早期佛教与婆罗门教的差异和融合及相关影响

早期佛教与婆罗门教之差异主要在于教义和宗教形态两个层面,前者关键在于对本体系空或有之歧见,并由此导致人之平等是否合理的不同认识；后者要点在于宗教骨干是一个松散的种姓,还是有严明戒律的僧团.由于在同一个文化地域的长期共存,两教有了相互吸收和融合,并致使佛教在印度的婆罗门教化和中国佛教包含着不少婆罗门教因子.     

婆罗门教在中国传播之新证

婆罗门教是否传入过中国?学界颇多争议.本文从古代文献、碑铭、图画及现存文物遗址中,发现一些有价值的证据,证明婆罗门教曾经在中国传播过.虽然婆罗门教没有像佛教一样在中国大规模流传,但毕竟留下了不容忽视的影响.     

《隋书·经籍志》中婆罗门典籍与隋以前在中国的婆罗门教

本文从在华流传之婆罗门文化典籍,婆罗门教徒在华活动史迹,以及夹杂在佛教艺术与经籍中的婆罗门教因子等等,论证婆罗门教曾来到过中国.     

印度的婆罗门教、佛教与中国的儒家、道家

印度的婆罗门教和中国的儒家学说都有着维护社会秩序、延续既有文明、创造符号体系的建构功能 ;与此相对立 ,印度的佛家和中国的道家学说则以反向解构的姿态分别对婆罗门教和儒家学说在民族文化的建构过程中所导致的异化现象进行了深刻的批判。这种建构与解构的关系体现了追求文明与反抗异化、积极进取与消极无为、崇尚秩序与回归自然之间的辩证关系。作为这种逻辑关系的历史性发展 ,印度宗教文化从婆罗门教到佛教再到印度教的发展过程 ,与中国世俗文化中儒家和道家之间的彼此更迭 ,都形成着“否定之否定”式的阶段性变革。     

近代岭南中医身体观的构建与影响

广东是近代西医学传入中国最早和最重要的地区之一,在近代中国西学东渐愈趋广泛和深入的社会大背景下,岭南中医较早便已开始将西医引入传统中医知识体系中。近代岭南中医家对比和汇通中西医学身体知识,构建新的身体观时,既借用了中国传统文化中经常使用的体与用、格物与穷理之辨等,来阐发中西医学身体观的差异及其各自优劣所在,又及时引入在当时看来颇为先进的西医解剖知识,加以结合和相互发明。近代医家中西汇通身体观的形成,直接影响了传统中医理论与临床辨治体系的嬗变,影响至今。     

《遵生八笺》身体观探析

身体愈来愈成为世人关怀和研究的对象。对养生古籍《遵生八笺》的身体观进行梳理研究,发现高濂身体观汲取包含儒家之“教化”,道家之“支离”及中医“联系−务实”在内的传统身体观的营养,形成自身身体观知识体系,包括阴阳和、气顺血足等体用认知,把握动静结合的身体运行规律,又认可身体与自然、社会之和合相关,继而得出因人制宜、因时制宜的身体养生思想。对其身体观的探究,为养生之道与生存模式等方面提供警戒与研究思路,具有重要意义。

     

中西文化映照之下的中医身体观

回顾东西方身体现不同的范式,探索种种可能的向度,理解现代性是怎样模塑我们身体的.进而探讨中医的身体观特征,并在此中呈现西方人眼中的东方身体观和东方人眼中的西方身体观,以期从更根本的视角上理解中医历久弥新的身体观范式.     

藏传佛教的身体观

哲学和科学一直在探索人体的奥秘,围绕身体的结构、身心关系这两个基本问题进行了深入研究,诞生了大量成果。藏传佛教的身体观不仅回答了身体观的基本问题,而且围绕身体的起源、身体的种类、身体与解脱的关系、身体的染净问题这几个独特方面,对人体的奥秘作出了详尽的回答。目前国内国外学术界都没有关于藏传佛教身体观的研究,所以很有必要深入研究藏传佛教独特的人体生理学。     

王艮的身体观与儒学转向

王艮的身体观是从程朱理学出发的.程朱理学不仅在本体论上否定了身体,在修养方法上造成了对身体的禁铟,而且在制度化以后更是造成了对身体的摧残.程朱理学对"身体"的贬抑使儒学失去了内在的活力,也失去了对民众的吸引力.王艮针对这种状况,通过揭示精神修养中的"身体"、政治和社会展现中的"身体"、本体论中的"身体",从三方面把"身体"从程朱理学的贬抑中"拯救"出来.王艮对儒学中"身体"的揭示,使儒学朝向宗教化、世俗化和简易化,并由此推进了儒学深入民间.     

伊斯兰教的身体观探微北大核心CSSCISSCI

现代西方哲学思想当中,"身体"逐渐成为一个关键词,并对中世纪基督教神学贬损身体、崇尚精神的倾向提出批评。本文从《古兰经》与伊斯兰教义学理论出发,提出了伊斯兰教当中思考"人"的五个维度,以及其中作为显白维度的"身体"是如何被定义的,其与其他四个隐微维度的关系应如何理解。本文认为,与中世纪欧洲基督教的"灵肉二元论"相比,伊斯兰教的身体观是一种"灵肉统一论"的身体观。     

印度教生命论

印度教认为生命源于最高神梵,梵作为最高真实和永恒所在,统摄宇宙.万物生命为梵所赐,其生命构成皆为五大元素,一切生命皆平等,皆值得尊重,皆具神圣性.人类个体生命存在是整个大宇宙生命轮回的一个驿站,人生过程就是不断在神力的引导之下实现生命的更高层次的神圣化,以期回归最高终极.     

Conquering the quarters: Religion and politics in Hinduism

Conclusion Our understanding of South Asian society and history is sometimes muddled by the rigid distinctions we make between ‘religion’ and ‘politics.’ The resurgent appeal of Hindu nationalism, the involvement of Hindu renouncers in contemporary Indian politics, and the continuing relevance of religious issues to political discourse throughout South Asia, show that such a distinction is of limited utility. In this essay, I have examined the notion of digvijaya in some detail, in an attempt to show that this ‘most important Indian concept with regard to sovereignty’ was always both a ‘religious’ and a ‘political’ phenomenon. When it was performed by Hindu kings in the classical period, the ‘political’ dimension of digvijaya was foregrounded, while in the medieval and modern periods, when it was associated primarily with Hindu renouncers, its ‘religious’ aspects were paramount. But neither ‘political’ nor ‘religious’ aspects were ever absent from any of the digvijayas discussed here because religion and politics were mutually entailed in the digvijaya at all times, just as kings and renouncers were—and still are—alter-egos of each other. I am tempted to conclude that the digvijaya melded religious and political domains. Yet perhaps even to speak of ‘melding’ religion and politics is a peculiarly modern kind of discourse. Perhaps we need to rethink our categories and recognize that politics always has a religious element, while religion is always a political force.     

Response to Brian K. Smith: Re-envisioning Hinduism

Actually the revolution is much closer than we think. The last band of free thinkers (Feuerbach and all related to him) has attacked or tackled the matter far more clearly than formerly, for if you look more closely, you will see that they actually have taken upon themselves the task of defending Christianity against contemporary Christians. The point is that established Christendom is demoralized, in the profoundest sense all respect for Christianity's existential commitments has been lost … Now Feuerbach is saying: No, wait a minute—if you are going to be allowed to go on living as you are living, then you also have to admit that you are not Christians … it is wrong of established Christendom to say that Feuerbach is attacking Christianity; it is not true, he is attacking the Christians by demonstrating that their lives do not correspond to the teachings of Christianity … What Christianity needs for certain is traitors … (JP 6523)