木鱼杂考

木鱼是佛教中僧尼诵经化缘时敲击的法器,中间镂空,刻木为鱼形。木鱼源起时间极早,具体时间难以界定,约在公元前几百年。梵文中有个词“ghante”,汉译“犍稚”,凡是佛堂中敲起来发响的东西均叫犍稚,木鱼是其中之一。     

道教修道生活的忠与孝——以初唐"致拜君亲"论争为中心

自六朝以来,忠孝君亲的儒家伦理早已在道教教义与修道生活中得到内化的融合与体现.初唐政府屡次命令道士僧尼致拜父母与君王的诏令,都将道士女冠与僧尼相提并论,强令二教必须礼拜父母与君王.佛教教团为此多次掀起反对致拜君亲的请愿运动,成功地迫使政府两次放弃强令僧尼拜君亲;道团态度相对沉默,却在修道生活中实践着朝廷的政策精神.道教在致拜君亲问题上的"讷于言而敏于行",反映了道教在唐代不辩自明的国家宗教之身份认同.     

民国时期云游道士进京述论——以民国档案为中心的考察

民国时期,云游道士来到北京后往往受到警察的怀疑,通常被带回警局讯问,多数依据相关律文受到处罚。这些道士未能及时了解情况,调整自身的行为。他们依靠化缘能够取得很好的经济收入,与民众的信赖密不可分。1914—1942年,进京的道士日益年轻化,在财富观念上日益功利;仍然有不少道士为道教事业努力,显示出处于衰落状态中的道教仍然不乏复兴的希望。     

悟道为宗立德为先--如何做一名"合格道士"的体会

这次由市宗教局组织的爱国主义专题教育课程,内容是“如何做一名合格道士”,这是一个老话题,但在新世纪、新形势、新环境中,当有更丰富的内容,寓于更深的内涵。道士古时称为有道之士,当今应释为悟道之士,得道之士,守道之士,弘道之士。要做好一名道士,非一时一事的体现,要经过长期不懈的努力和追求,要立志、有进取心、有恒心、有奉献精神。悟道是为了得道,要经过艰辛卓绝的探寻,从徐福到东海寻长生不老之药,到郑隐炼丹而发明火药的不平常过程;从葛洪弃官而终生寻道,世称“小仙翁”,到陶弘景辞官入茅山,人称“山中宰相”,皆以道为一生追求的宗…     

世界第一大室内金佛——潼南大佛修复记

北宋靖康丙午年（1126年）,遂宁县境内,临着涪江的定明山还不是个热闹的地方,山顶的池中,在这一年忽然生出了祥瑞的莲花。也是在这一年,此地来了一位异乡的客人,一个名叫王了知的道士。此行他的目的是为了化缘。     

欲洁何曾洁,云空未必空——从《红楼梦》看明清时期佛道的世俗化

纵观《红楼梦》中与宁荣二府交往密切的一众僧道,不难看出他们耽于情色、利欲熏心、攀附权贵的世俗化倾向。作者用犀利尖锐的笔调绘出这样一幅僧尼道士群像,体现了对佛道的世俗化的批判,表达了对社会的幻灭感以及在这种困惑中的挣扎。     

认识"外邦人"

初读中文圣经(和合版,下同),每当遇到“外邦人”一词就觉得有一道无形的屏障把我们与神隔离开来,尤其是读到我主耶稣差遣使徒时说“外邦人的路,你们不要走”(太10:5),无限的爱顿时变得一片茫然,心中甚觉忧伤。“外邦人”一词在旧约中反复出现,多么希望在新约中消失。恰恰相反,新约中又出现厂70多次,仅马太福音一篇我主耶稣就亲口说了8次(5:47;6:7,32;10:5,18;18:17;20:19,25)。     

如何识别社会上的假冒僧尼

近期,我们接到不少读者的来信,反映社会上流窜着一些身着僧装、佩戴念珠、口念阿弥陀佛的人,打着佛教旗号,以修庙、立塔、办慈善事业为名到处化缘。有的走街串户,挨门讨要;有的设摊算命、看风水骗钱;甚至危言耸听,谎称大祸临头,恐吓要挟群众花钱消灾。这些假冒僧尼给人民群众带来了物质上精神上的严重损害,干扰了社会秩序,也败坏了佛教的声誉,引起群众的强烈不满。为了帮助广大读者识别社会上的假冒僧尼,防止上当受骗,我们根据有关资料解答如下:     

为宫观管理、社会公益事业贡献力量

温州市实行对宫观庙宇管理以前,道教是一片混乱,释道不分,宗教与封建迷信不分,巫婆、神汉猖狂,道观内乱塑神像。同时,还有很多假道士,在居民住宅区化缘,群众意见纷纷,直接影响到宗教政策的落实。重点文化保护也无人管理,扰乱了道教事业的正常发展。根据上述情况,市道协常务理事会,多次研究管理办法,大家一致认为,管理好宫观、庙宇是燃眉之急。这一想法得到了市统战部、市公安     

试谈步虚韵

步虚韵也叫步虚声,是道教历史上最早的曲子之一,也是道教徒最常用的经韵之一。据《渊鉴类函》卷三百九,道部·道士三及汪汲《词名集解》卷二引《吴苑记》:“陈思王游鱼山,闻岩里有诵经声,清远寥亮。顺使解音者写之,为神仙声。道士效之,作《步虚声》。”     

"Psychotherapy" versus "treatment"

Presents a comment on "Psychological treatments" by D. H. Barlow. Barlow proposed that we distinguish between the terms "treatment" and "psychotherapy." The author believes that not only is the distinction unnecessary, but that its implications could have negative consequences for the field of clinical psychology. It is the proposed distinguishing feature that treatments are "specifically tailored to the pathological process that is causing the impairment and distress" that is most problematic. Clinical psychology does not need a distinction that further exacerbates the split between researchers and practitioners.     

"Enmeshment" and "Fusion"

The paper examines two related concepts utilized by two different schools of family therapy. Any family seen to be "enmeshed" is also seen as "fused," and vice versa. The difference in the level of focus, on the "system containing the individuals" (structural) or the "individual in the system" (fusion), determines the difference in therapeutic approach of these two schools.     

“对的”与“好的”

什么是“对的”,和对它的证立,是道德哲学中具有争议性的核心问题,也是效用主义和道义论间的主要差异之所在。统合效用主义对于“好的就是对的”这个陈述有一套完整周延的说法。而道义论对这个问题的证立不够周延或没有足够的说服力。     

"本体论"与"伦理学"--形而上学的两个向度

形而上学有两个密切相关的内在向度,就是本体论向度与伦理学向度.在哲学史上,哲学家们之所以在"追求形而上学"的同时,又总是"反形而上学",并非是人们的形上本性出了问题,而是因为人们总是将形而上学视为单纯的"一维性",总是用一个向度来取代或遮蔽另一个向度.而所谓的"后形而上学思想",也并不是消解了形而上学,而是指形而上学从"本体论向度"转向了"伦理学向度".     

从"管制"到"平衡"--政府与公众理想关系模式的构建及其制度化

论文从行政民主的角度探讨政府与公众之间的理想关系模式及其制度化构建过程 ,将我国在改革之前的政府与公众模式概括为管制模式。论文指出 ,在制度变迁的过程中 ,这一模式日益受到挑战。而在新的制度环境下 ,我国政府与公众的关系模式应该是平衡模式。这一模式的制度化措施包括培育自主的市民社会 ,赋予公众以独立的活动空间 ;促进行政公开 ,建立一个开放负责的政府 ;推进行政法建设 ,抑制行政恣意     

"石狮"、"风水"与"吉祥"

谁都知道,在古老的中国,不管是衙门、宫殿、庙宇的门前,还是豪宅、大户人家的门口,人们都能看到摆着一对石狮。据说,这对石狮子在许多中国人的心目中,它不但是一种气派的象征,而且还是一种被人认为是好的“吉祥物”。如今,旧时的衙门没有了,但遗留下来的宫殿、庙宇的门前,其中有些石狮仍有保存。然而,想像不到的是,这号称“吉祥物”的石狮今天却开始“走”进某些党政机关的大门口,它们(石狮)在那里时时都在保护着这些政府要员“平平安安”、“吉祥如意”。这不仅使我联想起一些极端的报道,有些政府官员为升迁,请算命先生定位,用风水术为政府…     

PREFERRING "HOUSEWIVES" TO "FEMINISTS"

Four studies are described outlining the favorability of attitudes toward women. In Study 1, participants indicated their attitudes toward women and men and their construal of the term "women". The results revealed that women were evaluated more favorably than men, but that male right-wing authoritarians (RWAs) who construed women as referring primarily to feminists were least favorable in their attitudes. In Study 2, participants indicated their attitudes toward both "housewives" and "feminists". The results revealed that feminists were evaluated less favorably than housewives, and that the most negative attitudes toward feminists were expressed by authoritarian men. Study 3 revealed that high-RWA males held more negative symbolic beliefs concerning feminists (i.e., beliefs that feminists failed to promote participants'values) and that these beliefs accounted for variation in attitudes among high RWAs and much of the RWA-attitude relation. Finally, Study 4 revealed that high RWAs perceived greater value dissimilarity between them-selves and feminists. The implications of the findings for future research are discussed.     

"Us" and "Them":

Abstract: In the Aristotelian tradition, politics is a matter of public deliberation over questions of justice and injustice. The Bush administration's response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, has been uniformly hostile to this notion, and it has instead promoted a jingoistic politics of self‐assertion by an America largely identified with the executive branch of its government. This is doubly disturbing, as the executive branch has sought to free itself from international law, multinational commitments, and domestic judicial regulation, even as it has sought to validate itself by demonizing its enemies. This essay draws out the disturbing echoes here of Carl Schmitt's work of the 1920s, in particular of Schmitt's conception of the sovereign as the ungrounded ground of the law and the political as the site of mortal conflict between friend and enemy. The essay argues that Schmitt's position in the twenties, for all of its evident problems, is superior to that of Bush, Wolfowitz, and Ashcroft in at least two senses: Schmitt condemns the idea of waging war for profit and recognizes that such wars will often be disguised as moral crusades waged against the “inhuman”; and he acknowledges that claiming to fight a war for humanity denies one's enemies their humanity, leaving them open to torture and even extermination.