本文以〈老子〉和〈中論〉為例，探討道佛兩家的語言策略。首先指出〈老子〉與〈中論〉各自善用正反對演與既破且立之語言策略模式，時常迂迴地既不言又言、既說而又不說，以正反、立破的方式，來表達其哲學見解。其次，<老子〉與〈中論〉正反、立破的言說策略，可見一些共通處，例如兩者語言策略之運用，乃為回應不可說的道與空性，而且在語言策略視域下，皆顯示說與不說的微妙與弔詭即說不可說可視為說之準備，而之所以要說，又是為了不說，顯示出說與不說問之不即不離;而如此之語言策略也展示出動態、靈巧之特質，使能不執著而善用語言、駕車又語言不被語言所誤。最後，語言策略詭奇之運用易於引起負面的誤解，本文也進一步作出澄清。

This paper takes Laozi and Mulamadhyamakakarika as instances to discuss the linguistic strategies of Taoism and Buddhism. First, I point out that both the Laozi and the Mulamadhyamakakarika make good use of dualistic dialectic such as recto/verso or confirmation/negation as modes of linguistic strategies and moreover tend to express philosophical ideas circuitously, and hence non-speaking is usually viewed as a form of speaking and saying as not saying. Second, the linguistic strategies of recto/verso or confirmation/negation in the Laozi and the
Mulamadhyamakakarika exhibit a number of notable similarities, e.g. employment of linguistic strategies for the sake of responding to the unsayable Dao and wunyata.Moreover, from the perspective of linguistic strategies, the delicacy and paradox of saying and non-saying are revealed; that is, claiming the unsayable could be viewed as
a certain preparation for being about to say, while saying, by contrast, is for the sake of saying no more. Hence, there is a dialectical relation between saying and non-saying which serves to manifest the dynamic nature and flexibility within their linguistic strategies. These characteristics show us how to use language skillfully,without clinging to ideas and in a manner that masters language without being misled by it. Finally, I attempt to clear up certain misunderstandings with regard to the skillful linguistic strategies employed in the Laozi and the Mulamadhyamakakarika.