本研究考察《維摩詰經》（Vimalakīrtinirdeśa）中的難題悖論（aporiaparadox），運用兩種方法：「交錯結構」（ chiastic structures）與「否定性的修辭論述」（ apophatic rhetorical discourse），來探究本經中的三對重要文段。在本經的〈第一品〉中，一則文段解釋佛陀為舍利弗示現其佛國（淨土），以及在〈第二品〉與〈第三品〉中，另一則文段描述主角維摩詰居士，此文段常被學者引用來支持本經大乘佛教居士身分勝過於小乘佛教出家角色的宣稱立場。於兩則文段之間也有一段內容描述如來身。但是，從此部經的整體立場來看，在經的末端另有一段描述示現阿閦佛的妙喜佛國，緊接著這段就是如上所說的維摩詰身分與如來身的描述。而在詮釋整部經的學說上，將這些全出自於〈第十一品〉的內容與頭兩品相比較，〈第十一品〉所受到的研究關注相對較少。為了對本經有整體性的瞭解，我們主張前後兩部份需要同時被考量。若將〈第一品〉、〈第二品〉與〈第十一品〉的相關文段來比對，可看出本經具有倒轉騈行的「交錯結構」（ chiasmus），有彼此呼應的兩半，是需要對觀式（ synoptic）的解讀。還有，兩則中的修辭論述方式又在前文與後文之間是倒過來的。前半採用並列肯定性（ affirmative）的陳述，是合乎主流部派佛教思想體系；後半反而透過一種否定性（ apophatic）的「意義事件」（ meaning event）來否定（ negate）前面的並列體系，是直接對抗前半所論教理之原有難題悖論（ aporia paradox）。因此，本經交錯結構的倒轉駢行性是相對於其否定性修辭方式論述的倒轉駢行性。這兩種方法可被視為經文結構與其教理內容的兩個互相支持的文本批評與教理詮釋方法。對於《維摩詰經》主旨之全面性理解而言，這意味著挑戰維摩詰只是居士身分以及佛國就是內在性的這兩個學說。最後，我們依於已確認的交錯與否定性的駢行而提出待研究的經典中段部分之一些假說想法。

This study examines aporia paradox in the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa. We apply two methodological approaches, chiastic structures and apophatic rhetorical discourse, to examine three pairs of key passages in the text. The Buddha’s revelation of His Buddha field (pure land) to Śāriputra in Chp. 1 of the text, and descriptions of the layman lead character Vimalakīrti in Chp. 2-3, have often been used to support claims of lay over renunciant roles in early Mahāyāna Buddhism vis-à-vis Hīnayāna Buddhism. Amidst these is a description of the Tathāgata’s body. Taking the text as a whole, however, reveals another display of Akṣobhya’s field Abhirati at the end of the text, immediately following a radically different description of Vimalakīrti’s identity and the Tathāgata’s body. This latter material, all in Chp. 11, has received much less attention than the aforementioned in the text’s interpretation. In order to understand the text as a whole, we propose that both of these portions be simultaneously taken into consideration. Comparing the relevant passages in Chp. 1-2 and Chp. 11 reveals chiastic inverted parallelism, formed in two opposing and complementary halves, which we shall read synoptically. Moreover, the mode of rhetorical discourse in these passages also shifts between the two halves of the text. The former half utilizes juxtaposed affirmative statements which accord with traditional Buddhism systems of thought. The latter half then negates these juxtaposed systems through performance of an apophatic “meaning event”, which directly confronts the original aporia paradox of the doctrines in question. The inverted parallelism of the text’s chiastic structure is thus matched by the inverted parallelism of its apophatic rhetorical mode of discourse. The two methodological approaches can be seen as complementary critical and hermeneutical methods for such a text and its teachings. The implications for an overall interpretation of the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa’s key themes include a challenge to the readings of Vimalakīrti’s layman status, and the immanence of the Buddha field. We end with a hypothesis of what the remaining center of the text should hold on the basis of our ascertained chiastic and apophatic parallelism.