中觀學派與歸謬法 2Madhyamaka Madhyamaka and the Use of Reductio ad Absurdum and the Use of Reductio ad Absurdum

 

我個人長期溶入這些思維，以前大部分時間都在做以下資料的內容探究，進而墊下「空-破身見-無我」的基礎觀點。

 

前面提過日本學者中村元先生的「語意與字源」探討，基於這觀點請不要用華人視野去看待「八不論空」，

 

而且不能只做字義上的理解，提供參考。

個人在深度思索這些《中觀論-空》的年代裡，常覺得自己變成呆瓜！哈

半寄

 

AI資料：   中觀學派與歸謬法 在佛教特別是中觀學派（龍樹、清辨、月稱）的論證中，歸謬法是極為核心的思維工具。 例如：在《中論》中，龍樹並不直接提出「一切法皆空」為一個證明命題，而是破斥一切「有自性」的主張，使對方的立論無法成立。 他透過歸謬論證來否定事物的「自性有」、「第一因」、「從自生、他生、共生、無因生」等概念。   🧾 原文（觀因緣品第一） 不從自性生， 亦不從他性， 不共不無因， 故知無有生。   📖 解釋與歸謬法應用： 這段話是龍樹以歸謬法破斥「有一實在的生起方式」的核心段落，逐一否定四種主張（即「四生」）：   1. 假設從自性生（自體生）： 若一法能從自身而生，就不需任何因緣，那麼它應該一直存在，不需要生，也不能說是「生」。 矛盾：從自生推不出變化，與「生」的本義（從無到有）矛盾。 ✅ 歸謬：自生荒謬 → 否定   2. 假設從他性生（他體生）： 若全然從「他」而來，那麼自己毫無作用，那怎麼是「我生的法」？ 此外，若一切從他生，為什麼不是所有東西隨時隨地生出？ ✅ 歸謬：他生荒謬 → 否定   3. 假設自他共生： 自生與他生都已經被否定，兩者相加難道會合理嗎？ 矛盾：把兩個不成立的概念混合起來，不能產生合理的生。 ✅ 歸謬：共生荒謬 → 否定   4. 假設無因生： 無因就無條件，那麼任何事物應該可以隨時生出，也無法說明規律性。 ✅ 歸謬：無因荒謬 → 否定   ✅ 結論 透過四種假設→每一項推導矛盾/荒謬→否定所有生法 → 證「生不可得」→證空性成立   這就是中觀歸謬法的經典運用：不是提出正面論證來說明「空」，而是逐一否定一切對實有的執著，使「空」呈現於理性之中。

 

找出的AI資料2最後說：

 

「中觀歸謬法的經典運用：不是提出正面論證來說明「空」，

而是逐一否定一切對實有的執著，使「空」呈現於理性之中。」

 

半寄：

學習龍樹菩薩的「八不」提出的「不一不異、不來不出、不斷不常，不生不滅」，

如能熟悉：「只破不立」的深義，學習者便能理解空。

 

不能沒有論述直接說空，那真是空洞。

空也不是一體兩面的因緣法，

因為，只有「因緣法」還說不清楚空，

哈哈😄

 

半寄

 

Chapter 8-9 of Nagarjuna’s Middle Way: Mulamadhyamakakarika-2 Madhyamaka and the Use of Reductio ad Absurdum

 

I’ve been immersed in these ways of thinking for a long time. I used to spend most of my time investigating the materials below, which laid the foundation for my perspective on “śūnyatā – the deconstruction of self-view – the doctrine of no-self.”

 

As previously mentioned, Japanese scholar Nakamura Hajime emphasized the importance of exploring “semantics and etymology.” Based on that, I suggest not approaching the “Eight Negations of Śūnyatā” through a purely Chinese lens.

 

Moreover, it should not be understood merely through literal definitions. I offer this as a reference.

 

In the years I devoted to contemplating The Fundamental Verses on the Middle Way and the concept of śūnyatā, I often felt like I had turned into an idiot—haha.

 

Master Banji

 

AI Data   Madhyamaka and the Use of Reductio ad Absurdum   In Buddhist philosophy — especially within the Madhyamaka school founded by Nāgārjuna and developed by Bhāviveka and Candrakīrti — reductio ad absurdum is a central method of argumentation.   Rather than presenting śūnyatā as a positive doctrine to be proven, Nāgārjuna’s Mūlamadhyamakakārikā instead refutes all views asserting the inherent existence (svabhāva) of phenomena. Through systematic logical analysis, he denies concepts such as: ● intrinsic nature, ● a first cause, ● origination from self, other, both, or without cause.   🧾 Original text (Chapter 1 – Examination of Conditions): Not arising from self, Nor from other, Nor from both, Nor without cause — Therefore, nothing truly arises.   📖 Explanation and application of reductio ad absurdum:   This verse exemplifies Nāgārjuna’s use of reductio ad absurdum to refute the notion of an intrinsically real mode of origination. He systematically deconstructs the four possible types of origination (known as the "four births"):   1. Origination from self: If something arises from itself, it requires no conditions and pre-exists its own arising. But if it already exists, there’s no need for it to arise. Logical contradiction: Self-origin entails no transformation, which contradicts the essential nature of origination—as emergence from non-being. ✅Reductio: Self-origination is logically incoherent → Rejected   2. Origination from another: If something comes entirely from something else, then it has no connection to itself. How, then, can it be called its “own” arising? Moreover, it fails to explain why things don’t spontaneously arise from anywhere and everywhere any other. ✅Reductio: Origination from another is untenable → Rejected   3. Origination from both self and other: Since both self- and other-origination are logically invalid, their combination does not produce coherence. Logical contradiction: Combining two rejected views does not create a valid one. ✅Reductio: Dual origination is untenable → Rejected   4. Origination without cause: If things arise without cause, then If phenomena arise without causes, anything should appear entirely randomly, without any regularity. ✅Reductio: Causeless origination is irrational → Rejected   Conclusion: By thoroughly examining and negating all four logical possibilities, Nāgārjuna demonstrates that origination is ultimately untenable (anutpāda). Through this negation of all reified views, the principle of śūnyatā is rationally established.   This is the quintessential Madhyamaka strategy: rather than affirming śūnyatā as a positive doctrine, it is revealed through the rigorous dismantling of all conceptual fabrications concerning inherent existence.

 

 

The concluding statement of AI Data abovementions:

 

“This is the quintessential Madhyamaka strategy: rather than affirming śūnyatā as a positive doctrine, it is revealed through the rigorous dismantling of all conceptual fabrications concerning inherent existence.”

 

Banji:

Mastery of Nagarjuna’s “Eight Negations” — neither the same nor different, neither coming nor going, neither permanent nor impermanent, neither arising nor ceasing — enables one to comprehend the profundity of the principle “solely refuting opposing views without establishing a new argument.” This is essential for a genuine understanding of śūnyatā. 

 

To talk about emptiness without any reasoning is truly empty talk.

Moreover, śūnyatā is not merely the other side of dependent origination,

for dependent origination alone does not suffice to elucidate śūnyatā.

Haha 😄

 

Master Banji