本文是以史徹巴斯基對於黑格爾與龍樹之辯證法之相似性的評定為前題，而嚐試做出一個理論證工作，以證明史氏所言不差。我的論點是：我們祇要證明出，龍樹的辯證思維，不是黑格爾在他邏輯學裡面所認為的否定辯理性，反而是他所贊賞的肯定思辯理性，那麼我們就可以說，他們的核心思想是一致的。 論證的工作，首先是詮釋黑格爾的變異原理，緊接著指出此原理與龍樹的核心思想－緣起－的確有相似性。而假如黑格爾的變異原理，不外是要強調對立之思維規定的統一，那麼我們也可以說，龍樹的思維正是符合此一原理，因為他並沒有否定任何對立的思維規定，而祇是強調它們的片面性而已；而任何片面性的規定是無法把握到像黑格爾所說的「全體」真理。

　　　　　Given Stcherbatsky's argument on the similarity in dialectics between Hegel and Nagarjuna, this article attempts to show a theoretical proof on the correctness of Stcherbasky['s conclusion. If we can prove that Nagarjuna's dialectic thought is not a kind of negative dialectic reason, as Hegel had pointed out in his logic, but is a kind of positive speculative reason (which Hegel admired), then we van say the cores of thought to both philosophers are unanimous. First of all, I make an explanation to the principle of Hegel's becoming. Then I will prove that the similarity between Hegel's principle and the main point of Nagarjuna's speculation which he defined as dependent arising really exists. If Hegel's principle of becoming is no more than emphasizing the unity of oppositional determinations of thinking, we can conclude that Nagarjuna's dialectics right match the same principle. As we know, Nagarjuna had only emphasized the unilaterality of oppositional determinations of thinking, but had never vetoed their existence. This is consistent with what Hegel had said. Any kind of unilateral determination would never reach the whole truth.