⚠此页所载版权声明禁止以任何方式复制或传播本书的任何部分。本页书影只为核对该条著录而摆在此处，请勿转载、转贴、下载或另行传播——禁令未开「少量节取」之例，剪一小段同样不在许可之内。
本行判确。 （一）篇次与起页对上：该书目次作「LOGIC …… 9. Is Buddhist Logic Non-classical or Deviant? 187」，与本注所署书 187–208 之起页全同。 （二）本注所称之答，实检逐字得证：该篇结论作「In conclusion, the response to our initial question—to know whether Buddhist logic was deviant or not—comes almost as a corollary to the preceding discussion. When we translate the Madhyamaka's statements into a logic with two types of interpretations, we will not encounter any violation of the laws of contradiction, excluded middle or double negation, or of any other fundamental theorems of classical logic. There thus will not be any significant deviation.
核查全文
」；其前并作「all four alternatives can be denied without the least logical deviance」。与本注「背离与否之问的答案与第三章一致：本篇用法全程经典」逐字相当。
书名页与版权页确证书名、副题、作者、Wisdom Publications 与 1999 年；目录把“Is Buddhist Logic Non-classical or Deviant?”列作第九篇，起于书内第 187 页。版心第 200 页结论明言四句可全遮而无逻辑背离，不违反矛盾律、排中律、双重否定律或其他经典逻辑基本定理；至多因算子与词汇特殊而属非经典，并非经典逻辑的竞争体系。
