道教养生学的形成与发展简述

道教养生学是道教徒在追求长生成仙和济世度人信仰目标过程中,通过无数实践积累起的保持身心健康的方法。道教养生学是道教关于长生成仙的系统学说,包含着多种多样的形式和内容,是一种综合性的养生学模式。 道教养生学来源于道教长生成仙的信仰,建立在道教宇宙观、人天观、身心观的基础之上,与道教的生道合一、重生贵生、天人相应、形神相依、我命在我、以德养生思想有着密切关系。道教养生     

道教的五种养生之道

道教,是中国唯一土生土长的传统宗教,道教徒追求得道成仙,故它乐生、重生和贵术。在长期的修道证真的过程中,创立了系统的养生理论,撰写了大量养生著作,形成了体系庞大、包罗万象的道教养生学。道教养生学,堪称中国传统养生学的集大成者。从道教发展史上看,道教养生学大体经历了三个阶段。道教草创至西晋末,为道教养生学发展的第一阶段,此阶段各种养生之术俱已萌芽,尤以守一、内丹、房中、符箓最为系统;东晋至唐末为第二阶段,这一阶段道教养生医道最为发达,外丹、服气、存思、辟谷、调息等功法均     

发展哲学是关于发展观的学问

发展哲学是关于发展观的学问邱耕田（南宁广西大学社管学院５３０００４）一、发展观的理论形态发展哲学是一门具体的应用性哲学，它是关于发展观的学问。所谓发展观，是人们关于社会发展的根本观点、根本看法。当然，作为理论形态的发展观同人们自发形成的社会发展观是有...     

《老子》哲学观与道教养生观关系初探

体系庞大、包罗万象的道教养生学,是中国传统养生学的重要组成部分和集大成者。《老子》中所包括的独辟蹊径的哲学思想和修身御神的养生理论,为道教养生学的养生之道和养生之术提供了坚实的理论基础。一、天人合一的哲学观与顺应自然的养生观天人合一或曰天人相应观念,包括天人相通和天人相类两部分。《老子》对天人关系的探索是通过对“道”的认识开始的。老子认为,世界上一切有生无生的各种事物和现象的本体都是“道”,都是“道”的普遍规律在各种具体物象中的体现和反映。因此,各种事物和现象都有其相通的特征和规律。人是自然界中     

基于开放性的创造性——傅伟勋“创造的诠释学”的价值

一诠释学作为一门关于理解和解释的学问,最初是由施莱尔马赫和狄尔泰完成的。二人的贡献在于:施莱尔马赫提出了关于正确理解和避免误解的理论,狄尔泰则将这一理论推广于所有精神     

道教养生与技术哲学交叉研究的新成果——黄永锋《道教服食技术研究》评介

道教服食是道教信从者通过摄取食物、药物、气、符等来防治疾病、养护身心,以求长生成仙的过程中所应用的一切手段、方法、知识等活动方式的总和.它包括服药、服气、辟谷、饮食、服符等方面,是一类富有特色的道教养生类型.近年来,学术界对道教养生学关注较多,因此道教养生中服食问题也相应地有一些学者加以探讨.黄永锋博士认为道教养生学研究课题众多,服食养生应该专门加以系统研究;同时有必要重新界定道教服食,在新的理论平台上进行多视角深人的审视.     

挖掘道教养生学的现代价值——道教养生学的现代价值学术研讨会侧记

8月20日至21日,道教养生学的现代价值学术研讨会在江苏常熟举行,来自海内外道教养生学方面的专家学者和高道大德300余人与会,国家宗教局蒋坚永副局长出席开幕式并致辞。这是中国道教界继2008年在广州首次研讨道教与养生之后的又一次盛会。3年的时间里,我们目睹了太多荒唐的养生闹剧,也见证了一个又一个养生神话的破灭。     

葛洪与本草服食 以《抱朴子内篇》为中心的探究

<正>葛洪(281-342)是历史上有名的道教养生家,他为了追求飞升成仙,从理论到实践均广收博采,构筑了以服食为中心的独特养生体系。养生学上的"服食"是一个极为复杂的概念,包括了服药、服气、服符、饮食、辟谷等方面1。从葛洪的养生实践来看,他博采众长,对于各类的服食方法,大都有过实践经历,这其中当然也包括了大量本草药物的服食。     

宋代文人养生的主要方法探究

宋代统治者高度重视医学和养生学,大量吸收有文化素养的儒生学医,儒而知医成为一种时尚,文人热衷于养生的风气达到了空前的兴盛,形成了宋儒养生流派。他们集我国古代传统养生之大成,为后人留下了丰富的养生类作品和一系列宝贵的养生经验,如静坐、炼气、节食、饮茶、用香、间接服食丹药、使用药枕等是他们特有的养生方法。     

宋代文人养生的主要方法探究

宋代统治者高度重视医学和养生学,大量吸收有文化素养的儒生学医,儒而知医成为一种时尚,文人热衷于养生的风气达到了空前的兴盛,形成了宋儒养生流派.他们集我国古代传统养生之大成,为后人留下了丰富的养生类作品和一系列宝贵的养生经验,如静坐、炼气、节食、饮茶、用香、间接服食丹药、使用药枕等是他们特有的养生方法.     

"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".     

"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…     

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     

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.