
    連結:
  86. Wang, Youru, “Liberating Oneself from the Absolutized Boundary of Language: a Liminological Approach to the Interplay of Speech and Silence in Chan Buddhism,” Philosophy East & West 51:1 (January 2001): 83-99.
    連結:
  87. Weman, Alex, “Who Understands the Four Alternatives of the Buddhist Texts?” Philosophy East and West, 27:1, (January1997).
    連結:
  88. Williams, Paul, “Some Aspects of Language and Construction in the Madhyamaka,”Journal of Indian Philosophy 8 (1980): 1-45
    連結:
  89. Wim, De Reu,“Right Words Seem Wrong,”Philosophy East & West 56:2 (April 2006): 281-300
    連結:
  90. 參考書目
  91. Ⅰ、中文部分
  92. 一、古籍文獻
  93. (一)《大正新脩大藏經》(依冊數排序)
  94. 《長阿含經》佛陀耶舍共竺佛念譯(T01)
  95. 《中阿含經》瞿曇僧伽提婆譯 (T01)
  96. 《雜阿含經》求那跋陀羅譯 (T02)
  97. 《增一阿含經》,瞿曇僧伽提婆譯 (T02)
  98. 《大般若波羅蜜多經》玄奘譯 (T05-7)
  99. 《小品般若波羅蜜經》鳩摩羅什譯 (T08)
  100. 《放光般若經》無羅叉譯 (T08)
  101. 《佛說仁王般若波羅蜜經》鳩摩羅什譯 (T08)
  102. 《摩訶般若波羅蜜經》鳩摩羅什譯 (T08)
  103. 《妙法蓮華經》鳩摩羅什譯 (T09)
  104. 《大方廣佛華嚴經》實叉難陀譯 (T10)
  105. 《大寶積經》菩提流志譯 (T11)
  106. 《大般涅槃經》曇無讖譯 (T12)
  107. 《維摩詰所說經》鳩摩羅什譯 (T14)
  108. 《說無垢稱經》玄奘譯 (T14)
  109. 《解深密經》玄奘譯 (T16)
  110. 《大佛頂首楞嚴經》般剌蜜帝譯 (T19)
  111. 《大智度論》龍樹撰,鳩摩羅什譯 (T25)
  112. 《十住毗婆沙論》龍樹撰,鳩摩羅什譯 (T26)
  113. 《中論》龍樹造頌、青目釋,鳩摩羅什譯 (T30)
  114. 《十二門論》龍樹撰,鳩摩羅什譯 (T30)
  115. 《般若燈論釋》龍樹造頌、清辨釋,波羅頗蜜多羅譯 (T30)
  116. 《六十頌如理論》龍樹撰,施護譯 (T30)
  117. 《辯中邊論》世親撰,玄奘譯 (T31)
  118. 《大乘起信論》馬鳴撰,真諦譯 (T32)
  119. 《成實論》訶梨跋摩撰,鳩摩羅什譯 (T32)
  120. 《迴諍論》龍樹撰,毘目智仙、瞿曇流支譯 (T32)
  121. 《仁王護國般若經疏》智顗 (T33)
  122. 《金剛般若疏》吉藏 (T33)
  123. 《法華玄義釋籤》湛然 (T33)
  124. 《妙法蓮華經玄義》智顗 (T33)
  125. 《妙法蓮華經文句》智顗 (T34)
  126. 《法華玄贊》窺基 (T34)
  127. 《觀音義疏記》知禮 (T34)
  128. 《大般涅槃經疏》灌頂 (T38)
  129. 《注維摩詰經》僧肇 (T38)。
  130. 《淨名玄論》吉藏 (T38)
  131. 《維摩義記》慧遠 (T38)
  132. 《大方廣圓覺修多羅了義經略疏》宗密 (T39)
  133. 《中觀論疏》吉藏(T42)
  134. 《百論疏》吉藏 (T42)
  135. 《大乘義章》慧遠 (T44)
  136. 《二諦義》吉藏 (T45)
  137. 《三論玄義》吉藏 (T45)
  138. 《大乘玄論》吉藏 (T45)
  139. 《肇論》僧肇 (T45)
  140. 《十不二門指要鈔》知禮 (T46)
  141. 《止觀輔行傳弘決》荊溪湛然 (T46)
  142. 《摩訶止觀》智顗 (T46)
  143. 《六祖大師法寶壇經》宗寶編 (T48)
  144. 《宗鏡錄》永明延壽 (T48)
  145. 《佛果圜悟禪師碧巖錄》圜悟克勤 (T48)
  146. (二)其他中文古籍文獻*
  147. 王船山《周易外傳》,《船山全書》第一冊,長沙:嶽麓書社,1998
  148. 何寧《淮南子集釋》,北京:中華書局,1998
  149. 紀昀《四庫全書總目提要》,海口巿:海南出版社,1999
  150. 陳鼓應《黃帝四經今註今譯》,臺北:臺灣商務印書館,1995
  151. 陳鼓應、趙建偉《周易注譯與研究》,臺北:臺灣商務印書館,2000
  152. 陳鼓應《老子今註今譯》,北京:商務印書館,2003
  153. 郭慶藩《莊子集釋》,臺北:華正書局,1987
  154. 程伊川《二程集》,臺北:臺灣里仁書局,1995
  155. 樓宇烈校釋《王弼集校釋》臺北:華正書局,1992
  156. 二、當代學界專書*
  157. (一)中文著作
  158. 1、佛教類
  159. 牟宗三《牟宗三全集22.圓善論》,臺北:聯經出版社,1992
  160. 牟宗三《牟宗三先生全集3.佛性與般若》,臺北:聯經出版社,2003
  161. 李志夫《中印佛學比較研究》,北京:中國社科院,2001
  162. 金克木《印度文化論集》,臺北:淑馨出版社:1990
  163. 吳汝鈞《印度佛學的現代詮釋》,臺北:文津出版社,1994
  164. 吳汝鈞《龍樹中論的哲學解讀》,臺北:臺灣商務印書館,1997
  165. 吳汝鈞《絕對無的哲學──京都學派哲學導論》,臺北:臺灣商務印書館,1998
  166. 吳汝鈞《佛教的概念與方法》,臺北:臺灣商務印書館,2000
  167. 林鎮國《空性與現代性》,臺北:立緒文化事業,1999
  168. 林鎮國《辯證的行旅》,臺北:立緒文化事業,2002
  169. 唐忠毛,《佛教本覺思想論爭的現代性考察》,上海:上海古籍出版社,2006
  170. 楊惠南《龍樹與中觀哲學》,臺北:東大圖書公司,1989
  171. 萬金川《詞義之爭與義理之辯──佛教思想研究論文集》,南投:正觀出版社,1988
  172. 萬金川《中觀思想講錄》,嘉義:香光書鄉,1998
  173. 蔡耀明《般若波羅蜜多教學與嚴淨佛土:內在建構之道的佛教進路論文集》,南投:正觀出版社,2001
  174. 蔡耀明《佛教的研究方法與學術資訊》,臺北:法鼓文化事業,2006
  175. 蔡耀明《佛學建構的出路:佛教的定慧之學與如來藏的理路》,臺北:法鼓文化事業,2006
  176. 賴賢宗《佛教詮釋學》,臺北:新文豐出版公司,2003
  177. 釋印順,《印度之佛教》,新竹:正聞出版社,1992三版
  178. 釋印順《中觀今論》,臺北:正聞出版社,1992
  179. 釋印順《空之探究》,新竹:正聞出版社,1992六版
  180. 釋印順《中觀論頌講記》,新竹:正聞出版社,2000新版
  181. 釋印順《中觀論頌講記》,新竹:正聞出版社,2000新版
  182. 釋印順《無諍之辯》,新竹:正聞出版社,2000新版
  183. 釋惠敏《中觀與瑜伽》,臺北:東初出版社,1986
  184. 龔雋《大乘起信論與佛學中國化》,臺北:文津出版社,1995
  185. 龔雋《佛──覺悟與迷情》,韶關:廣東人民出版社,1996
  186. 2、道家類
  187. 王邦雄《生命的大智慧:老子的現代解讀》,臺北:漢光文化,1993
  188. 王博《老子思想的史官特色》,臺北:文津出版社,1993
  189. 那薇《道家與海德格爾相互詮釋》,北京:商務印書館,2004
  190. 馬德邻《老子形上思想研究》,上海:學林出版社,2003
  191. 陳鼓應、白奚著《老子評傳》,臺北:文史哲出版社,2002
  192. 陳鼓應《道家易學建構》,臺北:臺灣商務印書館,2003
  193. 馮友蘭《老子哲學討論集》,臺北:中華書局,1959
  194. 曾有惠《老子中庸思想》,臺北:文史哲出版社,1990
  195. 詹劍峰《老子其人其書及其道論》,湖北:人民出版社,1982
  196. 劉笑敢《老子:年代新考與思想新詮》,臺北:東大圖書公司,1997
  197. 劉笑敢《老子古今:五種對勘與析評引論》,北京:中國社會科學出版社,2006
  198. 熊鐡基等《中國老學史­》,福建:人民出版社,1995
  199. 熊鐡基等《二十世紀中國老學》,福建:人民出版社,2003
  200. 盧國龍《中國重玄學》,北京:人民中國出版社,1993
  201. 魏元珪《老子思想體系探索》,臺北:新文豐出版社,1996
  202. 嚴靈峰《老莊研究》,香港:亞洲出版社,1959
  203. 嚴靈峰《老子研讀須知》,臺北:正中書局,1996
  204. 蘭喜並《老子解讀》,北京:中華書局,2005
  205. 3、其他
  206. 牟宗三《牟宗三全集29.中國哲學十九講》,臺北:聯經出版社,2003
  207. 湯用彤《魏晉玄學論稿》,上海:上海古籍出版社
  208. 葉海煙《人文與哲學的對話》,臺北:文津出版社,1999
  209. 三、碩博士學位論文*
  210. 朱文光《佛學研究方法論》,嘉義:中正大學中文所博士論文,2002
  211. 羅因《「空」、「有」與「有」、「無」──玄學與般若學交會問題之研究》,臺北:臺灣大學中文所博士論文,2001
  212. 羅翔《龍樹中觀學所破「自性」概念探微》,北京:北京大學哲學博士論文,2003
  213. 釋證融《〈淨明句論•第十五品觀自性〉譯註》,臺北:中華佛學研究所碩士論文,1994
  214. 四、期刊及單篇論文*
  215. 王曉波〈「崇本舉末」與「崇本息末」──王弼對《老子》哲學的詮釋〉,洪漢鼎編《中國詮釋學》,濟南:山東人民出版社,2003
  216. 任繼愈〈中國哲學史的里程碑──老子的「無」〉,《道家文化研究》14輯,北京:三聯書店,1998
  217. 成中英〈中國哲學範疇問題初探〉,《中國哲學範疇集》,北京:人民出版社,1985
  218. 朱伯崑〈老莊哲學中有無範疇的再探討──兼評馮友蘭先生的有無觀〉,《道家文化研究》14輯,北京:三聯書店,1998
  219. 吳汝鈞〈龍樹之論空、假、中〉,《華岡佛學學報》7期1984
  220. 余崇生〈僧肇之「有無同義」思想〉,《東方宗教研究》1期1987
  221. 李剛〈成玄英論「有無」〉,《道家文化研究》19輯,北京:三聯書店,2002
  222. 何建興〈「不可說」的弔詭〉,《世界宗教學刊》2期2003
  223. 呂凱文〈當代日本「批判佛教」思潮〉,《正觀》,1999
  224. 徐信義〈老子對語言的認知及其運用舉例〉,「道文化國際學術研討會」,臺北:中國文化大學2006.05
  225. 徐聖心〈《道家莊子與禪佛教的語言策略》書評〉,《中國文哲研究集刊》26期2005
  226. 洪嘉琳〈駁王船山之以器道相須論批判佛老〉,「三清道家道教文化基金會常態型學術研討會」1999.12
  227. 曹志成〈護法-玄奘一系與安慧一系對識轉變之解釋的比較研究〉,《圓光佛學學報》1997
  228. 陳榮灼〈「即」之分析──簡別佛教「同一性」哲學諸型態〉,《國際佛學研究》創刊號1991
  229. 楊惠南〈龍樹的《中論》用了辯證法嗎?〉,《臺灣大學哲學論評》5期1982
  230. 楊惠南〈「空」否定了什麼?──以龍樹《迴諍論》為主的一個研究〉,《臺灣大學哲學論評》8期1985
  231. 楊惠南〈論禪宗公案中的矛盾與不可說〉,《臺灣大學哲學論評》9期1986
  232. 楊惠南〈批判心靈的昇華──釋迦的教育理想〉,《中印佛學泛論──傅偉勳教授六十大壽祝壽論文集》,臺北:三民書局,1993
  233. 蔡耀明〈觀看做為導向生命出路的修煉界面:以《大般若經.第九會.能斷金剛分》為主要依據的哲學探究〉(待發表)
  234. 鄭學禮〈三論宗之哲學方法〉,《臺灣大學哲學論評》14期1991
  235. 顏永春〈變異與緣起-試論黑格爾與龍樹的核心思想〉,《政大哲學學報》6期2000
  236. 顏永春〈同一與差異:從唯物辯證法之基本理來看龍樹的中道思維〉,《揭諦》3期2001
  237. 顏永春〈有限與無限──從黑格爾來看龍樹的中道思維〉,《揭諦》4期2002
  238. 顏國明〈朱子闢老子平議-以「老子即楊墨」與「老子是權謀法術」為例〉,《國立臺北師範學院學報》14期2001
  239. 釋自範〈「有無」的探討──以《阿含經》、《中論》、《中觀論疏》為中心〉,《諦觀》82期 1995.07
  240. 釋?痦M〈「批判佛教」駁議〉,《臺灣大學哲學論評》24期2001.01
  241.   五、中譯文獻*
  242. Warder, A. K.著、映古月譯〈龍樹是大乘思想者嗎?〉,《諦觀》12期1984
  243. 江島惠教撰、陳一標譯〈《中論》註釋書中的「緣起」的語義解釋〉,《法光學壇》1996
  244. 梶山雄一撰、李世傑譯〈中觀思想的歷史與文獻〉,《世界佛學名著譯叢•中觀思想》,臺北:華宇出版社,1985
  245. 梶山雄一著、吳汝鈞譯《龍樹與中後期中觀學》,臺北:文津出版社,2000
  246. 蜂屋邦夫撰,隽雪艳、陳捷等譯〈中國思想史中無與有之論爭〉,《道家思想與佛教》,遼寧:遼寧教育出版社,2000
  247. 鄭學禮撰、駱一峰譯〈肯定,否定與禪的邏輯〉,《哲學與文化》15卷6期1988.06
  248. 鄭學禮撰、吉玲玲譯〈三論宗中道思想的真理與邏輯觀〉,《哲學與文化》15卷7期1988.07
  249.  六、數位及網路資料
  250. 1. 佛典的引用主要依據「中華電子佛典協會」 (Chinese Buddhist Electronic Text Association 簡稱 CBETA)的電子佛典系列(2005年二月之版本)。
  251. 2. 印順法師著作的引用主要依「印順法師佛學著作集」(2006年三版),新竹:財團法人印順文教基金會。
  252. 3. 佛學數位圖書館暨博物館:http://buddhism.lib.ntu.edu.tw/BDLM/index.htm。
  253. 4. 故宮【寒泉】古典文獻全文檢索資料庫:http://libnt.npm.gov.tw/s25/。
  254. 5. 國家圖書館全國博碩士論文檢索系統:http://etds.ncl.edu.tw/theabs/index.jsp。
  255. Ⅱ、外文部分
  256.   一、英文*
  257. (一)相關專書
  258. Bocking, B., Nagarjuna in China: A Translation of the Middle Treatise, NY: The Edwin Mellen Press, 1995.
  259. Cheng, Hsueh-Li, Exploring Zen, NY: Peter Lang Publishing, 1991.
  260. Cheng, Hsueh-li, Nagarjuna’s “Twelve Gate Treatise”, Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company, 1982.
  261. Garfield, J., The Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995.
  262. Ghose, R. N., The Dialectics of Nagarjuna, Allahabad: Vohra Publishers & Distributors, 1987.
  263. Gudmunsen, Chris, Wittgenstein and Buddhism, New York: Barnes and Noble Books, 1977.
  264. Hansen, Chad, A Daoist Theory of Chinese Thought, Oxford: University of Oxford Press, 1992.
  265. Jayatilleke, K.N., Early Buddhist Theory of Knowledge, London: George Allen & Unwin, 1963.
  266. Matilal, B. K. and Evans, Robert D. (eds.), Buddhist Logic and Epistemology: studies in the Buddhist analysis of inference and language, Boston: D. Reidel, 1986.
  267. Ng, Yung-Kwan, T’ien-t’ai Buddhism and Early Madhyamika, Honolulu: Hawaii University of Hawaii Press, 1993.
  268. Santina, Peter Della, Madhyamaka Schools in India, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1986.
  269. S. M. Shaha, The dialectic of knowledge and reality in Indian philosophy: Kundakunda, Nagarjuna, Gaudapada, and Sankara, Delhi: Eastern Book Linkers, 1987.
  270. Stcherbastky, Th., The Conception of Buddhist Nirvana, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass (reprinted edition with Jaideva Singh's analysis and introduction), 1989.
  271. Shcherbatskoĭ, F. I., The Conception of Buddhist Nirvana, Second Revised and Enlarged Edition, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1977
  272. Tilakaratne, Asanga, Nirvana and Ineffability: A Study of the Buddhist Theory of Reality and Language, Sri Lanka: University of Kelaniya, 1993
  273. Wittgenstein, Ludwig, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, translated by D.F. Pears and B.F. McGuinness, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1961
  274. (二)期刊論文
  275. Kalupahana, David J., “Metaphysics and the Buddha,” Buddhist Philosophy: a historical analysis, Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press (1976):153~161
  276. Sprung, Mervyn, “Non-cognitive Language in Madhyamika Buddhism (1)”, in L. Kawamura, ed., Buddhist thought and Asian civilization, (1977).
  277. 二、日文*
  278. (一)相關專書
  279. 三枝充惪《中論偈頌總覽》,東京:春秋社,1985
  280. 山口益《中觀佛教論考》,東京:山喜房,1975三版
  281. 山口益《佛教ズれんペ無シ有シソ對論》,東京:山喜房,1975
  282. 上田義文《大乘佛教思想ソ根本構造》,京都:百華苑,1990
  283. 上野順瑛《中論.因果ソ論理的構造》,京都,平樂寺書店,1971
  284. 中村元《龍樹》,東京:講談社,2003
  285. 立川武藏《空ソ思想史:原始仏教ろヘ日本近代デ》,東京:講談社,2003
  286. 安井廣濟《中観思想ソ研究》,京都:法蔵館,1979
  287. 宮本正尊《根本中シ空》,東京:第一書房,1943
  288. 松本史朗《縁起シ空 : 如来蔵思想批判》,東京:大藏,1989
  289. 松本史朗《禅思想ソ批判的硏究》,東京:大藏,1994
  290. 長尾雅人《中観シ唯識》,東京:岩波,1977
  291. 伊藤隆壽《中國佛教ソ批判的研究》,東京:大藏,1992
  292. 袴谷憲昭《批判佛教》,東京:大藏,1990
  293. (二)期刊論文
  294. 木村誠司〈《中論》ズれんペsvabhavaズコゆサ〉,《駒澤短期大學佛教論集》9號 (2003.10)
  295. 那須真裕美〈中期中観派ズれんペ自性(svabhava)解釈〉,《印度学仏教学研究》54:2,東京:日本印度学仏教学会 (2006)
  296. 金龍煥〈佛陀シ形而上學--無記説ズ対エペ諸解釈メ中心ズ〉,《еみэ學佛教文化學》卷9,愛知:еみэ學佛教文化學會 (1996)
Times Cited
  1. 高子嬿(慧意康)(2015)。《中論》與《老子》的實踐策略探析。淡江大學中國文學學系碩士班學位論文。2015。1-90。 
  2. 陳久雅(2012)。《老子》的「聖」思想之研究。中興大學中國文學系所學位論文。2012。1-238。 
  3. 黃薏文(2010)。以佛教《雜阿含經》的基本觀點解消休謨的個人同一性問題。臺灣大學哲學研究所學位論文。2010。1-87。 
  4. 凃均翰(2009)。佛教對個人同一性與自我觀念之批判 ──以《雜阿含經》為主要依據──。臺灣大學哲學研究所學位論文。2009。1-115。
  5. 嚴瑋泓(2010)。《大智度論》對部派佛教實在論之批判的研究。臺灣大學哲學研究所學位論文。2010。1-296。
  6. 陳平坤(2010)。僧肇與吉藏的實相哲學。臺灣大學哲學研究所學位論文。2010。1-608。
  7. 賴文婷(2011)。老子「常無有」哲學之教育蘊義。臺灣師範大學教育學系學位論文。2011。1-160。
  8. 英智傑(2017)。儒釋道三家觀法詮釋比較:以《金剛經》、《老子》、《易傳》為核心展開。中興大學中國文學系所學位論文。2017。1-124。