本文旨在探討三位日本學者竹內好（1910-1977）、溝口雄三（1932-）、子安宣邦（1933-），對於「東亞」、「中國學」思考方法的學術論爭。竹內好的主張，在於追求「東亞之同」的亞細亞自身模式，以之抵抗歐洲文明，敢於否定自己的傳統，並企圖在論述中形成一個重生的主體，從而建構一個具有獨立自主、內在主體的「亞細亞」。由於他對中國的心情帶有愧疚與嚮往，因而其所提倡的「方法」，可說是一種「有中國的中國學」之研究。溝口雄三則從承認「東亞之異」為始，主張中國是中國、日本是日本，並在對戰前與戰後日本中國學的研究深刻反省後，提出「以中國為方法，就是以世界為目的」的論點，其提倡的「方法」是要求「超越中國的中國學」，以達成客觀性的研究。子安宣邦立場雖傾向竹內好，但他拒絕把中國看作東亞的主要場域，而強調以歷史性的批判觀點來看待「東亞」，反對一切企圖把東亞「實體化」的目的原理或主義。

This paper attempts at a discussion of the methodological debates over “East Asia” and “Sinology” studies among Takeuchi Yoshimi (1910-1977), Mizoguchi Yūzō (1932-), and Koyasu Nobukuni (1933-). To offset Occidental influence, Takeuchi Yoshimi sought after an Asia Pattern built on the “East Asian homogeneity.”Denying his own tradition, with this homogeneity he constructed a new, independent “Asian subjectivity.” With a complex feeling of love and guilt toward China, Takeuchi Yoshimi developed a methodology which might be called “Chinese Sinology.” On the contrary, Mizoguchi Yūzō took a different route recognizing “East Asian homogeneity.” namely, China as China; Japan as Japan. He reflected upon both pre-war and post-war Japanese Sinology and proposed a new theory of “China as method; the worlds as the end.” His methodology pursued to transcend “China-centered Sinology.” Koyasu Nobukuni, in spite of his agreement with Takeuchi Yoshimi, refused to locate China on the center of East Asia. Rather, Koyasu employed a historical critical approach toward “East Asia” rejecting any principle or doctrine that tries to “embody” East Asia.