[[alternative]]Dao and Śunyatā: A Comparison of Opposites and Related Thought Models in the Laozi and the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā

[[abstract]]《老子》和《中論》在思維上所顯現的特點，乃是老學與中觀學研究者關注的面向之一。本文主要依據《老子》與《中論》文本裡所出現的對反語詞，作為探討的入手處，藉以認識《老子》和《中論》如何對這些相對概念進行思辨、推演或否定，並從中對比其背後所含有的哲學思想。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》卻從對反二邊遮除的思維運作中，使揚棄一切二元性見解。由此可知，同樣面對世間相對二法，《老子》之「道」和《中論》之「空」提供了兩種迥然不同的理論模型，恰可作為對照。[[abstract]]The unique thought models of the Laozi and the Mulamadhyamakakarika have always attracted the attention of scholars of Daoism and the Buddhist middle way. In this paper, I take the oppositional terms employed in these two texts as a starting point for an analysis of how their respective modes of reasoning, deduction and negation operate, and thereby attempt to show some contrasting features of their underlying philosophies. I point out that the Laozi and the Mulamadhyamakakarika take entirely different standpoints with regard to worldly opposites. 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 the illusions between oppositional sides. Hence, it is clear that the two texts develop vastly differing theoretical models with which to view the worldly opposites